I have two versions of Red 0.4 (also known as "All Mid" ), one with and another without mark tighter. I'm not sure which one is better (I believe 0.4b), so I appreciate if anyone can test and give me some second opinion. Player stats are from best XI, since team was picked by assistant manager.
P.S.: I got the idea to use IWB-At from @momentaryblink. Red 0.3 also used two Vol-At, but performance was lower because of IWB-Su. When I saw his Arrowhead, I just changed my IWB to At and results got better.
I'm glad the IWBa seems to be working. They are way better at staying in the pocket this year. Last year IWBs on attack would end up wide and get exposed in transition. Pushing up the channel and staying narrow keeps them relevant at breaking up counter attacks. Until the ME punishes me for it, I'll keep playing on very attacking and using as many attacking roles as I can!
I did a couple more of experiments and Red 0.4b seems better. In four runs, results for Manchester City were: 1. 94 pts, 89 gd 2. 101 pts, 90 gd 3. 99 pts, 103 gd 4. 100 pts, 90 gd 5. Running while I sleep.
It seems very stable and it got good results even in seasons with heavy injuries. Unless someone finds different results, I'll use 0.4b as base for Red 0.5, for my next planned tests.
ZaZ said: I did a couple more of experiments and Red 0.4b seems better. In four runs, results for Manchester City were: 1. 94 pts, 89 gd 2. 101 pts, 90 gd 3. 99 pts, 103 gd 4. 100 pts, 90 gd 5. Running while I sleep.
It seems very stable and it got good results even in seasons with heavy injuries. Unless someone finds different results, I'll use 0.4b as base for Red 0.5, for my next planned tests. Expand
Norwich seems weak in your tests, don't you think weaker teams should use a lower intensity?
Jimmy said: So 2 VOL are confirmed better than 1 DLP + 1 CM ? Expand
For my tactic, yes, but that could change in further tests.
Sane said: Norwich seems weak in your tests, don't you think weaker teams should use a lower intensity? Expand
I wouldn't say 40-50 points a season with Norwich is weak, but I am trying my best to improve these results. However, I don't think lower intensity will do any good, I would rather change the mentality or change a couple of roles.
ZaZ said: For my tactic, yes, but that could change in further tests.
I wouldn't say 40-50 points a season with Norwich is weak, but I am trying my best to improve these results. However, I don't think lower intensity will do any good, I would rather change the mentality or change a couple of roles. Expand
Is IW-At still your best role? And what kind of working leg should IW-At have?
Or what other role can you use without dropping the result on the flank?
ZaZ said: I have two versions of Red 0.4 (also known as "All Mid" ), one with and another without mark tighter. I'm not sure which one is better (I believe 0.4b), so I appreciate if anyone can test and give me some second opinion. Player stats are from best XI, since team was picked by assistant manager.
P.S.: I got the idea to use IWB-At from @momentaryblink. Red 0.3 also used two Vol-At, but performance was lower because of IWB-Su. When I saw his Arrowhead, I just changed my IWB to At and results got better.
Red 0.4, without using tighter marking:
Red 0.4b, using tighter marking: Expand
You have moved away from using Target Forwards. I will give your tactics a try in the next few days. I do like a couple of formations in the new game and one is yours. the 4-2-2-2 wide I think works well. The other is combinations of Electro, a 4-2-3-1 or some derivatives of it like 4-1-3-1-1 or 4-1-2-1-1. I think the defensive back 4 are pretty set, Inverted WB or WB Support or Attack with 2 DCs BPD Defend. So I think there has been plenty of progress through the Beta period so far. Time will tell if these hold but I suspect they will. There really hasn't been a major flaw unearthed that would make them change the match engine yet like a corner or throw in routine that happened the last few years.
I never touch those, but they might improve your chances if you know what you are doing.
Mark said: You have moved away from using Target Forwards. I will give your tactics a try in the next few days. I do like a couple of formations in the new game and one is yours. the 4-2-2-2 wide I think works well. The other is combinations of Electro, a 4-2-3-1 or some derivatives of it like 4-1-3-1-1 or 4-1-2-1-1. I think the defensive back 4 are pretty set, Inverted WB or WB Support or Attack with 2 DCs BPD Defend. So I think there has been plenty of progress through the Beta period so far. Time will tell if these hold but I suspect they will. There really hasn't been a major flaw unearthed that would make them change the match engine yet like a corner or throw in routine that happened the last few years. Expand
Thank you! I'm pretty happy that we have different formations with good results, I hope we can see at least three different layouts at the top this time.
I am testing red 0.2 with Sporting clube de Portugal. Its a slow test because i am playing the games and right now its almost perfect. 18 games 17 wins 1 lose with sevilha for the champions league.
I will now start to introduce the red 0.4 to see if it performs.
Thanks for the tactic and good games for everyone.
Ricky said: I am testing red 0.2 with Sporting clube de Portugal. Its a slow test because i am playing the games and right now its almost perfect. 18 games 17 wins 1 lose with sevilha for the champions league.
I will now start to introduce the red 0.4 to see if it performs.
Thanks for the tactic and good games for everyone. Expand
It tested well but not great with me. I holiday test with 3 very lowly ranked sides in Vanarama National, North and South. Electro is still well clear. All the numbers are averages between the 3 comps.
Cav said: Changed to 4b during September of first year, so far so good. I'll let you know more after season 1, though we'll be out of BETA by then. Expand
Thanks for testing. Just remember results might change when beta is over, since match engine will be updated.
Mark said: It tested well but not great with me. I holiday test with 3 very lowly ranked sides in Vanarama National, North and South. Electro is still well clear. All the numbers are averages between the 3 comps.
Expand
I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol.
momentaryblink said: I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol. Expand
The stronger the team, the less team management is needed to keep players fit and happy, because you usually also have a larger squad. Good attributes also work better with higher risk tactics, while bad attributes could benefit more of lower risk tactics. Anyway, some tactics are so good that they work for both strong and weak team, I hope we can find a few of those this year.
okay try it pls mates
guys i read zaz's log and i changed some settings. (btw its zaz tactic, not my ideas)
i changed attacking width and passing directness. they are standart now pls try it guys and share some screenshots for zaz
I have two versions of Red 0.4 (also known as "All Mid" ), one with and another without mark tighter. I'm not sure which one is better (I believe 0.4b), so I appreciate if anyone can test and give me some second opinion. Player stats are from best XI, since team was picked by assistant manager.
P.S.: I got the idea to use IWB-At from @momentaryblink. Red 0.3 also used two Vol-At, but performance was lower because of IWB-Su. When I saw his Arrowhead, I just changed my IWB to At and results got better.
Red 0.4, without using tighter marking:
Red 0.4b, using tighter marking:
I'm glad the IWBa seems to be working. They are way better at staying in the pocket this year. Last year IWBs on attack would end up wide and get exposed in transition. Pushing up the channel and staying narrow keeps them relevant at breaking up counter attacks. Until the ME punishes me for it, I'll keep playing on very attacking and using as many attacking roles as I can!
I did a couple more of experiments and Red 0.4b seems better. In four runs, results for Manchester City were:
1. 94 pts, 89 gd
2. 101 pts, 90 gd
3. 99 pts, 103 gd
4. 100 pts, 90 gd
5. Running while I sleep.
It seems very stable and it got good results even in seasons with heavy injuries. Unless someone finds different results, I'll use 0.4b as base for Red 0.5, for my next planned tests.
performed very similar to ZaZ - Red 0.2 with two AF upfront and worse then original ZaZ - Red 0.2
So 2 VOL are confirmed better than 1 DLP + 1 CM ?
ZaZ said: I did a couple more of experiments and Red 0.4b seems better. In four runs, results for Manchester City were:
1. 94 pts, 89 gd
2. 101 pts, 90 gd
3. 99 pts, 103 gd
4. 100 pts, 90 gd
5. Running while I sleep.
It seems very stable and it got good results even in seasons with heavy injuries. Unless someone finds different results, I'll use 0.4b as base for Red 0.5, for my next planned tests.
Norwich seems weak in your tests, don't you think weaker teams should use a lower intensity?
Jimmy said: So 2 VOL are confirmed better than 1 DLP + 1 CM ?
For my tactic, yes, but that could change in further tests.
Sane said: Norwich seems weak in your tests, don't you think weaker teams should use a lower intensity?
I wouldn't say 40-50 points a season with Norwich is weak, but I am trying my best to improve these results. However, I don't think lower intensity will do any good, I would rather change the mentality or change a couple of roles.
Do we use OI when playing?
ZaZ said: For my tactic, yes, but that could change in further tests.
I wouldn't say 40-50 points a season with Norwich is weak, but I am trying my best to improve these results. However, I don't think lower intensity will do any good, I would rather change the mentality or change a couple of roles.
Is IW-At still your best role? And what kind of working leg should IW-At have?
Or what other role can you use without dropping the result on the flank?
ZaZ said: I have two versions of Red 0.4 (also known as "All Mid" ), one with and another without mark tighter. I'm not sure which one is better (I believe 0.4b), so I appreciate if anyone can test and give me some second opinion. Player stats are from best XI, since team was picked by assistant manager.
P.S.: I got the idea to use IWB-At from @momentaryblink. Red 0.3 also used two Vol-At, but performance was lower because of IWB-Su. When I saw his Arrowhead, I just changed my IWB to At and results got better.
Red 0.4, without using tighter marking:
Red 0.4b, using tighter marking:
You have moved away from using Target Forwards. I will give your tactics a try in the next few days. I do like a couple of formations in the new game and one is yours. the 4-2-2-2 wide I think works well. The other is combinations of Electro, a 4-2-3-1 or some derivatives of it like 4-1-3-1-1 or 4-1-2-1-1. I think the defensive back 4 are pretty set, Inverted WB or WB Support or Attack with 2 DCs BPD Defend. So I think there has been plenty of progress through the Beta period so far. Time will tell if these hold but I suspect they will. There really hasn't been a major flaw unearthed that would make them change the match engine yet like a corner or throw in routine that happened the last few years.
arsenal737 said: Do we use OI when playing?
I never touch those, but they might improve your chances if you know what you are doing.
Mark said: You have moved away from using Target Forwards. I will give your tactics a try in the next few days. I do like a couple of formations in the new game and one is yours. the 4-2-2-2 wide I think works well. The other is combinations of Electro, a 4-2-3-1 or some derivatives of it like 4-1-3-1-1 or 4-1-2-1-1. I think the defensive back 4 are pretty set, Inverted WB or WB Support or Attack with 2 DCs BPD Defend. So I think there has been plenty of progress through the Beta period so far. Time will tell if these hold but I suspect they will. There really hasn't been a major flaw unearthed that would make them change the match engine yet like a corner or throw in routine that happened the last few years.
Thank you! I'm pretty happy that we have different formations with good results, I hope we can see at least three different layouts at the top this time.
I am testing red 0.2 with Sporting clube de Portugal. Its a slow test because i am playing the games and right now its almost perfect. 18 games 17 wins 1 lose with sevilha for the champions league.
I will now start to introduce the red 0.4 to see if it performs.
Thanks for the tactic and good games for everyone.
Ricky said: I am testing red 0.2 with Sporting clube de Portugal. Its a slow test because i am playing the games and right now its almost perfect. 18 games 17 wins 1 lose with sevilha for the champions league.
I will now start to introduce the red 0.4 to see if it performs.
Thanks for the tactic and good games for everyone.
Thank you for testing!
first match of red 0.4b
also tactic hasnt fit yet incredible
Ucan said:
also tactic hasnt fit yet incredible
I thought the tactic would work better in strong team, so it's nice to see it doing well on Newcastle.
ZaZ said: I thought the tactic would work better in strong team, so it's nice to see it doing well on Newcastle.
But i transfered world class wonder kids
It tested well but not great with me. I holiday test with 3 very lowly ranked sides in Vanarama National, North and South. Electro is still well clear. All the numbers are averages between the 3 comps.
Changed to 4b during September of first year, so far so good.
I'll let you know more after season 1, though we'll be out of BETA by then.
Cav said: Changed to 4b during September of first year, so far so good.
I'll let you know more after season 1, though we'll be out of BETA by then.
Thanks for testing. Just remember results might change when beta is over, since match engine will be updated.
Mark said: It tested well but not great with me. I holiday test with 3 very lowly ranked sides in Vanarama National, North and South. Electro is still well clear. All the numbers are averages between the 3 comps.
I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol.
momentaryblink said: I have some concerns with the Vanarama methodology. Some tactics won't perform as well with a lower quality of players, but obviously I'm biased after seeing my Arrowhead tactic performing so poorly, lol.
The stronger the team, the less team management is needed to keep players fit and happy, because you usually also have a larger squad. Good attributes also work better with higher risk tactics, while bad attributes could benefit more of lower risk tactics. Anyway, some tactics are so good that they work for both strong and weak team, I hope we can find a few of those this year.
@ZaZ Red0.4b = Red 0.5? If not, can you share 0.5 version?
Gpassosbh said: @ZaZ Red0.4b = Red 0.5? If not, can you share 0.5 version?
It's on the first page.
Dear @ZaZ mate, is 0.5 the latest with improvements???
Red 0.5 is 0.4b with SK-At. Since the change is small, I didn't bother saying anything. It has a slightly better performance, though.
After release of the game, the best version will become 1.0, if the engine doesn't screw it up. Then the real tests will start.
ZaZ said: Red 0.5 is 0.4b with SK-At. Since the change is small, I didn't bother saying anything. It has a slightly better performance, though.
After release of the game, the best version will become 1.0, if the engine doesn't screw it up. Then the real tests will start.
good luck mate, looking forward to play with your tactic. keep up the great work