I'm someone who frequently visits this site every few days because the competition for the rank 1 tactic in Football Manager 2024 is very fun to follow. Learning more from the top strategists and eagerly awaiting who can come up with the absolutely best strategy & formation is very interesting.
However, which tactics get chosen for 4000 or 2400 matches seems very random, as of now even the rank 2 tactic (Best of Both Worlds v3.3) only has 2400 matches instead of 4000.
When looking at views and downloads it seems like most people agree with me that the competition and strive towards finding the absolute top tactic in football manager is the most interesting part of this site.
Why is it a problem that some tactics have 4000, 2400 or 1200 matches towards the top? For those who do not know, RNG. The more matches -> the more reliable the data is. For example the tactic Grand DM Positive ( https://fm-arena.com/thread/7812-grand-dm-positive/ ) went from 63 Points in 1200 matches to 59 points in 2400 matches. That's a loss of 4 points, if a tactic can lose 4 points in the 1200->2400 match testing, I also assume that a tactic therefore can gain 4 points.
Instead of testing hundreds of different tactics where a lot of them are towards the bottom I propose testing the top tactics more and encourage this competition. How?
I'd like to propose a set of rules of which tactics should get 2400 & 4000 matches. The fact the 2nd spot has only 2400 is imo bad when it could either go up to rank 1 or drop down due to RNG.
The rules I propose are these: If 1200 matches and within 3 points of top tactic -> Get 2400 matches tested. (Since it could go +4 and potentially go up to rank 1 by the logic in the paragraph above). If 2400 matches and within 1 point of top tactic -> Get 4000 matches tested.
This would by todays standard mean this since the top tactic is currently 4231 Hegemony (through) underlap with 62 Points: Any tactic with 2400 matches at 61 points or above -> Get 4000 matches tested. Any tactic with 1200 matches at 59 points or above -> Get 2400 matches tested.
I do also think any tactic tied for the rank 1 spot should also get a 4000 -> 8000 matches test, but we've never had that many matches tested before I'm just including it as a minor footnote, perhaps 6000 is a good middle point not sure.
Now onto the potential issues. This means a lot more matches to test, that's going to take a lot of time! Yes, but currently we have hundreds upon hundreds of tactics that all get at least 1200 matches tested. Even the last positions in the table. They all have almost no views and also take valuable testing time. Instead of the 2nd position being at 2400 instead of 4000 matches, who'd care if tactic number 417 wasn't tested for example?
There are 2 ways to go about this, we currently have A LOT of tactics that are incredibly similar with only 1 tiny change in some instances, there could be some sort of rule enforced that any new tactic has to be more of a change than just 1 player instruction for example. Not entirely sure where the line is supposed to be drawn, but throwing the idea out there that changing a single PI and uploading shouldn't be enough imo. Something like AF Striker -> SS AMC would be a bigger change etc etc.
The second way would be to vet the tested tactics more, for example if you see a tactic that's obviously terrible then don't test it. An example would be a 3-2-5 with terrible instructions I found.
Cheers for reading & Best Regards Muukzor.
Love all the testing and data so far, by far the best database ever available for Football Manager tactics. Have a good one
First of all I would like to emphasize that here (at least the way I see things) there is no competition of best tactic or best tactician. The purpose of testing different tactics here, for some is to see how "good" their tactics are in their saved game and for others to "break" the ME.
The way the testing is done this year is as follows: - 1200 matches for each tactic - 2400 matches for each tactic that is in the HoF - 4000 matches for the tactic that is in first place
I want to mention here that for this year's edition of the game the RNG has not been re-tested so we don't know how many games we need to reach the true score. We expect to be the same as last year - see here.
Now regarding testing, in my opinion it would be better to follow the last year's method which was: - 1200 matches for each tactic - 4000 matches for each HoF tactic (also HoF tactics to reduced and only include tactics with score 58+)
About similar or with minimal changes to some uploaded tactics, until a few years ago there would be a problem here if someone uploaded a tactic that "belonged" to someone else from this site or another. Now it seems things have changed and anyone can test anything they want (correct me if I'm wrong) as long as we follow these simple rules - see here.
That's all I wanted to say. Thanks a lot for your time!
Hello,
I'm someone who frequently visits this site every few days because the competition for the rank 1 tactic in Football Manager 2024 is very fun to follow. Learning more from the top strategists and eagerly awaiting who can come up with the absolutely best strategy & formation is very interesting.
However, which tactics get chosen for 4000 or 2400 matches seems very random, as of now even the rank 2 tactic (Best of Both Worlds v3.3) only has 2400 matches instead of 4000.
When looking at views and downloads it seems like most people agree with me that the competition and strive towards finding the absolute top tactic in football manager is the most interesting part of this site.
Why is it a problem that some tactics have 4000, 2400 or 1200 matches towards the top? For those who do not know, RNG. The more matches -> the more reliable the data is. For example the tactic Grand DM Positive ( https://fm-arena.com/thread/7812-grand-dm-positive/ ) went from 63 Points in 1200 matches to 59 points in 2400 matches. That's a loss of 4 points, if a tactic can lose 4 points in the 1200->2400 match testing, I also assume that a tactic therefore can gain 4 points.
Instead of testing hundreds of different tactics where a lot of them are towards the bottom I propose testing the top tactics more and encourage this competition. How?
I'd like to propose a set of rules of which tactics should get 2400 & 4000 matches. The fact the 2nd spot has only 2400 is imo bad when it could either go up to rank 1 or drop down due to RNG.
The rules I propose are these:
If 1200 matches and within 3 points of top tactic -> Get 2400 matches tested.
(Since it could go +4 and potentially go up to rank 1 by the logic in the paragraph above).
If 2400 matches and within 1 point of top tactic -> Get 4000 matches tested.
This would by todays standard mean this since the top tactic is currently 4231 Hegemony (through) underlap with 62 Points:
Any tactic with 2400 matches at 61 points or above -> Get 4000 matches tested.
Any tactic with 1200 matches at 59 points or above -> Get 2400 matches tested.
I do also think any tactic tied for the rank 1 spot should also get a 4000 -> 8000 matches test, but we've never had that many matches tested before I'm just including it as a minor footnote, perhaps 6000 is a good middle point not sure.
Now onto the potential issues. This means a lot more matches to test, that's going to take a lot of time!
Yes, but currently we have hundreds upon hundreds of tactics that all get at least 1200 matches tested. Even the last positions in the table. They all have almost no views and also take valuable testing time. Instead of the 2nd position being at 2400 instead of 4000 matches, who'd care if tactic number 417 wasn't tested for example?
There are 2 ways to go about this, we currently have A LOT of tactics that are incredibly similar with only 1 tiny change in some instances, there could be some sort of rule enforced that any new tactic has to be more of a change than just 1 player instruction for example. Not entirely sure where the line is supposed to be drawn, but throwing the idea out there that changing a single PI and uploading shouldn't be enough imo. Something like AF Striker -> SS AMC would be a bigger change etc etc.
The second way would be to vet the tested tactics more, for example if you see a tactic that's obviously terrible then don't test it. An example would be a 3-2-5 with terrible instructions I found.
Cheers for reading & Best Regards Muukzor.
Love all the testing and data so far, by far the best database ever available for Football Manager tactics. Have a good one
Hi @Muukzor,
First of all I would like to emphasize that here (at least the way I see things) there is no competition of best tactic or best tactician. The purpose of testing different tactics here, for some is to see how "good" their tactics are in their saved game and for others to "break" the ME.
The way the testing is done this year is as follows:
- 1200 matches for each tactic
- 2400 matches for each tactic that is in the HoF
- 4000 matches for the tactic that is in first place
I want to mention here that for this year's edition of the game the RNG has not been re-tested so we don't know how many games we need to reach the true score. We expect to be the same as last year - see here.
Now regarding testing, in my opinion it would be better to follow the last year's method which was:
- 1200 matches for each tactic
- 4000 matches for each HoF tactic (also HoF tactics to reduced and only include tactics with score 58+)
About similar or with minimal changes to some uploaded tactics, until a few years ago there would be a problem here if someone uploaded a tactic that "belonged" to someone else from this site or another. Now it seems things have changed and anyone can test anything they want (correct me if I'm wrong) as long as we follow these simple rules - see here.
That's all I wanted to say. Thanks a lot for your time!