Mantorras77's Tactic Testing League

  • Thread starter Thread starter mantorras77
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 536
  • Views Views 408K
The biggest difference between the previous database and the new one is that in the new one, dribbling is actually possible, due to stats being more balanced now. And this may have a big effect on the games, of course. I do believe that this new database is more "correct" in relation to personal games.
 
i don't know about the opponent tactics between old DB and new DB are much different. but at the SS of tactics formation faced you can see that the new DB have many 4-2-3-1 formation faced. and the Fulcrums (Both Rainmaker and Silk&Steel) are the 4-2-3-1 specialist.
 
smadzbomb said:
i don't know about the opponent tactics between old DB and new DB are much different. but at the SS of tactics formation faced you can see that the new DB have many 4-2-3-1 formation faced. and the Fulcrums (Both Rainmaker and Silk&Steel) are the 4-2-3-1 specialist.
Click to expand...

I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
 
Mr Langvatn said:
I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
Click to expand...
Can you please send me your tweaked database please. I like testing my tactics on it before releasing it. Thanks in advance. At the moment I am still using the old old database of Mantorras.
 
andrichbrand said:
Can you please send me your tweaked database please. I like testing my tactics on it before releasing it. Thanks in advance. At the moment I am still using the old old database of Mantorras.
Click to expand...

It is released only for the tactic testing community by Daz Swann. I am under orders to not give it to anyone else, sorry :)
 
can you show SS for players with different CA?

Mr Langvatn said:
I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
Click to expand...
 
Mr Langvatn said:
I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
Click to expand...

Can you each run the same tactic once for a season and see how your results compare? As a quick test, kinda curious the outcome. See if the tactic will always be as good, a fluke or average out to be quite good/poor..
 
wkdsoul said:
Can you each run the same tactic once for a season and see how your results compare? As a quick test, kinda curious the outcome. See if the tactic will always be as good, a fluke or average out to be quite good/poor..
Click to expand...

In the current database setup, there will be no need for that. There is extremely little room for luck here. The tactic tested needs to be able to handle being favourites, equals, underdogs, and it has to handle 19 different tactics! There is really no need for testing a tactic in this database for three seasons. I understand your concerns, and it would apply to the old database, but not this one.
 
Mr Langvatn said:
In the current database setup, there will be no need for that. There is extremely little room for luck here. The tactic tested needs to be able to handle being favourites, equals, underdogs, and it has to handle 19 different tactics! There is really no need for testing a tactic in this database for three seasons. I understand your concerns, and it would apply to the old database, but not this one.
Click to expand...

Ok , as long as we get the played against formaton SS :p the breakdown stat page, i forget what its called but you know the one i mean,, how it faired against other tactic shapes :)
 
Mr Langvatn said:
I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
Click to expand...

Mr Langvatn said:
And now there are 20 different formations in the league!!
Click to expand...

Mr Langvatn said:
In the current database setup, there will be no need for that. There is extremely little room for luck here. The tactic tested needs to be able to handle being favourites, equals, underdogs, and it has to handle 19 different tactics! There is really no need for testing a tactic in this database for three seasons. I understand your concerns, and it would apply to the old database, but not this one.
Click to expand...

As of today, we are clearing the board again and re-testing the top tactics with this new database. Please bare with us as we adapt and change and continue to try to improve this testing method to find the perfect balance. (H)
 
Mr Langvatn said:
I have tweaked the database now, so that there are 4x120-, 4x140-, 4x160-, 4x180- and 4x200- CA teams, in order to make the database resemble a personal save as much as possible. The test team will be CA 160, making it a mid-range team with media prediction 12th, thus a harder test. In addition, I have addressed the formation problem, so that there is much more variation than in the previous database. Yes, I agree that it is a problem that most of the teams ran 4-2-3-1 in the old database.

Hopefully Mantorras will approve of my tweaked database, so we can start using it. We are three tactic testers here now, so it shouldn't be a problem boosting the already tested ones through the system again. I will prioritize this, and do as many tests as possible. But I have to talk to Mantorras first, to see if it's okay :)
Click to expand...

An excellent change, thumbs up. I'm concerned that CA variance of teams is a bit high though, perhaps a spread of 160 to 200 with 180 as the testing team would be more appropriate?

The only other improvement I would suggest is to divide the teams into Defending, Midfield, and Attacking players. The current 'all players the same' setup will favour tactics that have players involved in all phases of play (ie, box 2 box midfielders, defensive forwards, defensive wingers, complete wing backs, ball playing defenders etc) because attackers defend as well as defenders, and defenders attack as well as attackers.

Some disparity of players in different parts of the pitch would more closely resemble reality. Attackers should be faster with better off the ball and finishing. Midfielders should be all rounders. Defenders should have better positioning, marking and tackling.

I have set my personal tactic testing database up this way and it works well.
 
hispline said:
it looks CA120 is too poor in any league
Click to expand...

The good thing about having 4 CA120 teams is that if a tactic starts out with some bad luck and loses morale, it can still win against a CA120 team, and morale gets bounced back up.
 
AshRolls said:
An excellent change, thumbs up. I'm concerned that CA variance of teams is a bit high though, perhaps a spread of 160 to 200 with 180 as the testing team would be more appropriate?

The only other improvement I would suggest is to divide the teams into Defending, Midfield, and Attacking players. The current 'all players the same' setup will favour tactics that have players involved in all phases of play (ie, box 2 box midfielders, defensive forwards, defensive wingers, complete wing backs, ball playing defenders etc) because attackers defend as well as defenders, and defenders attack as well as attackers.

Some disparity of players in different parts of the pitch would more closely resemble reality. Attackers should be faster with better off the ball and finishing. Midfielders should be all rounders. Defenders should have better positioning, marking and tackling.

I have set my personal tactic testing database up this way and it works well.
Click to expand...

I will definitely keep your suggestions in mind when setting up the database for the next patch. But I think we will stick to this one for now, since we have already soon finished three tests.
 
why did you both test for 14.2.1 and 14.2.2? there were no ME changes since 14.2.0 as far as i know
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top