Mr Langvatn's Tactic Center for FM17

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Langvatn
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 843
  • Views Views 509K
Good job on the tactic testing Mr. L. Massive effort has been put into it, respect!
I would like to give some feedback on your testing database. First, I think the important matches should be set to 20 instead of 10. 20 means no matter what kind of a match the player will always play to it's full ability but with 10 the player might or might not perform to his full, this random factor should be eliminate.

Second, some attributes like aggression, determination and dirtiness needs to be standardize for the position where it maybe use in one tactic and not the other. For example, AML vs ML, some tactic use AML but not ML and vice versa. Why is this a problem? Let's say tactic A use AML and tactic B use ML, if AML have better mental attributes than ML it gives advantage to tactic A.

Third, there are too many players in the team it's very hard to determine which one is best suited for the tactic. I wonder how did you choose which player to play for a particular tactic? Quick pick or manual select?
With such a big team, team cohesion is a problem too. IMO, ideally the team should start the first test match with team cohesion status of the team is blending well. And tactic with very fluid and fluid mentality relies more on team cohesion than rigid tactic with structure mentality.

Last, big thanks for sharing the editor file mate!
 
Mr Langvatn said:
If you have 50 matches tested, I'd agree that ccc's would be better. But for 180 matches, points (which directly translates to win ratio) are most important :) We could of course include this in the next patch if this is something that people want (ccc information). Including it now is too late, as we already tested well over 30 tactics.
Click to expand...

That would be the worst idea yet - CCC doesn't translate to a higher win ratio - people telling themselves that doesn't have a clue - I tell you why - you got it right the first time - their is alot of chances that should be counted as a CCC but doesn't - untill that is fixed by the creators that is useless information actually even if it was fixed!!! - Theirs alot of other factors to be considered - Half chances - Longshots - Shots on target - and if the goal is to create a fair and truswtworthy testing template those are just as important as CCC's at the minimum.

Take longshots - for years and years this has been working poorly - now you get alot of goals from longshots and that should be taken serious meaning this is not a stat which should be taken out of the equation - it gets you points

Shots on target - I personally look at shots on target I think theirs nothing more important - ofcourse that depends as well - if the shots are straight in to the hands of the keeper - they would count as a poor type of finish - unfortunately the only way to see if thats the case - watch matches/play the game.

So for the sake of a trustworthy testing template - forget about CCC's - but by all means include shots on target - that would make me shut up - ALOT OF WORK!!! ;)

Cheers
 
dginola said:
Good job on the tactic testing Mr. L. Massive effort has been put into it, respect!
I would like to give some feedback on your testing database. First, I think the important matches should be set to 20 instead of 10. 20 means no matter what kind of a match the player will always play to it's full ability but with 10 the player might or might not perform to his full, this random factor should be eliminate.

Second, some attributes like aggression, determination and dirtiness needs to be standardize for the position where it maybe use in one tactic and not the other. For example, AML vs ML, some tactic use AML but not ML and vice versa. Why is this a problem? Let's say tactic A use AML and tactic B use ML, if AML have better mental attributes than ML it gives advantage to tactic A.

Third, there are too many players in the team it's very hard to determine which one is best suited for the tactic. I wonder how did you choose which player to play for a particular tactic? Quick pick or manual select?
With such a big team, team cohesion is a problem too. IMO, ideally the team should start the first test match with team cohesion status of the team is blending well. And tactic with very fluid and fluid mentality relies more on team cohesion than rigid tactic with structure mentality.

Last, big thanks for sharing the editor file mate!
Click to expand...

There are pros and cons to most of those points, in the end you just have to make a choice :)

1. Regarding "big matches", I didn't want all the tactics to overperform against big teams and then suck against smaller teams. Thus, 10 seemed as the best value (balance).

2. Regarding aggression and dirtiness, they are also just standardized. But since we have so many players of equal quality in the test team, a red card etc isn't much of a problem (this will favour hard tackling etc, but there is nothing we can do about it). Some hard choices have to be made :)

3. Regarding the "too many players" problem, this is also a pro and a con. Fewer players = Fewer options, and we want every tactic to have the option of using the right player for the right role. The con here is like you say, team cohesion. What you have to remember is that it's the same for all tactics we test. We have done some measures to make it a little bit better though. Setting match preparation to teamwork might be better, we can consider this for the next patch test. I have to think about pros/cons to this :)

4. We let the assistant manager (CA200) decide the line-up. If we don't do this, we (the testers) will pick different players, and it will then have another random element added (which players the different testers pick).

5. Regarding your comment about very fluid/fluid relying more on team cohesion than rigid/structured I just disagree, sorry :)

6. The most important thing about our testing is that we do not use instant result or simulate match, as in pretty much any other tactic test out there... Around 25-30% of the time, when using any of these two modes, the assistant manager changes the formation to something completely different (you can see this in the "tactics used" window).

I hope this was clarifying!

Best wishes mate
 
Great!

By the way, I changed the strikers in your top chinese tactic, I am now using 2 inside forwards and a complete forward instead of 2 f9 and 1 poacher.

I did that because the strikers were not performing at all to the standards, and that should not be a surprise given that they were forced to share the middle of the park stepping over each other.

So now with 2 IF with attack, and similar setting as the F9s and the CF instead of the Poacher, but with similar settings, do perform in each game. Goals and high ratings.

Defensively the tactic is as before, but offensively those 2 IFs are great. Now the strikers score in each and every game. 9+ ratings for at least one of them in each game after I changed that.
 
Last edited:
StefanCP said:
Great!

By the way, I changed the strikers in your top chinese tactic, I am now using 2 inside forwards and a complete forward instead of 2 f9 and 1 poacher.

I did that because the strikers were not performing at all to the standards, and that should not be a surprise given that they were forced to share the middle of the park stepping over each other.

So now with 2 IF with attack, and similar setting as the F9s and the CF instead of the Poacher, but with similar settings, do perform in each game. Goals and high ratings.

Defensively the tactic is as before, but offensively those 2 IFs are great. Now the strikers score in each and every game. 9+ ratings for at least one of them in each game after I changed that.
Click to expand...

Have you screenshots mate ?
 
Can you attach your tweak mate? Thanks
StefanCP said:
Great!

By the way, I changed the strikers in your top chinese tactic, I am now using 2 inside forwards and a complete forward instead of 2 f9 and 1 poacher.

I did that because the strikers were not performing at all to the standards, and that should not be a surprise given that they were forced to share the middle of the park stepping over each other.

So now with 2 IF with attack, and similar setting as the F9s and the CF instead of the Poacher, but with similar settings, do perform in each game. Goals and high ratings.

Defensively the tactic is as before, but offensively those 2 IFs are great. Now the strikers score in each and every game. 9+ ratings for at least one of them in each game after I changed that.
Click to expand...
 
one suggestion, not for the testing method itself, but for the given information:

you could share the tactical analysis screen, where it reports how each tactic does against specific tactics.
(could even do a ranking of 'best tactic against 442', 'against 433', etc)
 
I cannot post links and this stupid forum deleted my post. I won't write it again, at least not now. Sorry guys.
 
Hello,That it is the best tactic?I was fan of your tactics on fm16!Thank you
 
Will there be any more tests?

From Mr. Langvatan or anyone else. There are a lots of new tactics and a new update ofcourse.
 
Mr L has posted on his blog that all tactics will be re-tested due to the patch update
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top