Mr Langvatn's Tactic Center for FM17

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Langvatn
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 843
  • Views Views 509K
how sad that its come to this, a few members who have probably made tactics that have been tested by Mr L and not done well and now as complaining about it, The tests are good consistent and if other tactics work for you that arent in the top ten in the test then great.

Mr L has made great tactics for years i mean GREAT tactics but of you look at his tactics this year they arent the top one is near the bottom, is he bothered or complaining about it, No It's just a test thats it like all the the Tactics.

People Rave on about TTF's tactics yet does he post any actual results from his tests himself no he doesn't, He relies solely on his test findings which is how he does things and that's absolutely fine if it works for him then great.

All Mr L and the other testers are doing is trying to off a test results on a easy to look search and see basis.

Why is that such a big deal?
 
Mr Langvatn said:
Average? We only tested one of his tactics so far, because he keeps deleting them. But TFF Vortex v6 got 287 points in our test, which is VERY GOOD! :) Reaver V22 is on the list and should be tested soon!
Click to expand...

Yes, but they're nowhere near top of the table and that's still how people look at it. :)
 
mrhough said:
how sad that its come to this, a few members who have probably made tactics that have been tested by Mr L and not done well and now as complaining about it, The tests are good consistent and if other tactics work for you that arent in the top ten in the test then great.

Mr L has made great tactics for years i mean GREAT tactics but of you look at his tactics this year they arent the top one is near the bottom, is he bothered or complaining about it, No It's just a test thats it like all the the Tactics.

People Rave on about TTF's tactics yet does he post any actual results from his tests himself no he doesn't, He relies solely on his test findings which is how he does things and that's absolutely fine if it works for him then great.

All Mr L and the other testers are doing is trying to off a test results on a easy to look search and see basis.

Why is that such a big deal?
Click to expand...

Well said. Totally agree!
 
Mr Langvatn said:
Average? We only tested one of his tactics so far, because he keeps deleting them. But TFF Vortex v6 got 287 points in our test, which is VERY GOOD! :) Reaver V22 is on the list and should be tested soon!
Click to expand...

Reaver V22 274 points :)
 
Let's be clear, I don't give a **** either way about tactic testing or tactics downloads, each to their own. I absolute do care whether such systems come from proprietary information. So for those outside of Mr L asking about seeking verification, let me make this clear: it is absolutely my responsibility in making sure we as a site don't fall foul of Si's terms and conditions, and any legal requirements as an SI affiliate site. As someone who also moderates and has done for SI for several years, this becomes doubly important. So whether or not he's hosting here, I have to ask him, and I have to be satisfied with his answer. It's not a point for a debate, it is what is required.
 
First 2 comments:
a) It seems that formations with 3 central defenders outperform classic formations with 2 central defenders. If this is a conclusion we can agree on, this test already has proven to be worthwhile.
b) As Mr L has mentioned himself, these tests are a simulation and do not represent real FM-life. For instance, nobody has 40 or 50 players with CA of 140. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. You want to maintain the external conditions as constant as possible. Because of the big number of matches played I guess that they gives an indication at least. This leads to a question to Mr L:

Mr L, could you repeat the test of one the tactics (it doesn't matter which one) a couple of times and report the results? This should give an indication about the reproducibility of your methodology (and of the ME)
 
I have to say I tried every Reaver tactic. And even more times his every 4-2-3-1 tactic. And I really didn't have good results with it. I don't say others don't but for me it didn't work. Maybe I am wrong but I think he should test it a bit longer. Some people say his older tactics were better. Some say newer. So I think he changes it too quickly.

About testing, once again I can just say thank you very much. Cant' wait tomorrow to try some
 
Last edited:
libo1949 said:
First 2 comments:
a) It seems that formations with 3 central defenders outperform classic formations with 2 central defenders. If this is a conclusion we can agree on, this test already has proven to be worthwhile.
b) As Mr L has mentioned himself, these tests are a simulation and do not represent real FM-life. For instance, nobody has 40 or 50 players with CA of 140. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. You want to maintain the external conditions as constant as possible. Because of the big number of matches played I guess that they gives an indication at least. This leads to a question to Mr L:

Mr L, could you repeat the test of one the tactics (it doesn't matter which one) a couple of times and report the results? This should give an indication about the reproducibility of your methodology (and of the ME)
Click to expand...

That already happened a few times, when some of us added a tactic to test that was already tested, by mistake. They are deleted now though, we kept the best one when that happened. But for the times it did happen, the results varied extremely little, like 5 points. I'll ask Luigi if those deleted tests are stored somewhere on the server.

We also did this test in FM16 by the way. Test a tactic 10 times to see, and the results never varied more than 10 points.

Though, I'd say it's possible, if tested enough times, to reach 20 points deviation, but not more I think.
 
I reafirm your testing work is great, and led me to find undoubtedly the best tactic i've tried for FM17. 343 watford v2 is just too good. After many tests I decided to start a proper save with it, my first long term save in this version! I usually like to start in a weak league, with a mid-table predicted team, but in this case I decided to go to the extrem, to get the toughest challenge possible. I choose Swedish premier division, and the team predicted last Falkenbergs. Weak club, weak players, no money. The only "help" i got was from genie scout, to find the two best possible WB, that I could afford, and that wanted to join me in free transfer. Good WBs are halfway to success with this tactic. I know I'm only starting the season, but man what can I say more, there's no way anybody can fail with this tactic! (crushing all mighty Malmo was priceless!).
View attachment 107457View attachment 107456View attachment 107455View attachment 107454
 
libo1949 said:
First 2 comments:
a) It seems that formations with 3 central defenders outperform classic formations with 2 central defenders. If this is a conclusion we can agree on, this test already has proven to be worthwhile.
b) As Mr L has mentioned himself, these tests are a simulation and do not represent real FM-life. For instance, nobody has 40 or 50 players with CA of 140. In itself there is nothing wrong with this. You want to maintain the external conditions as constant as possible. Because of the big number of matches played I guess that they gives an indication at least. This leads to a question to Mr L:

Mr L, could you repeat the test of one the tactics (it doesn't matter which one) a couple of times and report the results? This should give an indication about the reproducibility of your methodology (and of the ME)
Click to expand...

Joker was tested 2 times.

Mr L Tactics - Joker V2 - Basic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top