Mr Langvatn's Tactic Center for FM17

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Langvatn
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 843
  • Views Views 509K
dginola said:
It seems like FM is trying to mimic current successful premier league formation. 2016 was Leicester's 442 and now it is Chelsea's 343.
Click to expand...

Could be.

Three man defence works much better for me in FM17 because AI mostly seems to clear ball to flanks when trying to attack, so the wider CB's make a much better job covering that area than a four man defence (full backs tend to get out of position even on support duty).

3-4-3 is particularly strong imo, because you have the almighty attacking wing backs and their lethal near post crosses plus wide strikers who are now more willing to make the cut back pass instead of shooting from byline. Boring? Yep. Effective? Yep.
 
Wigo15 said:
Mr.L can you add this tactic to the testing list please? :) i made a tweak of Watford system with Inside Forwards and working very well for me!
Watford System IF Tweak_34E11DB3-F164-4549-A2F9-1F0735AD8A45

Heres a OP instructions (almost same as TFFS ones)

1098226d1484401055t-zyndars-tactic-lounge-1-striker-formations-2444462-20170114-mg7mow.png
Click to expand...

Added
 
Where can I download this new leading tactic or what it even looks like please any screens ????
 
42130 back to the original is the current new leader in the underdog test (H)

image.jpg
 
Last edited:
dimartino said:
Now I admit I'm confused. In the underdog table the number 1 tactic 41230 back to the original has 139 pts and +41 GD. 3-4-3 Watford System V2 has 140 pts and +44 GD, but it's rated 4th. ???
Click to expand...
The first 4 tactic in underdog table have all 54 rating points. I think they're ordinated by tactic-id (41230back is 316, first3412 is 311, itszdan523 is 186 and 343watford is 183).
 
mcconnor8 said:
Im pretty sure that all tactics with the same star rating are just in a random order
Click to expand...

If they have the same rating (number, not stars), then it seems it's a random (or fixed by something) order yes. The rating interval per half star is 4. So if one tactic has 55 rating and one tactic has 54 rating, then the one with 55 rating will always be above the one with 54 rating, even though they have the same amount of stars. But if there are two tactics with 54 rating, it will be random (or something, I'm gonna have to ask Luigi how it's sorted) which one is first of these on the table.

But remember this please:

We cannot say that the number one tactic is better than the number 8 tactic if they both have 5 stars. It is impossible to make a test that is accurate enough to be sure which tactic is best between two 5-star tactics.
 
Last edited:
Langvatn, the best 4-2-3-1 in your test it is the IWB V1 right?

Enviado do meu SM-G930F através de Tapatalk
 
Mr Langvatn said:
Even if there was a way to set maximum team cohesion in the test, I wouldn't want to do that, because we then move away from our philosophy on that the test should resemble a new personal savegame in as many areas as possible without removing test accuracy. When you start a new game, your team doesn't have perfect team gel. And people also like to buy new players, which further disrupts team gel.. We want to find tactics that work well under these conditions.

Sorry that you didn't like our test, although there are many people who do like it, so please let this thread be for people who actually like it :)

PS. And please don't call us corrupt and clueless about the game, you know this is not true, and I have no idea why you said that tbh :) I didn't think we had any bad blood...
Click to expand...

A tactic with a team who has a worrying team cohesion or blending well performs differently from a tactic that is optimized to extremely strong understanding team blend - just like using 2 different tactics - you don't get a true reflection of a tactics ability if the team isn't managed becourse the difference is huge - so the results you and your team presents to the public becomes information that bury the tactics that performs less in your tests while containing a low team cohesion - however in a test where the man management has been taken serious with a clue - those formerly failed tactics would most likely outshine the best unmanaged tactics - so it would all be turned upside down - so in other words you don't do anything but bad publicity towards tactics that actually would be amazing for people to play with.

About corrupt - you only test tactics that either have a mr langvatn stamp on it or if people have signed up for it to be tested mainly - that makes your whole testing idea corrupt - theirs alot of tactics out their that deserves attention and they are not getting it becourse they haven't signed up for it - honestly pal

I write the truth - that can be in your thread or anyone elses - bad blood their isn't any just truth and expertise
 
jesaustralia said:
A tactic with a team who has a worrying team cohesion or blending well performs differently from a tactic that is optimized to extremely strong understanding team blend - just like using 2 different tactics - you don't get a true reflection of a tactics ability if the team isn't managed becourse the difference is huge - so the results you and your team presents to the public becomes information that bury the tactics that performs less in your tests while containing a low team cohesion - however in a test where the man management has been taken serious with a clue - those formerly failed tactics would most likely outshine the best unmanaged tactics - so it would all be turned upside down - so in other words you don't do anything but bad publicity towards tactics that actually would be amazing for people to play with.

About corrupt - you only test tactics that either have a mr langvatn stamp on it or if people have signed up for it to be tested mainly - that makes your whole testing idea corrupt - theirs alot of tactics out their that deserves attention and they are not getting it becourse they haven't signed up for it - honestly pal

I write the truth - that can be in your thread or anyone elses - bad blood their isn't any just truth and expertise
Click to expand...

Signed up for what exactly, You cant expect ML to get literally every single tactic that would be virtually impossible but him and his team do test the tactics that are put forward, Isnt that the right thing to do?

He's doing what is being asked by testing tactics what more can the man do to be honest
 
jesaustralia said:
A tactic with a team who has a worrying team cohesion or blending well performs differently from a tactic that is optimized to extremely strong understanding team blend - just like using 2 different tactics - you don't get a true reflection of a tactics ability if the team isn't managed becourse the difference is huge - so the results you and your team presents to the public becomes information that bury the tactics that performs less in your tests while containing a low team cohesion - however in a test where the man management has been taken serious with a clue - those formerly failed tactics would most likely outshine the best unmanaged tactics - so it would all be turned upside down - so in other words you don't do anything but bad publicity towards tactics that actually would be amazing for people to play with.

About corrupt - you only test tactics that either have a mr langvatn stamp on it or if people have signed up for it to be tested mainly - that makes your whole testing idea corrupt - theirs alot of tactics out their that deserves attention and they are not getting it becourse they haven't signed up for it - honestly pal

I write the truth - that can be in your thread or anyone elses - bad blood their isn't any just truth and expertise
Click to expand...

Dude, I have nothing to do with the tactics that are tested on our site. I'm not the one testing them even! What do you mean by "mr langvatn stamp"?? We simply just add tactics to be tested from user suggestions here on FM-base and on our forum.

I really have no idea what you are talking about.........
 
jesaustralia said:
A tactic with a team who has a worrying team cohesion or blending well performs differently from a tactic that is optimized to extremely strong understanding team blend - just like using 2 different tactics - you don't get a true reflection of a tactics ability if the team isn't managed becourse the difference is huge - so the results you and your team presents to the public becomes information that bury the tactics that performs less in your tests while containing a low team cohesion - however in a test where the man management has been taken serious with a clue - those formerly failed tactics would most likely outshine the best unmanaged tactics - so it would all be turned upside down - so in other words you don't do anything but bad publicity towards tactics that actually would be amazing for people to play with.
Click to expand...
I don't get your point. It's pretty obvious that any tactic will perform better if the team is actually managed.
I had great fun in FM2017 with a tactic from FM2016 (FMSERBIA FM 2016 TOTAL DOMINATION (Just keep coming back to the FM2016 master-piece) that worked great, because I was controlling all the other aspects of the game that lead to successful results. But in unmaned test this tactic falls apart (it's way dow in Mr.L table). I tried Watford 343v2 and WOW, it's way better.
The point is that testing with proper management will enhance ALL THE tactics, so to me is as simple as this: a tactic that is better in in a unmaned test IS better. I think any test like this, in a controlled enviroment, but unmaned, is the way to discover what in basic terms works against the game's mechanics. Having that, with proper management it will work even better!
 
By the way guys, there are now 8x 5-star tactics (same level as watford v2) in our testing table! A lot of great tactics were discovered yesterday! :)

Check out all the new results here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top