My Huge Tactics Testing Project (FM 2012) !!!

  • Thread starter Thread starter a_ilfandy
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 576
  • Views Views 229K
guys, thanks for all the evaluations on the fairness of each league..
it seems that the new composition is still too far from being called fair..

but as promised before, i will change the league format for the 12.1 (or 12.1.1)..
just gimme some more time to finish up the waiting list on 12.0..

meanwhile, I really need some concret suggestions on the new league format..
obviously it will only be fair if I stack all the test and AI teams under one big league..
but please consider the amount of time I'm gonna spend on each round..
last season testing (2011), I spent months and only managed 5 rounds, plus 1 round for the round of champions..
there were many tactics I didnt manage to test.
and please consider that I'm watching (in commentary) all matches, I dont want to 'holiday' any of them..
if you guys could help me with the ideas for the format by considering the 'situations' I mentioned..

btw, here is what I've been thinking..
what if I change it to the american's MLS league system??
eventhough they are 'grouped' but they do still face all other teams right?
the problem still, that some groups may get easier teams than others.. :P
plus, I dont think they have the cup there.. oO)
I personally love having a combination of league, cup, and play off..
with this, second placed tactic still have the chance to survive by winning the cup or the play off..

so, please, pour in your suggestions.. I'm stuck!
 
a_ilfandy said:
sure mate, no prob.. I was planning to post it in your thread anyway.. :)
you are right about the formation, if I'm not mistaken, you the first entry with 3 DCs formation.. and the wingbacks were unused.. but the players were enough to cover your formation.. I always monitor the players selections, there were 2/3 times where Isla and Fabregas forced to play as DMC as substitutes.. so far in this testing all teams first eleven are normal..

btw, I'm really impressed with your tactic, will test it again on the 12.1 format later.. I'm not done with 12.0 yet..
Click to expand...

Thanks! You could add another DMC for 12.1 testing :p The problem is that my DMC's get tired really fast, they have to run a lot!!

I hope you enjoyed watching my tactic high quality football :D Eheheh Could you tell me if I lost both matches vs Hancur2? I lost the 1st by 4-1, away, and the 2nd one at home? How did it go? :p Thx!

Cheers,
 
Pawn_pt said:
Thanks! You could add another DMC for 12.1 testing :p The problem is that my DMC's get tired really fast, they have to run a lot!!

I hope you enjoyed watching my tactic high quality football :D Eheheh Could you tell me if I lost both matches vs Hancur2? I lost the 1st by 4-1, away, and the 2nd one at home? How did it go? :p Thx!

Cheers,
Click to expand...

totally enjoy your tactic! I love weird looking tactic :D and yours is very aggressive..
57 goals in 18 games against those teams.. thats insane!

will consider your players suggestion for the new testing format..
btw, I post something before your post, read it and gimme some solutions.. :)
 
a_ilfandy said:
guys, thanks for all the evaluations on the fairness of each league..
it seems that the new composition is still too far from being called fair..

but as promised before, i will change the league format for the 12.1 (or 12.1.1)..
just gimme some more time to finish up the waiting list on 12.0..

meanwhile, I really need some concret suggestions on the new league format..
obviously it will only be fair if I stack all the test and AI teams under one big league..
but please consider the amount of time I'm gonna spend on each round..
last season testing (2011), I spent months and only managed 5 rounds, plus 1 round for the round of champions..
there were many tactics I didnt manage to test.
and please consider that I'm watching (in commentary) all matches, I dont want to 'holiday' any of them..
if you guys could help me with the ideas for the format by considering the 'situations' I mentioned..

btw, here is what I've been thinking..
what if I change it to the american's MLS league system??
eventhough they are 'grouped' but they do still face all other teams right?
the problem still, that some groups may get easier teams than others.. :P
plus, I dont think they have the cup there.. oO)
I personally love having a combination of league, cup, and play off..
with this, second placed tactic still have the chance to survive by winning the cup or the play off..

so, please, pour in your suggestions.. I'm stuck!
Click to expand...

I like the current format, and would only change the playoff matches for 2 rounds (home and away, till the final in 1 round).

Regarding the group composition, I can suggest 2 possible Group Compositions (for voting/discussion purposes), which, I believe are fairer than the last ones you presented to us:

testing121.jpg


But I am open to other suggestions!

I got the R5 and R6 pts to include, and maybe the results change a bit :p

Edit: But after I add the R5 and R6 I find out that for example Bayern, Juventus and Ajax are now doing a bit worse than they were on R1 to R4 tests! On the other hand Marseille, Liverpool and Tottenham are doing a lot better!

Table with R5 and R6 pts per round included:

testing121r5r6.jpg



(There are a few changes compared to the table with 4 rounds, only confirming that the points those teams achieved on previous rounds were mainly due to their weaker/stronger group mates...)
 
Last edited:
Pawn_pt said:
I like the current format, and would only change the playoff matches for 2 rounds (home and away, till the final in 1 round).

Regarding the group composition, I can suggest 2 possible Group Compositions (for voting/discussion purposes), which, I believe are fairer than the last ones you presented to us:

testing121.jpg


But I am open to other suggestions!

I got the R5 and R6 pts to include, and maybe the results change a bit :p
Click to expand...

looks good to me.. if the others agree with this, the only thing I need to change is the composition..
thanks ****, we'll wait others' suggestions..
 
Pawn_pt said:
I like the current format, and would only change the playoff matches for 2 rounds (home and away, till the final in 1 round).

Regarding the group composition, I can suggest 2 possible Group Compositions (for voting/discussion purposes), which, I believe are fairer than the last ones you presented to us:

testing121.jpg


But I am open to other suggestions!

I got the R5 and R6 pts to include, and maybe the results change a bit :p

Edit: But after I add the R5 and R6 I find out that for example Bayern, Juventus and Ajax are now doing a bit worse than they were on R1 to R4 tests! On the other hand Marseille, Liverpool and Tottenham are doing a lot better!

Table with R5 and R6 pts per round included:

testing121r5r6.jpg



(There are a few changes compared to the table with 4 rounds, only confirming that the points those teams achieved on previous rounds were mainly due to their weaker/stronger group mates...)
Click to expand...

That is actually exactly the system I gave to ilfandy when this current composition of grouping.
Only that time it was only up to round 3.

So every group has a matching system of 1st-8th, 2nd-7th, 3rd-6th, and 4th-5th.
And every group has their turns of having each 'matching' teams.

But still people consider it was 'not fair'.
But yeah this is up to round 6 and so it should be more accurate.

I'm just gonna see how this goes and wait for the I got something for the new patch. :D
 
koflok said:
That is actually exactly the system I gave to ilfandy when this current composition of grouping.
Only that time it was only up to round 3.

So every group has a matching system of 1st-8th, 2nd-7th, 3rd-6th, and 4th-5th.
And every group has their turns of having each 'matching' teams.

But still people consider it was 'not fair'.
But yeah this is up to round 6 and so it should be more accurate.

I'm just gonna see how this goes and wait for the I got something for the new patch. :D
Click to expand...

I prefer option C, bcoz group 3 in option D is scary, the Londoners are hard to compete with..

where have you been dude?
looking forward to test your 'something' in 12.1.. :D

btw, what's the difference btw 12.1 n 12.1.1?
 
a_ilfandy said:
I prefer option C, bcoz group 3 in option D is scary, the Londoners are hard to compete with..

where have you been dude?
looking forward to test your 'something' in 12.1.. :D

btw, what's the difference btw 12.1 n 12.1.1?
Click to expand...

Holidays man. Been busy lately.

Haha well that 'something' has to be delayed. I was about to finishing up my 3-6-1 formation but then the new patch comes out so I gotta update the tactic I have one right now.

Well if I'm gonna release anything, you'll sure be one of the first ones to know.

Anyhow just a little input on the grouping.

EDIT : Scratch that I'll just follow with whatever grouping there is.
 
Last edited:
I give my vote for Option C as well.

I also had a suggestion. Take the bottom two teams off in each group and merge them into two (2) conferences.

What this achieves is:

Increased number of games (From the original 18 we go to a 22 game season which reduces variance, is not too hard on you - only 4 extra games per team. Plus you're always running out of tactics to test so this would go on a little longer)
More head-to-head match-ups (With four teams in eachgroup we get to see more head to head action. We will see who is truly a contender and who is simply a pretender. Also more fun for those involved and it gives defensive tactics a chance to showcase their giant killing credentials.
Nowhere left to hide (The increased standard of the competition would mean that there's no more slipping by in a "weak group" and a truly outstanding tactic is sure to stand out. Also the custom team is somewhat "all-star" in my opinion and it needs the competition to match.
Less "Group toughness" debate and arduous data crunching. (with only two groups I think the debate about which group is tougher will significantly decrease.)

I think that the top 3 teams from each group should go to a play-off as well as the next-two teams with the highest point total, regardless of group. That way you can have 5 teams from one group make it if they have been really dominant. Again this is to avoid "unworthy" teams going to the play-offs.
 
Last edited:
Another thing is, I don't want to comment much anymore on the grouping, I should just focus on creating a tactic that can actually survives either groups, regardless the 'difficulty'.

Anyhow, just would like to give a little suggestion here.
It would be nice if you can give a more in depth analysis of each tactic after each round.
That way we don't just see the result of our tactic but a little but of how our tactic is performing as well.

Nothing fancy really, just post something like the
1. 'Goal Assists' report. That way which areas is the tactic focuses on. Passing, crosses, corners, etc


2. 'Squad stats' report. Just to see which players are performing well and needed as key players in the tactic.


3.. Someone suggest something?
Thought that would help the functionality of this project even more.
 
Last edited:
@koflok,

Great suggestion, that way we can have some inputs about the plus-minus of our own tactic and can make it even more better based on that analysis. :2thumbsup
 
Koflkok, I read your post, but then you edited it before I had the chance to reply :p /// (i'l do slashes to separate sentences as I can't do breaks!) /// I am not assuming anything, well, I know that winning points on each group has not the same difficulty! I simply believe that with the system hereby proposed I am making the groups fairer (than in rounds 1 to 6), and am picking groups composition taking into consideration some statistics. If you find out a better way of doing it, we all would like to see it. As I said, I am open to suggestion, and just trying to give my contribution and help to the Topic's owner! /// The idea behind the group composition was to draw them like this: 1st + 8th, 2nd + 7th, 3rd + 6th, 4th + 5th, for every partial group of 8 teams. /// Looking forward to see your 361, I will follow it closely! Cheers,
 
koflok said:
Another thing is, I don't want to comment much anymore on the grouping, I should just focus on creating a tactic that can actually survives either groups, regardless the 'difficulty'.

Anyhow, just would like to give a little suggestion here.
It would be nice if you can give a more in depth analysis of each tactic after each round.
That way we don't just see the result of our tactic but a little but of how our tactic is performing as well.

Nothing fancy really, just post something like the
1. 'Goal Assists' report. That way which areas is the tactic focuses on. Passing, crosses, corners, etc


2. 'Squad stats' report. Just to see which players are performing well and needed as key players in the tactic.


3.. Someone suggest something?
Thought that would help the functionality of this project even more.
Click to expand...

anonymousproxyFM said:
@koflok,

Great suggestion, that way we can have some inputs about the plus-minus of our own tactic and can make it even more better based on that analysis. :2thumbsup
Click to expand...

Cheers.

Pawn_pt said:
Koflkok, I read your post, but then you edited it before I had the chance to reply :p /// (i'l do slashes to separate sentences as I can't do breaks!) /// I am not assuming anything, well, I know that winning points on each group has not the same difficulty! I simply believe that with the system hereby proposed I am making the groups fairer (than in rounds 1 to 6), and am picking groups composition taking into consideration some statistics. If you find out a better way of doing it, we all would like to see it. As I said, I am open to suggestion, and just trying to give my contribution and help to the Topic's owner! /// The idea behind the group composition was to draw them like this: 1st + 8th, 2nd + 7th, 3rd + 6th, 4th + 5th, for every partial group of 8 teams. /// Looking forward to see your 361, I will follow it closely! Cheers,
Click to expand...

Haha yeah I decided to not get included since I already suggested the last one.

Well we had the same idea regarding the 1st + 8th and stuff. It was done for the grouping of round 5.
I had the excel file send to topic owner.

Regarding your table. It seems more accurate and all since it has been done for 6 rounds so there is definitely less variance.
However one key point is that there is during round 1 to round 4, the grouping was 'highly unbalanced' - as a lot of people was suggesting.
Based on the table drawn by ilfandy of custom teams performing from round 1 to round 4, I got this.



You can say that, in overall, getting1 point in group A is 1.5 harder than group D, because with the same amount of games played against the same opponent (yes, the team tactics were different though), that difference of amount of points was created.

Thus, what I was suggesting was rather than just averaging the points from round 1 to round 6 points of each teams, maybe for round 1-4, it can be multiplied with the coefficient of the group, and then we add the average of the points from round 5 and 6. Here's a table that simplifies my rambling.

*Avg R1-R4 I got it from your calculation


You can see that the top 4 teams are definitely still MU, City, Barca and Madrid while the bottom teams are PSV, Genoa, Malaga, and SLB.
 
Although I think that idea is good, you can't assume Group A is 1,5 harder than Group D, as the tactics used on each Group were not the same! :p And you are trying to measure the strength of 32 teams, on 3.456 matches played from the games played by 8 teams (each time with different tactics), on 576 matches! I am doing the other way, I am infering the cpu's team quality from their own games (the 3.456 matches, i.e. 32 teams x 18 matches x 6 rounds), against cpu's and not cpus.Someone using Genius Scout (didn't downloaded it yet) could give us some feedback on the top 40 Teams of Europe, at the start of the Game. Genius Scout always did a calculation measuring the Strength of each team, which we could use! I remember looking at it to know how strong my team really was, at some moment of the career.
 
Yeah well I could see the flaw in using the custom teams as the sample for the coefficient.
That's why I mentioned that I withdraw my calculation and just rather agree with what will be given by the TS :D

I have no issue regarding the one you are using as it is basically the same with the one I used to format the group at round 4.
It should be more accurate since more rounds have been gone through since then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

FMBase

Beta

Resources

Back
Top