Results 1 to 4 of 4
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By tomu741
  • 1 Post By HeavensAAA

Thread: Experiment

  1. #1
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    400

    Experiment

    I tried to move my dmc/mc accordingly to amc and dc positions to see how team strength changes in certain areas. So left picture is original with dmc in his natural position. Then i moved him to amc and team in defense became stronger 107% vs 108.8% and attack weaker - 102.5% vs 101.5%. Then i moved him to dc. So my formation turn into 5 defenders but strength in defense lowered from 108.8% to 107% and attack increased from 101.5% to 102.5% compared to 4-2-3-1. Dmc was with yellow triangle when i pushed him there.
    So my question is this - how defense became lower with 5 defenders and attack became weaker with aml/amc/amr? Does that dmc/mc influenced team strenght percentage because he played in not natural position?
    Experiment-untitled.jpg
    HeavensAAA likes this.

  2. #2
    Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by tomu741 View Post
    I tried to move my dmc/mc accordingly to amc and dc positions to see how team strength changes in certain areas. So left picture is original with dmc in his natural position. Then i moved him to amc and team in defense became stronger 107% vs 108.8% and attack weaker - 102.5% vs 101.5%. Then i moved him to dc. So my formation turn into 5 defenders but strength in defense lowered from 108.8% to 107% and attack increased from 101.5% to 102.5% compared to 4-2-3-1. Dmc was with yellow triangle when i pushed him there.
    So my question is this - how defense became lower with 5 defenders and attack became weaker with aml/amc/amr? Does that dmc/mc influenced team strenght percentage because he played in not natural position?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Untitled.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	85.9 KB 
ID:	136331
    The system generation of % comparison is very generic by using the player % alone, without considering if the player could actually play in those positions and actual performance for any positional misplacements.

    Defence % = Total quality of all GK, DL, DC, DR & DMC /no. of players in these positions (as defined in the saved formation)
    Midfield % = Total quality of all ML, MC & MR / no. of players in these positions
    Attack % = Total quality of all ST, AML, AMC & AMR / no. of players in these positions

    Eg. placing a 200% DC into ST position would push up the Attack % on paper, but in fact performance would surely not be like that.

    Therefore, those % can be very misleading, and so it is a default we do have to check the whites of asso opponents to decide on tactics and formation.
    Der_Ryan_M likes this.
    Winning is a form of art. Consistently winning is a show-hand of skills and luck.
    Asso tag: #29GB24 (1st level-8 team record holder) & #AAK65W (2nd level-5 team)

  3. #3
    Dreamer
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    400
    So dmc and amc position not belong to midfield?
    But i tried to push my aml/amr to ml/mr because they have 2 positions and my midfield didnt get more % in midfield.

  4. #4
    Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by tomu741 View Post
    So dmc and amc position not belong to midfield?
    But i tried to push my aml/amr to ml/mr because they have 2 positions and my midfield didnt get more % in midfield.
    No. Somehow only those along the midfield line positions are counted as midfielders.

    Calculation is based on the first position of the player, unless the player has placed into a totally different line.

    Eg. ML/AML pushed up to AML position would not get more % in attack, unless the player is played very high up as wide forwards (say originally 4-5F-1, with both ML & MR being ML/AML & MR/AMR. Both wide players will be counted as attackers if formation shows they move forward enough to qualify as 4-3-3); and vice versa for AML/ML that they will be counted as attackers even as AML, unless they move back enough to qualify as midfielders being a ML in a saved formation.

    So theoretically, if the engine uses this number as part of the calculation for matches, we should buy ML/AML(R) if our existing attackers are better or buy AML/ML(R) if our existing attackers % are worse if we want to push up the attack %.

    Very good experiment and idea there as I never thought about these % in such a way before! (So I will probably prefer buying ML/AML(R) from now on).
    Winning is a form of art. Consistently winning is a show-hand of skills and luck.
    Asso tag: #29GB24 (1st level-8 team record holder) & #AAK65W (2nd level-5 team)