2012 Tactic and Guide index

[rafa]

Maybe some people will be interested in testing it for you (by experience, I can't see the number of people being higher than one). However, if the tactic sucks, then the person will be keen to write there: "your tactic sucks". And then, I doubt you will ever find anyone else again to test your tactics, even the brilliant ones.

But hey, maybe I'm just too perfectionist ^_^

[rayjayokocha]

Maybe some people will be interested in testing it for you (by experience, I can't see the number of people being higher than one). However, if the tactic sucks, then the person will be keen to write there: "your tactic sucks". And then, I doubt you will ever find anyone else again to test your tactics, even the brilliant ones.

But hey, maybe I'm just too perfectionist ^_^

Well yeah that would be great if people would test them and give me info back about whether its working or not, what may need tweaking or changing or what positions could be changed to make it better.

Tbh mate noone really tests them anyway whether they've worked or not :unsure:

Yeah maybe you are.

Would adding player instructions attract more people to use formations than leaving them default?

[rafa]

Not necessarily, but it would give the impression that you actually put some effort doing it.

[rayjayokocha]

Yeah i guess so :unsure: Am not the best with player instructions, hence why i leave them default, i had a quality set on '07 that worked a treat with Chelsea and i dominated for years, if i still have the save i may try it on '12 and see how it goes.

Back to my original question, could i start a thread with my formations and link formations i have tested e.g. my 3-6-1 and add in the links for the others when they have been tested. I'd also have the formations up for the ones i will test so people can see how they are positioned, but once that formation is tested i will delete the info and put a link there instead.

Would this be ok?

[Jens]

I suggest that you make several threads for different tactics but only one thread for a tactic and the variations you made up (eg if they only contain some tweaks)

[rayjayokocha]

I suggest that you make several threads for different tactics but only one thread for a tactic and the variations you made up (eg if they only contain some tweaks)

Sorry Jens am confused :wacko: Can you explain it more clearly please, sorry for being dumb :lol:

[Dec]

What Jens means is if you have totally different tactics but them in seperate threads but if they are different yet resemble each other (e.g. a 442 with a target man and the same 442 without) then post them in the same thread.

[Jens]

Exactly.

For example, I'm not a fan of Scurfignone's way of posting tactics: he makes a new one for every tweak he comes up with. THAT is a form of spam to me.

[rafa]

At least scurfignone tests his tactics thoroughly, and they seem pretty good.

[Jens]

But there are 2 variations on one tactic...

I believe it to be unnecessary.

[rafa]

But there are 2 variations on one tactic...

I believe it to be unnecessary.

Actually they have similar names, but are different. One is a 2-2-3-3 and the other is a 1-3-3-3.

[Jens]

I know e has 2 very different tactics (he's right to post different threads there)

But I've also seen his variations in different threads, to me this is an example of clogging

[rayjayokocha]

What Jens means is if you have totally different tactics but them in seperate threads but if they are different yet resemble each other (e.g. a 442 with a target man and the same 442 without) then post them in the same thread.

Thanks for clearing that up, i understand now.

Ok i will do that. I will do what Rafa said and have a separate thread which contains a link to all the formations and list which have been tested by me and which haven't been tested by me.

[2crowns]

Hi guys, Because I´m a bit of a sad case, I´ve added the individual player role instructions from the various guides (Trequartista, Target man etc) into a spreadsheet for reference. This way it´s easier to implement the different player roles into any new tactics being created. I´ve also included 3 new roles I´ve created but are untested and I´m not sure if they´ve been done somewhere else.

Anyway, here it is. Nice comments and suggestions welcome...

http://www.filedropper.com/fmhrolereference (Hope the link works?)

Thanks to Astonaut, Dec, JeffreyA, Oscar & William for providing the role guides in the first place!

2Crowns

[Dec]

Well done, please post the player roles you made in individual threads too please. Though the false 9 is wrong I believe as it needs pressing on at least.