/icup/ - 8chan cup

>>3495

http://www.mediafire.com/download/akeqmkgeur9afaa/EDIT.bin

>>3499

>>3498

Okay I finally have the team export on 3.0. Hopefully everything will work now. Link:

https://mega.nz/#!d5tw3DiA!20HOd1oK5AaPysYMXx1xlrcBAgo65HSJwYARIFDDO34

Thanks to the stadium anon as well as kit anon you're awesome for helping out.

>>3500

Hey I did it to support my board. Go /b/!

All of the anthems and goalhorns are posted ITT, do we have to post them anywhere else to be uploaded?

>>3502

Not that I know of, normally cotton would just play em over the stream.

Will be posting some screens of the team soon, so far our tactics/formation is proving to be quite the menace, Im quite confident in a good run for the cup (but then again if RNG screws us theres not much to do, though I did make the tactics as best as I could to minimize lady luck's intervention)

>>3503

>>3503

Idk if any of you faggots are still lurking over here, but after running some test matches Im going to start posting the results here as follows;

I will repeat the match 10 times against each team (that has a full roster so no /mu/ or newbies) as the streamer would so: changes based on form before the match ends and changes in the 65th minute.

Will be posting results soon. First team will be /a/, the reigning champions.

>inb4 sample size is to small

I am well aware this is not conclusive enough as running a 1000 matches but I obviously dont have the time for that.

>>3530

>before match ends

Mean before match begins

>>3530

Sounds like fun I'm interested

>>3532

>>3530

Okay here are the results against /a/. Note P stands for who had most possesion, and /b/ always played home.

>Match1

2-1 (P)

>Match2

0-3 (P)

>Match3

0-5 (P)

>Match4

3-0 (P)

>Match5

0-1 (P)

>Match6

0-5 (P)

>Match7

1-0 (P)

>Match8

3-2 (P)

>Match9

3-6 (P)

>Match10

1-2 (P)

>Conclusions/theories

A 40% chance of winning against the champion isn't the best result. In fact some of the glaring issues when facing this team stemmed from the lack of goal-scoring ability combined with a poor defense. Possesion doesn't seem to be an issue as the matches won possesion was still low like the ones lost however, the problem seems to stem from the fullbacks not getting high enough/not crossing enough.

Despite some bad goal fests, ie matches 3,6 and 9, when defense and offense worked together as planned in this formation /a/ had trouble scoring. Do note this was the highest scoring team in the past tournament, beating them while keeping our goal at 0 is very promising.

>Possible changes

Im thinking tweaking the cards for the fullbacks, in this formation it is imperative they act as planned, or else our forwards have to take the full brunt of the rival defense.

Overall, not as bad as I expected. /a/s formation allows for stealing the ball quickly and forming deadly attacks in numbers, however, i'd say we have a good chance.

>Other comments

Do note these rosters are the ones used during the last tournament. Teams change, rosters change etc.

>>3533

up next is /bane/. Will post later as this was quite tedious. Gonna take a break, will post later today.

>>3533

>>3534

I enjoy the enthusiasm but reminder that this isn't about winning or losing games but more just about having the board get represented and having fun.

>>3535

I get that this is not about e-sports but come on man lets not be overly "pc" either. This isnt some middleschool "all participants are winners" shit. Theres nothing wrong with a bit of a competitive spirit and analysing whats wrong with your team through trial matches. It isnt unfair/e-sports shit. Afterall, there is no "best formation" as all of them have their weaknesses, Im just trying to minimize the damage since there is no live managing.

>>3533

>>3532

>>3534

Okay here's the results against bane:

>Match1

(P) 1-2

>Match2

1-0 (P)

>Match3

3-1 (P)

>Match4

2-4 (P)

>Match5

0-6 (P)

>Match6

8-3 (P)

>Match7

6-0 (P)

>Match8

1-3 (P)

>Match9

1-2 (P)

>Match10

2-2 (P)

(4-3 in extra time)

>Conclusions/theories

As inconclusive as it gets with a 50% win rate. However, some positive things were seen here:

>Scored in every match except match 5

The lethargic attack seen against /a/ was not present anymore, could be due to /bane/s worse defense due to its formation.

>Effective fullbacks

It seems, so far, fullbacks have only had problems with /a/, could be due to their intense pressure combined with their own offensive fullbacks of their own.

>Possesion

Oddly enough, the only match were /b/ had more possesion they lost. It was extremely close though, it seems this formation is better suited without the ball, however, having possesion doesn't seem to harm it as much.

>Xetlbel

His playstyle is Classic Number 10. From what Ive noticed from these 20 matches is that not only his form is not on par with the rest of the team (apparently using this playstyle takes -10 points from work rate for some reason) but his input in attack is not enough. A change in Xetlbel's playstyle (and possibly cards) is of the utmost importance in order for him to fit into the team's playstyle because right now his input is unnoticeable.

Will continue tomorrow if I have time, however, these ones will have a changed Xetlbel as I am completely sure his playstyle simply does not fit with the teams formation. Im thinking a box-to-box would be more appropriate, however, that might make his work-rate too high. Maybe creative-playmaker might be more appropriate. Will test soon.

>>3539

Here are the results against /co/. Also, not going to bother with (P) since /co/ had the most possesion in every match.

>Match1

0-4

>Match2

2-1

>Match3

2-0

>Match4

4-1

>Match5

1-2

>Match6

2-4

>Match7

2-2 (4-3)

>Match8

0-0 (2-1)

>Match9

3-0

>Match10

2-3

>Conclusions theories

Overall, a good dominance over /co/ in most matches except the first one. Changing Xetlbel from a Classic N10 playstyle to a Hole Player playstyle has really changed the attacking prowess of this formation without losing his defensive responsibilities. It also takes some of the responsibility away from Dubs Guy, which, if he had a bad match = sure defeat for /b/.

Was hoping for a 70% win rate, yet a 60% is decent. Might make some minor tweaks here and there but, for the moment, this seems to be the best we can squeeze out of this formation.

Things are looking very promising if /b/ can not only survive but beat teams playing with 2 Golden Strikers, my hypothesis is that against teams that have their medals spread out like /v/ we will be able to dominate thanks to our formation. We will see when the moment comes. For now this is the only test Im running today unless I get all my coursework done for the day.

Also, I understand this evidence is not conclusive, I said myself the sample size is too small, but any anon lurking has any inputs or ideas please post.

>>3541

Your logic is sound, however it's all speculation until we start playing against the updated teams. With any hope we'll get a few warm ups in before the actual tournament so we can see where to improve.

>>3542

Well from what I've noticed here at /icup/ most of the team changes are superfluous. Most changes are player changes (which I guess will also include playstyle changes & cards) if any, as many boards have made no changes at all like /pol/.

So far I have not seen any of the consolidated teams like /a/ or /v/ propose any major changes such as formation so I'd say its a fair test in terms of how close the teams in the test will look like the teams in the tournament.

Also, will be running tests against /furry/ later on today, and possibly one other team if I've got the time. So far, most small teams like /furry/ and /co/ have similar formations so I wont expect major changes, however, against teams like /gamergate/ and /v/ that have either unorthodox formations or spread out medals I'm hoping to see some drastic changes.

Will post soon.

>>3541

Here are the results against /furry/

>Match1

1-1 (5p-4p) (penalties)

>Match2

3-2

>Match3

0-7

>Match4

0-3

>Match5

0-3

>Match6

1-2

>Match7

3-3 (5-6)

>Match8

3-4

>Match9

2-1

>Match10

3-4

>Conclusions/theories

Quite the surprise here, a 30% win rate against a team eliminated in the 1st round. The problem seems to stem from our formation vs their formation:

>quick pressure

It seems their formation allows for this due to the mix of their 4 midfielders (all of them with offensive and defensive responsibilities) combined with their 2 gold Strikers which overpowered our midfield meaning less balls being fed to our strikers.

It seems nothing can really be done against this team with our current formation, hopefully we won't run into them in the tournament. However, on a positive note, Xetlbel was extremely important scoring goals in the matches /b/ won (& lost) which probably is the reason why /b/ even has a 30% win rate. Previous Xetlbel wouldnt have scored any of those goals meaning a possible worse scenario. Overall, interesting results, hope we dont run into them.

Up next is /gamergate/ will be running the tests tonight, expect them in a couple hours or so.

>>3552

Here are the results against /gamergate/

>Match1

0-1

>Match2

1-2

>Match3

4-1

>Match4

2-0

>Match5

1-0

>Match6

1-2

>Match7

1-0

>Match8

0-2

>Match9

0-0 (1-0)

>Match10

2-2 (2-4)

>Conclusions/theories

Surprising in terms of how balanced it was when I was expecting a major dominance against these types of teams. Do note the low goal count in every match, it seems /gamergate/s formation is quite defensive much like ours yet their play is based on possesion whilst /b/s is based on counter-attacks. From what I noticed, when /gamergate/ scored the first goal it became increasingly difficulty for /b/ to score due to not only /gg/s defensive nature but also their high possesion count (beat us in possesion in every match).

While neither team dominated, against this team in the tournament, more often than not, whoever scores the first goal will most likely win.

Okay, here are the results against /intl/

>Match1

2-1

>Match2

0-4

>Match3

2-1

>Match4

2-2 (7p-8p) (Penalties)

>Match5

2-3

>Match6

2-0

>Match7

1-2

>Match8

1-2

>Match9

2-4

>Match10

5-2

>Conclusions/theories

Somewhat surprising results due to /intl/s odd formation (3-2-3-2) yet nothing too alarming. Same win percentage as /b/ had against /a/ however this was one of the teams that fell in the first round.

The problem seems to stem from the fact that our fullbacks didnt fulfill their offensive responsibilities due to /intl/s wingers. The intl wingers were constantly attacking and feeding balls to the offense as well as defending any of our fullbacks runs meaning no balls being fed from the outside of the field which would essentially destroy /intl/ since they have no fullbacks.

Nevertheless, apart from match 2, all of the matches were fairly close with some really good performances from Xetlbel. Still not perfect since I'd rather have him feed balls and run into space rather than viceversa. Good stuff overall, up next will be /k/, 3rd runner up of the Summercup.

Will post tonight.

Still here. Still supporting my team. You're doing good work, TheNameFag

>>3572

Oh just letting you know, /intl/ isn't playing anymore.

>>3623

>>3622

>>3622

Sorry, life happened and I lot track/was too busy. Will be resuming this daily once more. Here are the results against /pol/

>Match1

0-5

>Match2

1-2

>Match3

0-2

>Match4

1-1 (8p-7p)

>Match5

2-3

>Match6

1-2

>Match7

1-1 (2-1)

>Match8

2-3

>Match9

0-2

>Match10

1-2

>Conclusions/theories

The worst result so far and quite surprising as well. 3 Matches were /b/ didnt score, and they only won in extra time, couldn't beat /pol/ within the 90 mins (which could prove disastrous if playing in the same group stage)

The problems stems from /pol/s formation vs /b/s. Wingers rarely advance due to strikers pressure & /b/s strikers are constantly facing 5-6 defenders (2 of them being the silver defensive mids). Maybe if I changed the tactics to a much more compact defense the results would have differed, however, I fear doing such a thing would leave /b/ undefended against teams that attack mainly through the wings such as /pone/ or /sp/. I will ponder and possibly test the aforementioned tweaks against /pol/ once im done testing every team to see if my assumption is correct.

Lets hope we don't run into /pol/ in the round robin stage.

>>3623

Why not? What the fuck is their problem?

>>3633

Dont read too much into it.

Ive done my own testing on formations. It all seems to indicate that odds are roughly 50-50 regardless of the setup. Running 10 matches isnt enough to get a good indication in some cases (you might need at least 20-30 matches).

Really, nobody has an advantage here and whoever wins is mostly lucky as hell. Just enjoy the show fellas.

>>3639

They simply don't give a shit about having a team and don't want to be associated here.

Regardless we're still at 31 teams at the moment and we just need /islam/ or another team to replace them.

>>3639

/ints/ and /intl/ don't give a fuck about it, and neither does /int/ to which I offered the team.

>>3649

Well that's sad. Thank you anyways for all the work you've done Sloveniabro. If you wanna keep staying around and helping the new teams out with exports and shit that would be cool.

>>3643

I know with such a small sample size the results wont be as conclusive, however, while RNG does play a heavy role in the matches, formation (much like IRL football) does also play an important role.

Lets say a board decides they want their team to play a counterattack kind of play. If they choose a poor formation and a poor combination of player styles with it then the team will simply be a mess, I doubt that under all circumstances the odds will always be 50-50, hence the testing of /b/s formation and player styles.

>>3643

>50-50 regardless of setup

lol

>>3622

rep here, everything is up to date and the export has been posted in the sticky. Made some finishing tweaks to tactics which have made the team overall more efficient. Heres the pastebin with our anthem info:

http://pastebin.com/2UMDXEH4

Namefag here again. Sorry for the hiatus, however, here are the results against /n/s final export. Next up is /hebe/ which is also the final export. Do note these results came from our last team export which differs from the one used for previous test matches. I believe the change in tactics overall helped us, as the transitions from defense to offense is more distinct now and defense has also improved vastly.

>Match1

6-2

>Match2

0-1

>Match3

2-1

>Match4

3-1

>Match5

4-3

>Match6

3-3 (4-4 extra time) (3p-4p)

>Match7

3-1

>Match8

2-3

>Match9

0-1

>Match10

4-2

>Win Percentage & Formation

A very promising 60% win rate against a team that on paper is very offensive. The problem with a 3-4-3 formation is that it hindered the fullbacks' ability to join the attack and transition from defense to offense, however, when this was accomplished the play always ended in goal or a chance created. The matches were the fullbacks were always in a defensive mindset proved to be harder to win. Still, a pretty good result against a very offensive, winger heavy team.

>Goals

Total Goals for /b/ = 27. Total for /n/ = 18. Good goal difference, not only that but 74% of the goals scored were from Dubs Guy with a whopping 20 goals under his belt. A 2.0 scoring coefficient of the striker shows how resourceful and useful the formation is to squeeze the best of his abilities.

>Pass Median & Possesion Median

The lowest pass accuracy percentage was 67% and the highest was 81%. The median was 73%. This stems from the way our formation plays: more riskier balls and less passing around like other teams. Efficiency over excessive passing.

The Possesion Median was 39%, the highest being 48% and the lowest being 28%. Possesion always belonged to /n/, however, the quality of possesion (except for the lost matches) belonged to /b/. By quality I mean the ability to create chances from the possesion, not just pass it around and around.

Overall, /n/ has a very offensive team that will probably have a good run in the cup, as long as their flimsy defense doesn't fuck their day up.

>>3855

Heres the results against /hebe/s final export.

>Match1

3-2

>Match2

3-4

>Match3

3-0

>Match4

2-2 (3-2 extra time)

>Match5

5-4

>Match6

2-2 (3-2 extra time)

>Match7

1-2

>Match8

1-2

>Match9

4-3

>Match10

1-2

>Win Percentage & Formation

A very promising 60% win rate. Their 4-3-3 formation is very balanced as 3/4 medals were in offensive positions. Their fullbacks proved to be quite offensive as well meaning the full-offensive nature of our fullbacks was hindered in defensive responsibilities.

>Goals

/b/ = 25. /hebe/ = 23. A very minor goal difference, with all of the matches being extremely close. Dubs guy had 17 goals = 68% of goals scored and a 1.7 coefficient. The only difference between here and /n/ was that when Dubs Guy didnt score the match was a sure loss.

>Pass & Possesion median

The lowest passing accuracy% was 68 and the highest 80%. The median was 73% like against /n/. The possesion median was 39%, the lowest entry being 37 and the highest being 47%. Once more, median was equal to /n/s matches meaning /b/ can survive and thrive without possesion, something possesion heavy teams have trouble doing.

Overall, a good result against a winger heavy team, this change in tactics has made this defense more compact and the transition between offense and defense more nuanced (fullbacks finally join the attacks like intended!). /hebe/ will probably have a good run in the cup so expect them in the later rounds.

>>3856

Here's the results against /a/s final export.

>Match1

3-3 (4-5 extra time)

>Match2

1-6

>Match3

2-3

>Match4

2-0

>Match5

1-4

>Match6

1-0

>Match7

4-3

>Match8

1-1 (1-2 extra time)

>Match9

3-5

>Match10

3-1

>Win Percentage & Formation.

40% win rate but with quite the distinction from the results on >>3533 mainly the fact that /b/ scored in every match and the goal average wasn't so different. Their 4-3-1-2 formation is both heavy in attack and defense, this is clearly the team to beat in the cup, they will most likely be reaching the later stages of the cup. However, I am comfident in /b/ as 2 of /a/s victories came in extra time, and apart from the 2nd match blowout, the matches were very close.

>Goals

/b/ = 21 (23 in extra). /a/ = 26 (28 in extra). A minor goal difference taking into account the final result. Dubs guy scored 10 goals, resulting in a 1.0 coefficient and accounting for 48% of the goals. Dubs seems to have problems scoring against /a/s sturdier defense but on a positive note, /b/ wasn't as dependent on his goals to win.

>Pass & Possesion Median

The lowest passing accuracy was 65% and the highest 82%. The median was 78%, somewhat higher than the other two matches. The fullbacks had a bit more space to work than the previous two which could have decided this higher median. The lowest possesion was 36% and the highest 44%, making the median 40%. Not much difference than the previous.

Overall, promising results against the reigning champions, the change in tactics proved to be effective as /b/s attack isn't as lethargic as shown here>>3533 /a/ will probably go far in this cup, however, I am confident in giving them a run for their money, something no team was able to do last cup.

>>3863

Heres the results against /leftypol/s final export.

>Match1

2-1

>Match2

2-4

>Match3

1-2

>Match4

2-1

>Match5

1-1 (5p-4p)

>Match6

2-2 (5p-4p)

>Match7

3-2

>Match8

1-2

>Match9

0-1

>Match10

0-5

>Win Percentage & Formation

A decent 50% win rate. However, two of those wins came from penalties. It seems a stalemate is to be expected when playing /lefty/, apart from the last blowout, matches were defensive on both ends and it was a continuous fight for the ball with little shots on either end. Their 4-2-1-3 ensures strong offensive capabilities which were efficiently defended yet it meant less balls being fed to Dubs Guy, hence the low scores.

>Goals

/b/ = 14. /leftypol/ = 21. Quite the difference for a 50% win rate, this is due to /lefty/s more offensive nature. Dubs Guy scored 10 goals, in other words a 1.0 coefficient, and he totaled 71% of the goals. Our chances lie on his goal scoring ability and /b/s sturdy defense if /b/ is to beat /leftypol/.

>Pass & Possesion Median.

The highest passing accuracy% was 87, the lowest 66. The median was 70%, the lowest so far. This is probably due to /leftypols/ domination of the midfield and sturdy defense, I was surprised to see their medal strikers coming down to their own area to defend.

The possesion median was 37%, highest being 44%, lowest being 35%. Not surprising here, still a bit lower than previous entries.

Overall, /leftypol/ changed their team to a much more offensive, stamina heavy team which will probably put a lot of teams into trouble.

>>3875

heres the results against /pone/s final export:

>Match1

1-0

>Match2

3-5

>Match3

5-2

>Match4

2-2 (3-2 extra time)

>Match5

5-2

>Match6

1-2

>Match7

2-1

>Match8

2-4

>Match9

1-2

>Match10

3-3 (4-3 extra time).

>Win Percentage & Formation

A 50% win rate against a good team. Two of the wins came in last minute extra time goals though. Their formation, 4-2-2-2 allows for heavy winger play, which meant that our fullbacks were busy in defensive responsibilities rather than offensive ones, however, that ensures winger heavy teams won't rape /b/ from the sidelines at least.

>Goals

/b/ = 24 (26). /pone/ = 23. Insubstantial goal difference, yet /b/ still remained victorious. 50% of the goals came from Dubs Guy with a 1.3 coefficient resulting in 13 goals. Noteworthy performance of Xetlbel with 6 goals for a non-striker.

>Pass & Possesion median.

Here we found some interesting results. The highest pass median so far, 75.5% with a highest entry of 80% and a lowest of 66%. Not much difference to the other entries.

Possesion was a different story though. Highest possesion median so far: 50.5%, with 6 of the matches possesion being over 50, highest being 53% and the lowest 47%. The fight for the midfield was constant and probably due to /pone/s less intensive pressure (still intensive, yet noticeably laxer than other teams) we see these surprising results. Even then, possesion did not ensure winning. From /b/s 5 victories, only 2 had higher than 50. The other 3 were as follows: 50%, 47% and 48%.

Overall, a good result yet without an advantage or competitive edge it really is up to how well the offense and defense does. The two blowouts came from nullifying /pone/s sideline game, something incredibly difficult due to their medals being present on the wings. Hopefully, we wont run into /pone, and if we do, hope for a good day.

>>3884

*60% win rate not 50%.

*3/6 won matches with >50% possesion.

Here are the results against /sp/s final export

>Match1

1-3

>Match2

1-1 (1-2 extra time)

>Match3

1-1 (5p-6p)

>Match4

2-0

>Match5

1-1 (3-1 extra time)

>Match6

3-0

>Match7

2-3

>Match8

1-0

>Match9

0-2

>Match10

1-2

>Win Percentage & Formation

a 50% win rate. Not bad against one of the highest goal scoring teams in the previous cup. Also, two of their wins (versus one of ours) came in extra time. Their 4-2-3-1 (one of the most common formations from what I'm seeing, not surprising since /a/ won the cup with that one) allows for good offensive play, yet there werent any blowouts. It may be /sp/ has some trouble against defense heavy teams like /b/. A contributing factor could be that /sp/ plays with a flat back defense, ie - the fullbacks do not join attacks. In fact, I was surprised they aren't even technically fullbacks, they're set as CB's according to their tactics for some reason.

>Goals

/b/ = 14. /sp/ = 12. (16-13). Insubstantial goal difference in what was a stalemate of matches. Rare superiority on either side, both defenses were staunch. Dubs guy scored 9 goals accounting for 56% of the goals and a 0.9 coefficient, his lowest so far. However, he was present in assists when not scoring.

>Pass & Possesion Median

The possesion median was the lowest so far with 29%, the highest entry being 22% and the highest 40%. /sp/ had an abnormally high possesion for their formation (something /a/ and /christian/ which share the same formation did not). It could be due to their more intensive pressure in the midfield or due to their flatback defense.

The passing median was 76%, high entry being 81% and low being 70%. No surprises here, in fact, that is a pretty good passing rate taking into account /sp/ had a sizeable percentage of the possesion.

Overall, a good result against one of the very offensive teams of the previous cup iteration, however, it seems they have made their defense a bit tighter thanks to their flat back. Im quite confident in our ability to beat them, however, luck may be quite a strong component in this one.

>>3893

Results against /christian/s export. I havent been able to find their final export, so this is the one used in their last cup. Hopefully, differences aren't so nuanced.

>Match1

3-3 (5-4 extra time)

>Match2

1-0

>Match3

2-1

>Match4

1-4

>Match5

0-3

>Match6

2-1

>Match7

1-5

>Match8

1-3

>Match9

3-4

>Match10

4-2

>Win Percentage & Formation

50% win rate against the finalist. A very good result against the most goal scoring team in the tournament. One of the wins came in extra time though. Their formation is 4-2-3-1 like /a/ and /sp/.

>Goals

/b/ = 18. /christian/ = 26 (20-27). Not surprising coming from the highest scoring offense in the previous tournament. In fact, if it weren't for /b/s 5 man defense it probably would've been worse since the fullbacks were quite prolific in defense. Dubs Guy scored 9 goals, 45% of the goals. A 0.9 coefficient which is like /sp/s is his lowest.

>Pass & Possesion Median

The pass median was 76.5% and the possesion was 35%. Nothing too drastic, very close to the results against /a/ /n/ and /hebe/.

Overall, taking into account this was the finalist team and the highest goal scorers these results are quite good. Despite not scoring as much as they did, the result is a tie, like I've said before: the difference between a 10-0 and a 1-0 is the goal difference, the result is the same.

>>3668

I am correct though.

I went full autism and protocoled 250+ games (plus additional results I wrote down before the first icup). I used custom teams with identical players and set them with the same conditioning.

The results were pretty much 50-50 between all setups, taking into account the margin of error. Also, any statistical advantage you might have with a certain setup can easily be nullified with conditioning. A team with everybodys condition in the red vs a team with everybody in the green (everything else being identical) can get a win rate of ~70-30.

With that said, nothing will actually guarantee you a win. PES is still a random number generator at heart.

>>3893

My previous setup had the RB and LB play as RMF and LMF during offensive but that was largely unnecessary because LB and RB will bomb forward anyway. In addition I changed the instructions to 'maintain formation' because the AI went full retard sometimes and it was just painful to watch. Also, Im starting to suspect that there might be some hard-coded behaviour in certain teams, maybe because Konami wanted those teams to play more like their real-life counterparts.

>>3896

0-0-10 formation but the point stands

>>3896

You need to have at least one player in each third of the field, PES wont let you do anything incredibly stupid. If you start using editors all bets are off anyway because you are essentially modifying the game at that point.

FYI, I have actually tested all-CB and all-CF formations as well, though not as extensively. I remember that the results werent all that crazy. And anyway my point still stands, all the setups that were used in the previous cup (and some that werent) yield results that are on par with each other. If you want to be a bigger autist than me and start arguing past semantics then go right ahead.

>>3895

>250 games

Holy shit son. But I think the problem with your tests lie in the fact that you are running perfectly equal teams. If they have the same form, same stats, same cards etc then of course youre going to get a 50-50 result. The cup, however, wont have this.

Also, I think making all your defensive players cbs is dumb, mainly because of the height problem. The streamer is going to make changes based on fatigue and form. He doesnt know the players qualities. While making changes for /sp/ based on that I found you had CBs (actual CBs, not CBs as fullbacks) which were tiny. You are essentially putting /sp/ in trouble against teams playing longballs or from corners.

Coudnt you just choose defensive lbs and thats it? Its a playstyle.

>>3898

because even on few defenders pes always selcets 2 players 2 defend as CBs

on medium at min 3 and on many at min 4

Alright faggots since we already know our group opponents here are the results against them.

>Things to note:

Note that group stage will (probably) not have OT so those matches will be counted as draws. However, we might encounter these teams later in the tournament (assuming we pass) so the information was left as is.

Also, note that match order will also be important, there is no way to know (IE- i'm not going to bother emulating it) how the other teams will fare against each other.

Senran

Formation: 3-2-3-2

>1st

1-4

>2nd

1-3

>3rd

0-5

>4th

2-9

>5th

3-3 (3-5 OT)

>6th

0-1

>7th

1-1 (2-1 OT)

>8th

2-3

>9th

3-1

>10th

4-4 (5-5 OT) (5p-3p)

>Win Percentage

Win percentage is 10%. Complete domination by /senran/ which has probably the most offensive team in the tournament. The most likely scenario in the group stage will be a loss. If its a draw that percentage increases to 30%. Let's hope for a draw at least.

>Formation & Goals

Their formation is incredibly offensive. Only three defenders meant that counter attacks could have been deadly however our flanks never got far due to the intensive pressure and their domination in the midfield. The goal difference is also absurd: 17 (/b/) vs 34 (/senran/). Dubs scored a measly 8 goals (0.8 coefficient.

>Pass & Possesion Median

The possesion median was 46% and the passing median was 76%. The possesion median is pretty high yet Senran still managed to dominate with their quick pressure.

>Conclusions

Practically a sure loss. The best case scenario would probably be a draw since a win seems too far-fetched. Hopefully their crazy offensive doesn't do well against /bane/ and /cuteboys/.

>>4058

Done goofed here

Formation is 4-2-2-2

Their Central midfield made life difficult for Xetl, Spidey and Dubs while the offensive midfielders made sure to put constant through balls and blocking winger attacks.

Cuteboys

>Formation

3-2-3-2

>1st

0-2

>2nd

3-1

>3rd

0-0 (3p-5p)

>4th

0-3

>5th

2-0

>6th

2-0

>7th

3-1

>8th

1-2

>9th

0-3

>10th

0-1

>Win Percentage

4 wins and a draw ensuring a 40% win rate to their 50% win rate. Nothing too drastic here, the odds are slightly in their favour though, which probably means this match will be decisive on whether or not /b/ survives the groupstage.

>Goals & Formation

A surprisingly offensive formation and unorthodox formation for /cuteboys/. However the goal difference wasn't so vast: 11 (/b/) vs 13 (/cuteboys/). Dubs scored 7 goals (0.7 coefficient) accounting for 63% of the goals. There weren't any blowouts or crazy comebacks, however their formation does allow for stopping winger attacks.

>Pass & Possesion Medians

The possesion median was 39% and the passing median was 78%. Nothing too drastic or different to other results.

>Conclusions

Probably the most important match for /b/ in the groupstage. This match will probably dictate whether or not /b/ survives since a win against senran is very unlikely and a win against /bane/ is very likely.

Bane

>Formation

4-3-2-1

>1st

2-1

>2nd

3-3 (5-3 OT)

>3rd

2-1

>4th

4-2

>5th

3-1

>6th

1-3

>7th

1-0

>8th

1-3

>9th

1-1 (5p-4p)

>10th

4-0

>Win Percentage

A very promising win percentage of 60%. If we encountered this team in an elimination phase that would rise to 80% by counting the two draws. This match is, most likely, to be a win for /b/ or at least a draw.

>Formation & Goals

A decent goal difference: 22 (/b/) vs 15 (/bane/). Dubs scored 9 goals (0.9 coefficient) and Xetlbel as well. This was Xetlbels best record so far as he normally fluctuates between 2-6 goals in other matches. Xetlbel found a lot of spaces in the midfield thanks to the wingers finding a lot of space on the flanks. It seems /bane's/ formation is not good for wide pressure.

>Pass & Possesion Median

Possesion median is 41.5% and Pass median is 74%. Nothing too drastic either.

>Conclusions

This should be a win for /b/ in the groupstage. Of course, we never now how /bane/ will fare against the other yet its good to know /b/ has a safety net.

>>4061

>>4060

>>4058

GROUP STAGE CONCLUSION

It all really depends on the order of the matches and how each team plays against each other. While a loss against /senran/ is the most likely scenario, for all we know /senran/ could do poorly against the other two. /b/ on its own terms has a good chance to pass the group stage but it all depends on the match against /cuteboys/.

Well, this was my last analysis. So get ready and get hype for this /cup/. Even if we don't win be sure as hell its not because we half-assed it.

>>4062

I like your commitment to seeing your team succeed. Shame /b/ always gets hit with spammers and flooders.