I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA View only = 16 CA Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference. Expand
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA Expand One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
ifilipic16 said: One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not. Expand I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast. An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games. An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast. An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games. An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important. Expand
There is potentially a simpler solution: Check the (player with the) maximum CA of the league, the average and the mean CA of the league.
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached.
Jolt said: There is potentially a simpler solution: Check the (player with the) maximum CA of the league, the average and the mean CA of the league.
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached. Expand It's a bit hard to check, but I checked a few teams and the highest was 86 CA.
Recall that a player grew from 88 CA to 96 CA in this division.
So I guess it's unlikely to be simply a CA ceiling based on CA of players in the division. It could be all sorts of things. It's an interesting question in itself that may be too difficult to work out, but what I will be able to do is find out what division/clubs are best to loan out to with some precise data.
Since I controlled player reputation, I think that can be ruled out as the factor.
It is likely competition reputation obviously. Perhaps it tells us a little extra about the nature of playing players at older ages in u18s/reserve matches. Perhaps competition reputation is limiting the CA growth at high CAs, but if you had a 1 CA player they might actually grow to 20 CA rapidly.
I thought I had overlooked the most obvious cause, which is semi pro vs full pro club status. But it turns out that it had no effect (same CA results after 3-year loan). The players are on full time contracts though, so I wouldn't necessarily assume this work for a part-time player at a semi pro club.
When I swapped Div 5 and Div 6 rep the results were:
Div 5, 46 rep - 110 CA (117 before) Div 6, 72 rep - 103 CA (96 before)
26 rep = 7 CA 3.5 CA unaccounted for (to make them equal)
Div 5, 46 division rep, 1~600 club rep = 115 CA, 108 CA Div 6, 72 division rep, ~10000 club rep = 124 CA
2450 > 10000 club rep resulted in +21 CA. 1 > 3500 club rep is +5 CA at best.
I reckon club rep is following the same curve observed elsewhere in FM, where it's kind of exponential. The difference between Div 5 and Div 6 club would be approx. ~3 CA.
So
Division rep = 7 CA Club rep = 3 CA
And that solves the missing 3.5 CA from earlier.
However comparison of two players from the samples can be surmised as 3500 > 10000 club rep = +7 CA. It should be +16 CA. This could be the inactive vs. active division difference. When I tested the 117 CA result as inactive instead of active, it became 126 CA. The inactive Div 6 player that was at 96 before, was again 96. So indeed the inactive vs. active division difference appears to be 9 CA in this case.
So what we can say so far is that both division rep and club rep set ceilings on your player's CA growth. The division is probably more important than the club they're loaned to. Loaning to inactive division appears to be better, but not if you have to drop a division tier to do so.
Thinking about this as a whole, you want to loan players to divisions that are weak for their reputation. That way the player will be played more games, which is their rate of CA growth, and the high reputation will lift the ceiling on their CA growth.
So what is the ideal club or division to loan to? I found a number of good options, but realized there is more to consider, particularly when picking an affiliate for loans.
In order of importance:
Ability of club to play your players (i.e. foreign player limit) Lower quality of the club's existing players (to ensure get minutes played) Either inactive or top division or already loaded league (to avoid processing slowdowns) Small div size (avoid processing slowdowns, only if active league) Many games during season but fixtures not too crammed (minutes played + avoid injuries) Good Div reputation Good Club reputation Stable team in league (at least mid-table, or no relegation - for affiliate loan club) Good training facilities (10+) Dual use (newgen production, merchandising) Low altitude Same language (or language you want a player to learn, to blend with foreign team-mates later)
In order to benefit from a high rep low quality league, the league would have to be active. With that in mind I suggest the following (if English team):
Scotland Div 1 - Middle team (Hibernian/Hearts/St Mirren)
Pros: High rep (142), 100% English language, good processing speed, occasional newgens Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Switzerland Div 1 - Middle team (Zurich)
Pros: High rep (138), best processing speed, 70% English language, decent newgens Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Norway Div 1 - Middle team (Stabaek)
Pros: High rep (135), suits lower quality loanee, decent processing speed, 95% English language, occasional newgens Cons: Relegation spots
England Div 2 - Middle team
Pros: High rep (134), 100% English language Cons: Relegation/Promotion spots, high quality loanee required
USA Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: High rep (133), no relegation, 100% English language, merchandising, decent newgens (not sure if required to be active for this) Cons: Bad processing speed, high quality loanee required
South Korea Div 1 - Middle team (Pohang)
Pros: Fairly high rep (127), good processing speed, merchandising, decent newgens Cons: 0% English language
England Div 3 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language Cons: Low rep (107), relegation/promotion spots
Australia Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: No relegation, good processing speed, 100% English language, merchandising, occasional newgens Cons: Low rep (99), fairly high quality loanee required
England Div 4 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language Cons: Very low rep (85)
England Div 5 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language, significantly better option than active/inactive Div 6 Cons: Very low rep (72)
Am I missing something, or is this the usual collective selection bias coupled with anecdotal evidence?
I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA
Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA
Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA
Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA
View only = 16 CA
Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA
All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference
Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
ifilipic16 said: One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast.
An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games.
An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast.
An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games.
An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
There is potentially a simpler solution: Check the (player with the) maximum CA of the league, the average and the mean CA of the league.
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached.
Jolt said: There is potentially a simpler solution: Check the (player with the) maximum CA of the league, the average and the mean CA of the league.
See if the improvement stops when those thresholds are reached.
It's a bit hard to check, but I checked a few teams and the highest was 86 CA.
Recall that a player grew from 88 CA to 96 CA in this division.
So I guess it's unlikely to be simply a CA ceiling based on CA of players in the division. It could be all sorts of things. It's an interesting question in itself that may be too difficult to work out, but what I will be able to do is find out what division/clubs are best to loan out to with some precise data.
Since I controlled player reputation, I think that can be ruled out as the factor.
It is likely competition reputation obviously. Perhaps it tells us a little extra about the nature of playing players at older ages in u18s/reserve matches. Perhaps competition reputation is limiting the CA growth at high CAs, but if you had a 1 CA player they might actually grow to 20 CA rapidly.
I thought I had overlooked the most obvious cause, which is semi pro vs full pro club status. But it turns out that it had no effect (same CA results after 3-year loan). The players are on full time contracts though, so I wouldn't necessarily assume this work for a part-time player at a semi pro club.
When I swapped Div 5 and Div 6 rep the results were:
Div 5, 46 rep - 110 CA (117 before)
Div 6, 72 rep - 103 CA (96 before)
26 rep = 7 CA
3.5 CA unaccounted for (to make them equal)
Div 5, 46 division rep, 1~600 club rep = 115 CA, 108 CA
Div 6, 72 division rep, ~10000 club rep = 124 CA
2450 > 10000 club rep resulted in +21 CA.
1 > 3500 club rep is +5 CA at best.
I reckon club rep is following the same curve observed elsewhere in FM, where it's kind of exponential. The difference between Div 5 and Div 6 club would be approx. ~3 CA.
So
Division rep = 7 CA
Club rep = 3 CA
And that solves the missing 3.5 CA from earlier.
However comparison of two players from the samples can be surmised as 3500 > 10000 club rep = +7 CA. It should be +16 CA. This could be the inactive vs. active division difference. When I tested the 117 CA result as inactive instead of active, it became 126 CA. The inactive Div 6 player that was at 96 before, was again 96. So indeed the inactive vs. active division difference appears to be 9 CA in this case.
So what we can say so far is that both division rep and club rep set ceilings on your player's CA growth. The division is probably more important than the club they're loaned to. Loaning to inactive division appears to be better, but not if you have to drop a division tier to do so.
Thinking about this as a whole, you want to loan players to divisions that are weak for their reputation. That way the player will be played more games, which is their rate of CA growth, and the high reputation will lift the ceiling on their CA growth.
So what is the ideal club or division to loan to? I found a number of good options, but realized there is more to consider, particularly when picking an affiliate for loans.
In order of importance:
Ability of club to play your players (i.e. foreign player limit)
Lower quality of the club's existing players (to ensure get minutes played)
Either inactive or top division or already loaded league (to avoid processing slowdowns)
Small div size (avoid processing slowdowns, only if active league)
Many games during season but fixtures not too crammed (minutes played + avoid injuries)
Good Div reputation
Good Club reputation
Stable team in league (at least mid-table, or no relegation - for affiliate loan club)
Good training facilities (10+)
Dual use (newgen production, merchandising)
Low altitude
Same language (or language you want a player to learn, to blend with foreign team-mates later)
In order to benefit from a high rep low quality league, the league would have to be active. With that in mind I suggest the following (if English team):
Scotland Div 1 - Middle team (Hibernian/Hearts/St Mirren)
Pros: High rep (142), 100% English language, good processing speed, occasional newgens
Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Switzerland Div 1 - Middle team (Zurich)
Pros: High rep (138), best processing speed, 70% English language, decent newgens
Cons: Relegation spots, fairly high quality loanee required
Norway Div 1 - Middle team (Stabaek)
Pros: High rep (135), suits lower quality loanee, decent processing speed, 95% English language, occasional newgens
Cons: Relegation spots
England Div 2 - Middle team
Pros: High rep (134), 100% English language
Cons: Relegation/Promotion spots, high quality loanee required
USA Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: High rep (133), no relegation, 100% English language, merchandising, decent newgens (not sure if required to be active for this)
Cons: Bad processing speed, high quality loanee required
South Korea Div 1 - Middle team (Pohang)
Pros: Fairly high rep (127), good processing speed, merchandising, decent newgens
Cons: 0% English language
England Div 3 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language
Cons: Low rep (107), relegation/promotion spots
Australia Div 1 - Any team (best training facilities/staff preferred)
Pros: No relegation, good processing speed, 100% English language, merchandising, occasional newgens
Cons: Low rep (99), fairly high quality loanee required
England Div 4 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language
Cons: Very low rep (85)
England Div 5 - Middle team
Pros: 100% English language, significantly better option than active/inactive Div 6
Cons: Very low rep (72)