Eppstar said: Here is the progression of three players after 9 seasons. I used R5 training for the U19s and V7 training for the first and second teams. They spent 2 years in the U19s, 1 year in the second team (Championnat National 2), and the rest in the first team.
PS: I made these three players younger at the start of the game because I wanted to observe their progression over the longest possible period. Expand
That goalkeepers development looks super interesting. We've established roughly how things work for outfield players but I didn't think it would work so well on a GK
I'm not entirely convinced that the "assignment according to weights based on sessions performed" hypothesis is proven. I think alternative hypotheses are that they either are very effective physical training sessions or just intensely work the individual focus which ends up being more effective than a physical training session. Looking into EBFM's data which I only had a vague recollection of the Recovery session didn't have as significant results as I recalled and should give higher growth in Jumping/Strength than Pace/Acceleration if it was the case it was as simple as a session that added attributes, so just being effective sessions may not be true either. Rest wasn't included in the data but I would presume it to be very similar to Recovery. His data also suggests Physical sessions being almost as good for Pace, Acceleration, Agility and Balance as Quickness, but with significantly higher impact on Jumping, Strength, Stamina and Work Rate, so further testing where [Quickness] is replaced by [Physical] seems merited.
To test the weighting hypothesis I'd like to see results from one/several of the most effective programs with the Quickness session excluded (E.g. Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery, or Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery) and compare the results to the programs with quickness included. If the weighting hypothesis is true then excluding the Quickness session would tank physical development as it wouldn't have a weight outside of the individual focus, but I have a feeling that excluding the Quickness sessions will have either a neglible or even positive impact.
AFant said: I'm not entirely convinced that the "assignment according to weights based on sessions performed" hypothesis is proven. I think alternative hypotheses are that they either are very effective physical training sessions or just intensely work the individual focus which ends up being more effective than a physical training session. Looking into EBFM's data which I only had a vague recollection of the Recovery session didn't have as significant results as I recalled and should give higher growth in Jumping/Strength than Pace/Acceleration if it was the case it was as simple as a session that added attributes, so just being effective sessions may not be true either. Rest wasn't included in the data but I would presume it to be very similar to Recovery. His data also suggests Physical sessions being almost as good for Pace, Acceleration, Agility and Balance as Quickness, but with significantly higher impact on Jumping, Strength, Stamina and Work Rate.
To test this I'd like to see results from one/several of the most effective programs with the Quickness session excluded (E.g. Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery, or Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery) and compare the results to the programs with quickness included. If the weighting hypothesis is true then excluding the Quickness session would tank physical development as it wouldn't have a weight outside of the individual focus, but I have a feeling that excluding the Quickness sessions will have either a neglible or even positive impact.
You need to test these two, right? Do they need +[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]? Expand
Yes, I'm sorry. I first assumed it was implied but I edited for clarity right as you posted.
Basically I want to compare the two most simple meta programs to see how they react without the Quickness session. I.e. compared to how they performed with a Quickness session.
To begin with. Since we already have tests of those with [Quickness] included we can compare to the old results.
E: On second thought maybe valuable information could ve gained from 1 and 2 after all, but only drop the focus and keep [Double Intensity] to see if it 7s the focus that make Rest/Recovery sessions so effective.
I.E: [Attacking Shadow Play]+[Double Intensity] And [Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Double Intensity]
To begin with. Since we already have tests of those with [Quickness] included we can compare to the old results.
E: On second thought maybe valuable information could ve gained from 1 and 2 after all, but only drop the focus and keep [Double Intensity] to see if it 7s the focus that make Rest/Recovery sessions so effective.
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in main team
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in U18 team Expand
Do you recommend double intensity for all levels of fatigue or just full intensity with no training at all?
In short, do you recommend the one in the first image or the one in the second image?
1 2
Additionally, I created a program based on your recommendations.
For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.
Wow, baffling result! Removing [Quickness] from M10 somehow removed all non-physical development that should've come from the Match Practice and Attacking sessions and in turn increased the physical development.
These results indicate that the "weight" hypothesis is incorrect, but additive training also doesn't fit and "more impact of additional focus" only partially fits. I have no immediate explanation for how these results can come about.
On a positive note J11 seems to yield even better low-CA results than a pure resting schedule.
AFant said: Wow, baffling result! Removing [Quickness] from M10 somehow removed all non-physical development that should've come from the Match Practice and Attacking sessions and in turn increased the physical development.
These results indicate that the "weight" hypothesis is incorrect, but additive training also doesn't fit and "more impact of additional focus" only partially fits. I have no immediate explanation for how these results can come about.
On a positive note J11 seems to yield even better low-CA results than a pure resting schedule. Expand
[Addtional Focus Quickness] , Addtional Focus = "Super weight" , It can reverse some of the weight of other training
check A-L3,F9,E10 (It is difficult to explain + translate, I have time later to measure all their properties like B10-- L11 and explain them again)
J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them, just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar. This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V). [Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] Can be tied to (Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary
pixar said: Do you recommend double intensity for all levels of fatigue or just full intensity with no training at all?
In short, do you recommend the one in the first image or the one in the second image?
1 2
Additionally, I created a program based on your recommendations.
For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces. Expand
second one intensity.
——For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.
J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them, just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar. This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V). [Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] Can be tied to (Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary Expand
To put it simply: [Recovery]x7 It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight"
To put it simply: [Recovery]x7 It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight" Expand
Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions?
Yarema said: Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions? Expand
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj O11-R11 Recently are busy days for me , and I only test it for one season to save time. You can roughly see the effects of adding [Recovery], for example, D11 and N11
BRAHIM said: so P7 is slightly better than V7? P7: V7:
2- for P7 schedule can i replace rest sessions with 7x recovery sessions like V7?
3- and what schedule you suggest for the pre-season and 0 match per week ?
thanks. Expand
Each of them has its own advantages:
For example, P7 has a higher risk of injury due to more training, For example, P7 can get slightly more CA For example, one of them can get a slightly higher attribute than the other
The effect between them is very similar, so you can use either one
2- for P7 schedule can i replace rest sessions with 7x recovery sessions like V7?
I haven't tried it, but presumably, After you add it, you'll get a slight decrease in technical attributes, and a slight increase in physical attributes , and a slight increase in total CA So you can add to him according to your ideas
3- and what schedule you suggest for the pre-season and 0 match per week ?
+1-2 Friendly Match (manual scheduling) Then, if you think it's necessary, you can add an extra one or two training sessions, For example, add 1 [goalkeeping] or [Set Piece Routines], or whatever you like
Friendly Match : This is the most efficient way to increase Sharpness, player cooperation (friendship), tactical proficiency, and position duty proficiency.
Friendly Match does have some the risk of injury, but if you want to increase Sharpness, player cooperation, tactical proficiency , position duty proficiency , through training , There will be more injuries
harvestgreen22 said: https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj O11-R11 Recently are busy days for me , and I only test it for one season to save time. You can roughly see the effects of adding [Recovery], for example, D11 and N11 Expand
I had switched to 7x recovery + Quickness focus since recovery seems to improve the results somehow, so it's good to see that it is much better than just the ret at super charging pace and acc
Singularity said: I had switched to 7x recovery + Quickness focus since recovery seems to improve the results somehow, so it's good to see that it is much better than just the ret at super charging pace and acc Expand
Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
kvasir said: Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
You're not wrong, it's just that my test sample size is small (note, "test season" on the far right) This is a random error. In other private tests, I calculated the average of a nine-season sample. They're very very close. The difference is that [Recovery] can actively join other training programs and make some attributes to increase/decrease
I lack time now, I will show it in the table when I have time later. After a sufficient sample size, it can be displayed : Which particular attribute of growth does it sacrifice, To add which attribute, And which attribute is reduced
I think this statement that coaches not having much influence on training may make a lot of sense. You can see that the best clubs in the game run by AI do not pay much attention to the number of coaches or their specializations. They do not hire coaches specifically for a given training category, but coaches who have more even skills. Additionally, in an AI team there are often only 2-3 general coaches and definitely more goalkeeping and fitness coaches - maybe even 2 or 3 times more. You would think that this team would have fantastic goalkeepers and fast, strong players in the future, and lack in technical and mental attributes. However, we see that the players in these clubs develop relatively proportionally in every aspect.
I think as already mentioned, the most important is professionalism and playing time. Training facilities also play a role, because when I used standard training programs after improving the facilities I noticed a clear improvement in development, so there is some influence.
Finally, I would like to mention a rather important thing that not everyone knows about. A player's monthly progress (I mean the arrows that appear in the player's profile next to the attributes, which show how the player's attributes have changed) is unique to each player. What I mean is that every player develops on the exact same day every month. Which day? You have to check it in the first month of the game. For each player, it is usually a different day, but it can happen, for example, two players in a team will progress on the same day of the month.
Example: Player X develops on the 18th day of the month. As a test, just save the game day before, load it a few times and you will see that the attributes in his profile will change differently each time. If the training rating on a given day is high and the player is young (in the development phase), there should be a lot of green arrows. However, if the rating is low, red arrows may appear.
It is also important to go to the Development->Progress tab every month because there is a certain UI-related bug in the game. If we go to a new month without entering this tab, the arrows from the previous month will not be removed in the main tab of the player's profile and when the player makes training progress in the new month, we will actually see progress from both months and it will be confusing. Entering the previously mentioned tab will solve this problem, it is important to do it after the player receives progress from training.
I want to mention this to you because I think it may help a little in further tests. The performed tests are great and a big thank you to @harvestgreen22 for a great job.
kvasir said: Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
Ah, I failed to follow the line across properly Yeah, pretty much the same.
On another note, it's better to have the worst youth training facilities and the worst junior coaching, right? So your players come with the fewest "undesirable" attributes as possible.
Shift said: I think this statement that coaches not having much influence on training may make a lot of sense. You can see that the best clubs in the game run by AI do not pay much attention to the number of coaches or their specializations. They do not hire coaches specifically for a given training category, but coaches who have more even skills. Additionally, in an AI team there are often only 2-3 general coaches and definitely more goalkeeping and fitness coaches - maybe even 2 or 3 times more. You would think that this team would have fantastic goalkeepers and fast, strong players in the future, and lack in technical and mental attributes. However, we see that the players in these clubs develop relatively proportionally in every aspect.
I think as already mentioned, the most important is professionalism and playing time. Training facilities also play a role, because when I used standard training programs after improving the facilities I noticed a clear improvement in development, so there is some influence.
Finally, I would like to mention a rather important thing that not everyone knows about. A player's monthly progress (I mean the arrows that appear in the player's profile next to the attributes, which show how the player's attributes have changed) is unique to each player. What I mean is that every player develops on the exact same day every month. Which day? You have to check it in the first month of the game. For each player, it is usually a different day, but it can happen, for example, two players in a team will progress on the same day of the month.
Example: Player X develops on the 18th day of the month. As a test, just save the game day before, load it a few times and you will see that the attributes in his profile will change differently each time. If the training rating on a given day is high and the player is young (in the development phase), there should be a lot of green arrows. However, if the rating is low, red arrows may appear.
It is also important to go to the Development->Progress tab every month because there is a certain UI-related bug in the game. If we go to a new month without entering this tab, the arrows from the previous month will not be removed in the main tab of the player's profile and when the player makes training progress in the new month, we will actually see progress from both months and it will be confusing. Entering the previously mentioned tab will solve this problem, it is important to do it after the player receives progress from training.
I want to mention this to you because I think it may help a little in further tests. The performed tests are great and a big thank you to @harvestgreen22 for a great job. Expand
I know that, In fact, in the Chinese community, someone has find this "growth date" on what mechanism things to generate
"If you have an external scouting tool, you can see the Uid of each player, which is a number, and use this id to subtract 28, and then subtract 1, that is the day the attribute changed." If you subtract 1 and it becomes 0, that's the 28th change.
However, after half a year of sl for 6 calves, it was found that for players who are not so good at ca growth, it is difficult to control ca growth through sl, and often how much is more certain.
But there is also a problem, often do not increase the ca but increase a lot of attributes, that is, the current capability and recommended current capability are unchanged, but a dozen attributes have arrows, I do not know why. " ——In short, this progress can be calculated by the player's UID. Anyway, thank you for reminding
So I run my tests on a season-long, hoping to minimize the amount of error cause by different growth date
If I understand correctly, you don't know why arrows appear in the player's profile and CA remains unchanged. Attributes have decimal values. During training progress, you can receive values of 0.3, 0.6 or 1 (or 0.9, I don't remember exactly). This is shown by the colors of the arrows. The greener the arrow and more upwards, you get a larger value from this set, for example a vertical green arrow is the maximum growth.
What we see in a player profile is simply a rounded value. So, for example, if dribbling is 15.3, it is displayed as 15. In your case, you probably received a low value in training, for example 0.3, having a value for dribbling equal to exactly 15.0. This will give a value of 15.3, so the attribute in the profile will still remain 15 because it will be rounded down.
It is possible, but I have no concrete evidence for it, that the game simply uses integers for all calculations, e.g. CA or player performance on the pitch, etc. In your case, this integer attribute has not changed, so CA has not changed. Of course, the same pattern occurs when we talk about attribute drops.
Has anyone tried this with semi-professional teams? They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example.
If I understand correctly, you don't know why arrows appear in the player's profile and CA remains unchanged. Attributes have decimal values. During training progress, you can receive values of 0.3, 0.6 or 1 (or 0.9, I don't remember exactly). This is shown by the colors of the arrows. The greener the arrow and more upwards, you get a larger value from this set, for example a vertical green arrow is the maximum growth.
What we see in a player profile is simply a rounded value. So, for example, if dribbling is 15.3, it is displayed as 15. In your case, you probably received a low value in training, for example 0.3, having a value for dribbling equal to exactly 15.0. This will give a value of 15.3, so the attribute in the profile will still remain 15 because it will be rounded down.
It is possible, but I have no concrete evidence for it, that the game simply uses integers for all calculations, e.g. CA or player performance on the pitch, etc. In your case, this integer attribute has not changed, so CA has not changed. Of course, the same pattern occurs when we talk about attribute drops. Expand
You are right. I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error
lasko911 said: Has anyone tried this with semi-professional teams? They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example. Expand
You can't do anything fancy in Semi pro, I just do 2x Match Practice + Quickness. Only 1x Quickness for 2 match week. Get a lot of growth without that much decay in Dribbling.
Don't play with CA/PA visible, if players aren't growing - it could be multitude of factors, determination too low, not getting enough minutes, injuries, age etc.
I have had 14/12 player to a 15/16 in 2.5 seasons. There is a bit of RNG involving the growth of each stat. Some have no growth then exploded after they turn 21.
Semi Pro, I would treat player development as a bonus and just pick up the best player possible to promote every season unless they are young and ready to play.
Tip: Don't select individual role training, have found those without role training assigned grow alot faster from my own anecdotal experience.
harvestgreen22 said: You are right. I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error Expand
Maybe I misread the post but the arrows denote the amount of growth, not probability. But growth occurs in increments of 1/200 (i.e. 0.1 attribute points) so it will not necessarily increment the shown attribute. The thresholds are roughly what you listed for the arrow types.
harvestgreen22 said: You are right. I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error Expand
The problem is that in earlier versions of the game, the training progress graph provided decimal values for attributes, so you saw on this graph in Development->Progress tab that the dribbling attribute in October had a value of 15.3, in November 15.6, in December for example there were no changes, i.e. still 15.6, and the next change was for example in February and the attribute had a value of 16.2 because there was an increase of 0.6 in this case.
This pattern still exists, but in the latest versions, the graph only shows integers when hover your mouse over an individual month. You see that the graph line is going up from month to month but you don't know what the growth was. I remember values around 0.3 and 0.6 from previous versions of the game and these were the smallest values. I think there are 3 levels of growth, and the highest is the green vertical arrow.
Currently I don't have any saves from these older versions of the game, but someone who does can load the save and check all values in player profiles.
Eppstar said: Here is the progression of three players after 9 seasons. I used R5 training for the U19s and V7 training for the first and second teams. They spent 2 years in the U19s, 1 year in the second team (Championnat National 2), and the rest in the first team.
PS: I made these three players younger at the start of the game because I wanted to observe their progression over the longest possible period.
That goalkeepers development looks super interesting. We've established roughly how things work for outfield players but I didn't think it would work so well on a GK
I'm not entirely convinced that the "assignment according to weights based on sessions performed" hypothesis is proven. I think alternative hypotheses are that they either are very effective physical training sessions or just intensely work the individual focus which ends up being more effective than a physical training session. Looking into EBFM's data which I only had a vague recollection of the Recovery session didn't have as significant results as I recalled and should give higher growth in Jumping/Strength than Pace/Acceleration if it was the case it was as simple as a session that added attributes, so just being effective sessions may not be true either. Rest wasn't included in the data but I would presume it to be very similar to Recovery. His data also suggests Physical sessions being almost as good for Pace, Acceleration, Agility and Balance as Quickness, but with significantly higher impact on Jumping, Strength, Stamina and Work Rate, so further testing where [Quickness] is replaced by [Physical] seems merited.
To test the weighting hypothesis I'd like to see results from one/several of the most effective programs with the Quickness session excluded (E.g. Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery, or Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery) and compare the results to the programs with quickness included. If the weighting hypothesis is true then excluding the Quickness session would tank physical development as it wouldn't have a weight outside of the individual focus, but I have a feeling that excluding the Quickness sessions will have either a neglible or even positive impact.
FM23 training session data (EBFM): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/iil3uzylhhkakvw7a4eex/Training%207%20for%20Dropbox.xlsx?rlkey=8qe1b84rqx7623tzbkxwjts8b&e=4&dl=0
Tl;dr:
Do a comparative test where you drop the Quickness session altogether:
[Attacking Shadow Play]+quickness focus and double intensity
And/or
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x[Recovery]+quickness focus and double intensity
pixar said: There are too many complicated visual tables on this subject and I find it really tiring to review them.
Can you share the most efficient weekly training program according to the most up-to-date test results in the first post?
Thank you very much in advance.
A relatively simple one (some details may be missed)
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in main team
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in U18 team
AFant said: I'm not entirely convinced that the "assignment according to weights based on sessions performed" hypothesis is proven. I think alternative hypotheses are that they either are very effective physical training sessions or just intensely work the individual focus which ends up being more effective than a physical training session. Looking into EBFM's data which I only had a vague recollection of the Recovery session didn't have as significant results as I recalled and should give higher growth in Jumping/Strength than Pace/Acceleration if it was the case it was as simple as a session that added attributes, so just being effective sessions may not be true either. Rest wasn't included in the data but I would presume it to be very similar to Recovery. His data also suggests Physical sessions being almost as good for Pace, Acceleration, Agility and Balance as Quickness, but with significantly higher impact on Jumping, Strength, Stamina and Work Rate.
To test this I'd like to see results from one/several of the most effective programs with the Quickness session excluded (E.g. Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery, or Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery) and compare the results to the programs with quickness included. If the weighting hypothesis is true then excluding the Quickness session would tank physical development as it wouldn't have a weight outside of the individual focus, but I have a feeling that excluding the Quickness sessions will have either a neglible or even positive impact.
FM23 training session data (EBFM): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/iil3uzylhhkakvw7a4eex/Training%207%20for%20Dropbox.xlsx?rlkey=8qe1b84rqx7623tzbkxwjts8b&e=4&dl=0
Tl;dr:
Do a comparative test where you drop the Quickness session altogether:
[Attacking Shadow Play]
And/or
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x[Recovery]
1.
Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery
2.
Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery
You need to test these two, right?
Do they need +[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]?
I also find it odd that Recovery sessions are good in some programs but not in others.
harvestgreen22 said: 1.
Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery
2.
Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery
You need to test these two, right?
Do they need +[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]?
Yes, I'm sorry. I first assumed it was implied but I edited for clarity right as you posted.
Basically I want to compare the two most simple meta programs to see how they react without the Quickness session. I.e. compared to how they performed with a Quickness session.
AFant said: Yes, I'm sorry. I first assumed it was implied but I edited for clarity right as you posted.
1.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]
2.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]
3.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
4.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
5.
[Physical]
6.
[Quickness]
7.
[Physical]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
8.
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
ok , Now 1-4 on list.
Do you need 5-8? I don't test 5-8 if you don't need it
harvestgreen22 said: 1.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]
2.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]
3.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
4.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
5.
[Physical]
6.
[Quickness]
7.
[Physical]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
8.
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
ok , Now 1-4 on list.
Do you need 5-8? I don't test 5-8 if you don't need it
Oh, I don't think tests without double intensity/focus are required.
Just:
[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
And
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
To begin with. Since we already have tests of those with [Quickness] included we can compare to the old results.
E: On second thought maybe valuable information could ve gained from 1 and 2 after all, but only drop the focus and keep [Double Intensity] to see if it 7s the focus that make Rest/Recovery sessions so effective.
I.E:
[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Double Intensity]
And
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Double Intensity]
AFant said: Oh, I don't think tests without double intensity/focus are required.
Just:
[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
And
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Additional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
To begin with. Since we already have tests of those with [Quickness] included we can compare to the old results.
E: On second thought maybe valuable information could ve gained from 1 and 2 after all, but only drop the focus and keep [Double Intensity] to see if it 7s the focus that make Rest/Recovery sessions so effective.
I.E:
[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Double Intensity]
And
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Double Intensity]
https://pixeldrain.com/u/xQT8i2Bu
harvestgreen22 said: A relatively simple one (some details may be missed)
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in main team
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in U18 team
Do you recommend double intensity for all levels of fatigue or just full intensity with no training at all?
In short, do you recommend the one in the first image or the one in the second image?
1
2
Additionally, I created a program based on your recommendations.
For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.
harvestgreen22 said:
https://pixeldrain.com/u/xQT8i2Bu
Wow, baffling result! Removing [Quickness] from M10 somehow removed all non-physical development that should've come from the Match Practice and Attacking sessions and in turn increased the physical development.
These results indicate that the "weight" hypothesis is incorrect, but additive training also doesn't fit and "more impact of additional focus" only partially fits. I have no immediate explanation for how these results can come about.
On a positive note J11 seems to yield even better low-CA results than a pure resting schedule.
AFant said: Wow, baffling result! Removing [Quickness] from M10 somehow removed all non-physical development that should've come from the Match Practice and Attacking sessions and in turn increased the physical development.
These results indicate that the "weight" hypothesis is incorrect, but additive training also doesn't fit and "more impact of additional focus" only partially fits. I have no immediate explanation for how these results can come about.
On a positive note J11 seems to yield even better low-CA results than a pure resting schedule.
[Addtional Focus Quickness] , Addtional Focus = "Super weight" , It can reverse some of the weight of other training
check A-L3,F9,E10
(It is difficult to explain + translate, I have time later to measure all their properties like B10-- L11 and explain them again)
https://pixeldrain.com/u/6C1HCKvX
https://pixeldrain.com/u/rGmAz3Y7
https://pixeldrain.com/u/9CxMn28p
J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them,
just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar.
This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V).
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
Can be tied to
(Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary
pixar said: Do you recommend double intensity for all levels of fatigue or just full intensity with no training at all?
In short, do you recommend the one in the first image or the one in the second image?
1
2
Additionally, I created a program based on your recommendations.
For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.
second one intensity.
——For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.
that's ok , Arrange it according to your needs
harvestgreen22 said: [Addtional Focus Quickness] , Addtional Focus = "Super weight" , It can reverse some of the weight of other training
check A-L3,F9,E10
(It is difficult to explain + translate, I have time later to measure all their properties like B10-- L11 and explain them again)
https://pixeldrain.com/u/6C1HCKvX
https://pixeldrain.com/u/rGmAz3Y7
https://pixeldrain.com/u/9CxMn28p
J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them,
just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar.
This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V).
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
Can be tied to
(Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary
https://pixeldrain.com/u/QBsRr1bH
check N11
(To save time, I only tested them for 1 season)
To put it simply:
[Recovery]x7
It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week
I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight"
so P7 is slightly better than V7?
P7:
V7:
2- for P7 schedule can i replace rest sessions with 7x recovery sessions like V7?
3- and what schedule you suggest for the pre-season and 0 match per week ?
thanks.
harvestgreen22 said: https://pixeldrain.com/u/QBsRr1bH
check N11
(To save time, I only tested them for 1 season)
To put it simply:
[Recovery]x7
It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week
I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight"
Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions?
Yarema said: Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj
O11-R11
Recently are busy days for me , and I only test it for one season to save time.
You can roughly see the effects of adding [Recovery], for example, D11 and N11
BRAHIM said: so P7 is slightly better than V7?
P7:
V7:
2- for P7 schedule can i replace rest sessions with 7x recovery sessions like V7?
3- and what schedule you suggest for the pre-season and 0 match per week ?
thanks.
Each of them has its own advantages:
For example, P7 has a higher risk of injury due to more training,
For example, P7 can get slightly more CA
For example, one of them can get a slightly higher attribute than the other
The effect between them is very similar, so you can use either one
2- for P7 schedule can i replace rest sessions with 7x recovery sessions like V7?
I haven't tried it, but presumably,
After you add it,
you'll get a slight decrease in technical attributes,
and a slight increase in physical attributes ,
and a slight increase in total CA
So you can add to him according to your ideas
3- and what schedule you suggest for the pre-season and 0 match per week ?
+1-2 Friendly Match (manual scheduling)
Then, if you think it's necessary, you can add an extra one or two training sessions,
For example, add 1 [goalkeeping] or [Set Piece Routines], or whatever you like
Friendly Match : This is the most efficient way to increase Sharpness, player cooperation (friendship), tactical proficiency, and position duty proficiency.
Friendly Match does have some the risk of injury, but if you want to increase Sharpness, player cooperation, tactical proficiency , position duty proficiency , through training , There will be more injuries
harvestgreen22 said: https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj
O11-R11
Recently are busy days for me , and I only test it for one season to save time.
You can roughly see the effects of adding [Recovery], for example, D11 and N11
I had switched to 7x recovery + Quickness focus since recovery seems to improve the results somehow, so it's good to see that it is much better than just the ret at super charging pace and acc
Singularity said: I had switched to 7x recovery + Quickness focus since recovery seems to improve the results somehow, so it's good to see that it is much better than just the ret at super charging pace and acc
Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj
kvasir said: Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj
You're not wrong, it's just that my test sample size is small (note, "test season" on the far right)
This is a random error.
In other private tests, I calculated the average of a nine-season sample. They're very very close.
The difference is that [Recovery] can actively join other training programs and make some attributes to increase/decrease
I lack time now, I will show it in the table when I have time later.
After a sufficient sample size, it can be displayed : Which particular attribute of growth does it sacrifice, To add which attribute,
And which attribute is reduced
I think this statement that coaches not having much influence on training may make a lot of sense. You can see that the best clubs in the game run by AI do not pay much attention to the number of coaches or their specializations. They do not hire coaches specifically for a given training category, but coaches who have more even skills. Additionally, in an AI team there are often only 2-3 general coaches and definitely more goalkeeping and fitness coaches - maybe even 2 or 3 times more. You would think that this team would have fantastic goalkeepers and fast, strong players in the future, and lack in technical and mental attributes. However, we see that the players in these clubs develop relatively proportionally in every aspect.
I think as already mentioned, the most important is professionalism and playing time. Training facilities also play a role, because when I used standard training programs after improving the facilities I noticed a clear improvement in development, so there is some influence.
Finally, I would like to mention a rather important thing that not everyone knows about. A player's monthly progress (I mean the arrows that appear in the player's profile next to the attributes, which show how the player's attributes have changed) is unique to each player.
What I mean is that every player develops on the exact same day every month. Which day? You have to check it in the first month of the game. For each player, it is usually a different day, but it can happen, for example, two players in a team will progress on the same day of the month.
Example:
Player X develops on the 18th day of the month. As a test, just save the game day before, load it a few times and you will see that the attributes in his profile will change differently each time. If the training rating on a given day is high and the player is young (in the development phase), there should be a lot of green arrows. However, if the rating is low, red arrows may appear.
It is also important to go to the Development->Progress tab every month because there is a certain UI-related bug in the game. If we go to a new month without entering this tab, the arrows from the previous month will not be removed in the main tab of the player's profile and when the player makes training progress in the new month, we will actually see progress from both months and it will be confusing. Entering the previously mentioned tab will solve this problem, it is important to do it after the player receives progress from training.
I want to mention this to you because I think it may help a little in further tests. The performed tests are great and a big thank you to @harvestgreen22 for a great job.
kvasir said: Am I reading the table wrong? How is it "much better" if full rest + additional focus quickness (J10) has a score of 4.39 Pace + Acc, while 7 x recovery + aditional focus quickness (R11) sits at 4.36?
Yeah, pretty much the same.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZTwb8Jbj
Ah, I failed to follow the line across properly
On another note, it's better to have the worst youth training facilities and the worst junior coaching, right? So your players come with the fewest "undesirable" attributes as possible.
Shift said: I think this statement that coaches not having much influence on training may make a lot of sense. You can see that the best clubs in the game run by AI do not pay much attention to the number of coaches or their specializations. They do not hire coaches specifically for a given training category, but coaches who have more even skills. Additionally, in an AI team there are often only 2-3 general coaches and definitely more goalkeeping and fitness coaches - maybe even 2 or 3 times more. You would think that this team would have fantastic goalkeepers and fast, strong players in the future, and lack in technical and mental attributes. However, we see that the players in these clubs develop relatively proportionally in every aspect.
I think as already mentioned, the most important is professionalism and playing time. Training facilities also play a role, because when I used standard training programs after improving the facilities I noticed a clear improvement in development, so there is some influence.
Finally, I would like to mention a rather important thing that not everyone knows about. A player's monthly progress (I mean the arrows that appear in the player's profile next to the attributes, which show how the player's attributes have changed) is unique to each player.
What I mean is that every player develops on the exact same day every month. Which day? You have to check it in the first month of the game. For each player, it is usually a different day, but it can happen, for example, two players in a team will progress on the same day of the month.
Example:
Player X develops on the 18th day of the month. As a test, just save the game day before, load it a few times and you will see that the attributes in his profile will change differently each time. If the training rating on a given day is high and the player is young (in the development phase), there should be a lot of green arrows. However, if the rating is low, red arrows may appear.
It is also important to go to the Development->Progress tab every month because there is a certain UI-related bug in the game. If we go to a new month without entering this tab, the arrows from the previous month will not be removed in the main tab of the player's profile and when the player makes training progress in the new month, we will actually see progress from both months and it will be confusing. Entering the previously mentioned tab will solve this problem, it is important to do it after the player receives progress from training.
I want to mention this to you because I think it may help a little in further tests. The performed tests are great and a big thank you to @harvestgreen22 for a great job.
I know that,
In fact, in the Chinese community, someone has find this "growth date" on what mechanism things to generate
from Work of an unknown player in
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1nT421172D/
"If you have an external scouting tool, you can see the Uid of each player, which is a number, and use this id to subtract 28, and then subtract 1, that is the day the attribute changed." If you subtract 1 and it becomes 0, that's the 28th change.
However, after half a year of sl for 6 calves, it was found that for players who are not so good at ca growth, it is difficult to control ca growth through sl, and often how much is more certain.
But there is also a problem, often do not increase the ca but increase a lot of attributes, that is, the current capability and recommended current capability are unchanged, but a dozen attributes have arrows, I do not know why.
"
——In short, this progress can be calculated by the player's UID.
Anyway, thank you for reminding
So I run my tests on a season-long, hoping to minimize the amount of error cause by different growth date
@harvestgreen22
If I understand correctly, you don't know why arrows appear in the player's profile and CA remains unchanged. Attributes have decimal values. During training progress, you can receive values of 0.3, 0.6 or 1 (or 0.9, I don't remember exactly). This is shown by the colors of the arrows. The greener the arrow and more upwards, you get a larger value from this set, for example a vertical green arrow is the maximum growth.
What we see in a player profile is simply a rounded value. So, for example, if dribbling is 15.3, it is displayed as 15. In your case, you probably received a low value in training, for example 0.3, having a value for dribbling equal to exactly 15.0. This will give a value of 15.3, so the attribute in the profile will still remain 15 because it will be rounded down.
It is possible, but I have no concrete evidence for it, that the game simply uses integers for all calculations, e.g. CA or player performance on the pitch, etc. In your case, this integer attribute has not changed, so CA has not changed. Of course, the same pattern occurs when we talk about attribute drops.
Has anyone tried this with semi-professional teams?
They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example.
Shift said: @harvestgreen22
If I understand correctly, you don't know why arrows appear in the player's profile and CA remains unchanged. Attributes have decimal values. During training progress, you can receive values of 0.3, 0.6 or 1 (or 0.9, I don't remember exactly). This is shown by the colors of the arrows. The greener the arrow and more upwards, you get a larger value from this set, for example a vertical green arrow is the maximum growth.
What we see in a player profile is simply a rounded value. So, for example, if dribbling is 15.3, it is displayed as 15. In your case, you probably received a low value in training, for example 0.3, having a value for dribbling equal to exactly 15.0. This will give a value of 15.3, so the attribute in the profile will still remain 15 because it will be rounded down.
It is possible, but I have no concrete evidence for it, that the game simply uses integers for all calculations, e.g. CA or player performance on the pitch, etc. In your case, this integer attribute has not changed, so CA has not changed. Of course, the same pattern occurs when we talk about attribute drops.
You are right.
I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error
lasko911 said: Has anyone tried this with semi-professional teams?
They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example.
You can't do anything fancy in Semi pro, I just do 2x Match Practice + Quickness. Only 1x Quickness for 2 match week. Get a lot of growth without that much decay in Dribbling.
Don't play with CA/PA visible, if players aren't growing - it could be multitude of factors, determination too low, not getting enough minutes, injuries, age etc.
I have had 14/12 player to a 15/16 in 2.5 seasons. There is a bit of RNG involving the growth of each stat. Some have no growth then exploded after they turn 21.
Semi Pro, I would treat player development as a bonus and just pick up the best player possible to promote every season unless they are young and ready to play.
Tip: Don't select individual role training, have found those without role training assigned grow alot faster from my own anecdotal experience.
harvestgreen22 said: You are right.
I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error
Maybe I misread the post but the arrows denote the amount of growth, not probability. But growth occurs in increments of 1/200 (i.e. 0.1 attribute points) so it will not necessarily increment the shown attribute. The thresholds are roughly what you listed for the arrow types.
harvestgreen22 said: You are right.
I saw it in that same video's Comments section, A community player said it. He pointed out that growth is a roll of the dice, with a random chance of full growth or no growth. In terms of numbers, he thinks it's 0.25,0.5,0.75, corresponding to different green arrows.
I set the testing time as 1 season in the hope that this length can reduce the statistical error roughly. Then, for each test, there are 11 players, so the sample size is also increased. In the table, I usually test 3-8 seasons to further reduce the random error
The problem is that in earlier versions of the game, the training progress graph provided decimal values for attributes, so you saw on this graph in Development->Progress tab that the dribbling attribute in October had a value of 15.3, in November 15.6, in December for example there were no changes, i.e. still 15.6, and the next change was for example in February and the attribute had a value of 16.2 because there was an increase of 0.6 in this case.
This pattern still exists, but in the latest versions, the graph only shows integers when hover your mouse over an individual month. You see that the graph line is going up from month to month but you don't know what the growth was. I remember values around 0.3 and 0.6 from previous versions of the game and these were the smallest values. I think there are 3 levels of growth, and the highest is the green vertical arrow.
Currently I don't have any saves from these older versions of the game, but someone who does can load the save and check all values in player profiles.