@harvestgreen22 and for the youth team if i wanna go with CA growth all attribute growth not just only focusing on PACE/ACC we should go for X8 or V7 also fit them?
AFant said: 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. Expand
Shift said: 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. Expand
BRAHIM said: @harvestgreen22 and for the youth team if i wanna go with CA growth all attribute growth not just only focusing on PACE/ACC we should go for X8 or V7 also fit them? Expand
Yes, X8 , V7 They are result of 1.we want as much CA growth as possible, 2.we want Percentage of Pace/Acc in the CA growth as High as possible 3.we want Train as little as possible each week to reduce injuries
This method of rapidly increasing CA inevitably reduces the percentage of Pace/Acc in CA, but the technical and spiritual attributes, they are only low effect, low effect does not mean no effect, they accumulate more also have a strong combat effectiveness
@harvestgreen22 Thank you for all the work you're doing, it's much appreciated. If you have time, would you be able to test: Quickness + Physical + Additional training quickness + double intensity?
Would it be possible to test some other additional focuses? Like strength for jumping reach or ball control for dribbling, maybe others. For example with V7 schedule or whatever people most commonly use except with a different additional focus, and you can probably use same metrics as you already do.
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point.
vdowning36 said: @harvestgreen22 Thank you for all the work you're doing, it's much appreciated. If you have time, would you be able to test: Quickness + Physical + Additional training quickness + double intensity? Expand
Yarema said: Would it be possible to test some other additional focuses? Like strength for jumping reach or ball control for dribbling, maybe others. For example with V7 schedule or whatever people most commonly use except with a different additional focus, and you can probably use same metrics as you already do.
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point. Expand
Yes, you can set the properties you need. It works the same way, transferring a certain percentage of growth weigh to it
I can do "another focus" test next time , You can give an example of which focus you need to test (For example with V7 schedule + xxx focus)
Just looking at the raw results in your most recent post.
By my calculations C12, J11, K10, Q10 are the best options based on how much useful CA they generate.
(@harvestgreen22 I'm not quite sure why you are focussing on E12 and U11?)
Based on my analysis you can pick one of those 4 I listed based on how extreme you want to go with focussing on only developing the 'impactful' attributes.
Most Extreme -> C12 -> J11 -> K10 -> Q10 -> Least Extreme
With C12 and J11 you will lose attributes in other places.
I would say the most 'balanced' option is definitely K10.
(also @harvestgreen22 why did you at some point you switch from 'attacking wings' to 'attacking shadow play'?)
Hey all, been reading all comments and would like to ask if it's okay, in my situation, to change to one of these trainings during a season. Or would you say it's better to wait till the start of a season?
I would also like to ask, to make sure I understand, that with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default? Did I understand that correctly?
flob said: Hey all, been reading all comments and would like to ask if it's okay, in my situation, to change to one of these trainings during a season. Or would you say it's better to wait till the start of a season?
I would also like to ask, to make sure I understand, that with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default? Did I understand that correctly? Expand
you can change it
with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default? Yes
This will maximize the blue highlighting Stats. If you accidentally choose one, don't worry too much, just lose some of the blue highlights and add them to the green
twkmax said: Just looking at the raw results in your most recent post.
By my calculations C12, J11, K10, Q10 are the best options based on how much useful CA they generate.
(@harvestgreen22 I'm not quite sure why you are focussing on E12 and U11?)
Based on my analysis you can pick one of those 4 I listed based on how extreme you want to go with focussing on only developing the 'impactful' attributes.
Most Extreme -> C12 -> J11 -> K10 -> Q10 -> Least Extreme
With C12 and J11 you will lose attributes in other places.
I would say the most 'balanced' option is definitely K10.
(also @harvestgreen22 why did you at some point you switch from 'attacking wings' to 'attacking shadow play'?) Expand
You can choose "Most extreme increase in body Attributes", "Intermediate", "Most extreme Increase in CA" You are free to choose this, according to your needs, your opinion is Good
And then the change, I forget, was someone in our community commented and asked for more of a certain attribute, He convinced me, so I compared the two of them and chose the one he asked for with more attributes You can compare the figures in the table and choose the one you need
I´m training with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in my u19 with maxed out facilities, good youth trainers, good training ratings and Professionalism between 11 and 16 but my players dont even get 10 CA per season. Some player dont even got 1 Acc or Pace after 2 seasons...
Maybe something is wrong with my setup but my youths are not gaining the acc/pace as expected..... should I move them to the first team? Becuase non of the trainings is actually improving anything (including full rest )
I’m looking at implemented Q10 as it seems to distribute the training more evenly.
What is [all attack group but CBs]? Is that just Attack Team session? Expand
Your training is split into 3 groups: goalkeeping, defending, attacking. Defenders and DMs are put in the defending group by default so you have to move the FBs and DMs to the attacking group.
babasalat said: I´m training with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in my u19 with maxed out facilities, good youth trainers, good training ratings and Professionalism between 11 and 16 but my players dont even get 10 CA per season. Some player dont even got 1 Acc or Pace after 2 seasons... Expand
I mentioned it on the first floor (if not, it might have been missed when the translator was translating).
To highlight the differences between different training programs, Before testing, the attributes of all players were set to 10, age 20, potential 200PA, Professionalism 20 And in the top column of the table below, "30" represents 30 games per season. These conditions all increase the amount of CA a player can get "per season". These CAs are then assigned to different training plans.
In other words, if your players do not meet these conditions, the expected effect will be reduced. And if your player's condition is better than that, like Z10 in the table, it changes the condition to 17 years old, so it gets 8 more CA points
This test setting is mainly used to control the variables, and the actual effect you get will vary according to the actual situation
What do you think about Team Cohesion? Asking because I've played a whole season with almost the same players and yet we have like 'neutral' for team cohesion. Would adding a 1 team bonding session to the training schedule mess up with the things?
All these start with Quickness focus. What would happen if we switched away from Quickness to General->Physical, wouldn't that make players overall slower, but stronger in other attributes, especially give them more stamina and work rate to better survive high intensity tactics and more jumping reach to win more headers? Let's say could we test a version of I8, but change from Quickness to Physical? See how much Pace/Acc we sacrifice to get other physical attributes higher?
I did some parallel testing with Ajax, since they have a lot of good youngsters with high PA. In experiment A, I used V7 in first team, U21 and U19. In experiment B, I used assistant manager for training for all teams. At the end of the season, I took note of all CA growth + what attributes rose the most.
In B, when AI controls training, the CA growth is actually bigger. Players grow more rounded and they get more attributes increased. In A, with V7, they get less CA points growth, but ACC/PAC are slightly more increased than in B.
I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest, since I got more growth by simply not touching training. True, ACC/PAC with V7 over a few years are significantly higher, but overall players profit more with AI training.
delra said: All these start with Quickness focus. What would happen if we switched away from Quickness to General->Physical, wouldn't that make players overall slower, but stronger in other attributes, especially give them more stamina and work rate to better survive high intensity tactics and more jumping reach to win more headers? Let's say could we test a version of I8, but change from Quickness to Physical? See how much Pace/Acc we sacrifice to get other physical attributes higher? Expand
check Z19, It's very close to the Quickness version Its biggest benefit is that it adds more Work Rate Because of Randomness,You can't tell the other difference, The difference in the previous tests: the bad side is a slight reduction in Pace and Acceleration
Default test condition It's only been tested once. Randomness introduces errors. All attributes 10, PA200, age 20, injury, dirty 1, Professionalism 20. The team consists of 1 goalkeeper, 2 centre-backs, 2 full-backs, 1 midfielders, 1 front midfielders, 2 wingers and 1 striker. The default distribution in the group, The defensive team has 2 centre-backs, 2 full-backs, 1 centre-back, The attacking team consists of 1 midfielders, 1 midfielders, 2 wingers and 1 striker. The coaching staff are all 5 stars, the training facilities are 5 stars, and 30 games are played. The number of matches and Professionalism had a great influence. [Double intensity]= training page, Rest page, training intensity scheduling, Set to "No pitch or gym work, No pitch or gym work, No pitch or gym work, double intensity, double intensity"
Orion said: What do you think about Team Cohesion? Asking because I've played a whole season with almost the same players and yet we have like 'neutral' for team cohesion. Would adding a 1 team bonding session to the training schedule mess up with the things? Expand
It won't have a big effect, it's just a slight decrease a very little bit of CA, you can just add it as you need
lasko911 said: I did some parallel testing with Ajax, since they have a lot of good youngsters with high PA. In experiment A, I used V7 in first team, U21 and U19. In experiment B, I used assistant manager for training for all teams. At the end of the season, I took note of all CA growth + what attributes rose the most.
In B, when AI controls training, the CA growth is actually bigger. Players grow more rounded and they get more attributes increased. In A, with V7, they get less CA points growth, but ACC/PAC are slightly more increased than in B.
I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest, since I got more growth by simply not touching training. True, ACC/PAC with V7 over a few years are significantly higher, but overall players profit more with AI training. Expand
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well, Because there are strong and weak stats ,The origin purpose of this training was not to develop a balanced CA, or have max growth in CA , The purpose is to avoiding the waste of PA by "invalid attributes" as much as possible, and at the same time allowing "effective attributes" to grow as much as possible Some attributes, will take up a lot of PA, no effect or even negative effects, Such as Decision and Technique
[Rest]+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness] or [Recovery]x7+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
Explanation: "Recovery" is actually a variant of rest. If there is any other training, "rest" will be invalid, but "recovery" will not, "recovery" is counted as a training, so it can be used as a "weight" to pull the weight of "Pace" and "Acc" and so on to make it closer to the "rest" CA distribution, so the following 7 x recovery are added. It is used to pull the weight of the CA assigned to the Physical stats to pull up (The disadvantage of recovery is that it slightly increases the weight of a less useful physical attribute, such as strength, but this disadvantage can be ignored)
2.Increase moderate levels of CA , as fewer invalid attributes as possible, and as many high value attributes as possible
[Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness] or [Quickness]+[Attacking Direct]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
3. Add as much CA as possible , while fewer invalid attributes as possible, and as many high value attributes as possible
@harvestgreen22 and for the youth team if i wanna go with CA growth all attribute growth not just only focusing on PACE/ACC we should go for X8 or V7 also fit them?
AFant said: 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.
Thank you. Now I understand
Shift said: 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.
Thank you. Now I understand
BRAHIM said: @harvestgreen22 and for the youth team if i wanna go with CA growth all attribute growth not just only focusing on PACE/ACC we should go for X8 or V7 also fit them?
Yes,
X8 , V7
They are result of
1.we want as much CA growth as possible,
2.we want Percentage of Pace/Acc in the CA growth as High as possible
3.we want Train as little as possible each week to reduce injuries
This method of rapidly increasing CA inevitably reduces the percentage of Pace/Acc in CA,
but the technical and spiritual attributes, they are only low effect, low effect does not mean no effect, they accumulate more also have a strong combat effectiveness
@harvestgreen22 Thank you for all the work you're doing, it's much appreciated. If you have time, would you be able to test: Quickness + Physical + Additional training quickness + double intensity?
Would it be possible to test some other additional focuses? Like strength for jumping reach or ball control for dribbling, maybe others. For example with V7 schedule or whatever people most commonly use except with a different additional focus, and you can probably use same metrics as you already do.
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point.
vdowning36 said: @harvestgreen22 Thank you for all the work you're doing, it's much appreciated. If you have time, would you be able to test: Quickness + Physical + Additional training quickness + double intensity?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/G1aBqzR3
It's in G12
You can compare it to I11, J11
Roughly :
J11:[Quickness] has slightly more Pace(2.24) and Acceleration, lower Work rate (0.64)
I11:[Physical] has slightly less Pace(2.03) and Acceleration, higher Work rate (0.94)
G12:[Quickness]+[Physical] is intermediate, Pace(2.06), Work rate (0.91)
for Physical class Stats , There is an upper limit of proportion or number
Yarema said: Would it be possible to test some other additional focuses? Like strength for jumping reach or ball control for dribbling, maybe others. For example with V7 schedule or whatever people most commonly use except with a different additional focus, and you can probably use same metrics as you already do.
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point.
Yes, you can set the properties you need. It works the same way, transferring a certain percentage of growth weigh to it
I can do "another focus" test next time ,
You can give an example of which focus you need to test (For example with V7 schedule + xxx focus)
harvestgreen22 said: Yes, you can set the properties you need. It works the same way, transferring a certain percentage of growth weigh to it
I can do "another focus" test next time ,
You can give an example of which focus you need to test (For example with V7 schedule + xxx focus)
V7 + strength focus mainly, but can try others if you want: ball control, attacking movement ...
Just looking at the raw results in your most recent post.
By my calculations C12, J11, K10, Q10 are the best options based on how much useful CA they generate.
(@harvestgreen22 I'm not quite sure why you are focussing on E12 and U11?)
Based on my analysis you can pick one of those 4 I listed based on how extreme you want to go with focussing on only developing the 'impactful' attributes.
Most Extreme -> C12 -> J11 -> K10 -> Q10 -> Least Extreme
With C12 and J11 you will lose attributes in other places.
I would say the most 'balanced' option is definitely K10.
(also @harvestgreen22 why did you at some point you switch from 'attacking wings' to 'attacking shadow play'?)
Hey all, been reading all comments and would like to ask if it's okay, in my situation, to change to one of these trainings during a season. Or would you say it's better to wait till the start of a season?
I would also like to ask, to make sure I understand, that with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default? Did I understand that correctly?
flob said: Hey all, been reading all comments and would like to ask if it's okay, in my situation, to change to one of these trainings during a season. Or would you say it's better to wait till the start of a season?
I would also like to ask, to make sure I understand, that with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default? Did I understand that correctly?
you can change it
with individual training I don't select the player to it's position in my tactic anymore, but leave it at default?
Yes
This will maximize the blue highlighting Stats.
If you accidentally choose one, don't worry too much, just lose some of the blue highlights and add them to the green
twkmax said: Just looking at the raw results in your most recent post.
By my calculations C12, J11, K10, Q10 are the best options based on how much useful CA they generate.
(@harvestgreen22 I'm not quite sure why you are focussing on E12 and U11?)
Based on my analysis you can pick one of those 4 I listed based on how extreme you want to go with focussing on only developing the 'impactful' attributes.
Most Extreme -> C12 -> J11 -> K10 -> Q10 -> Least Extreme
With C12 and J11 you will lose attributes in other places.
I would say the most 'balanced' option is definitely K10.
(also @harvestgreen22 why did you at some point you switch from 'attacking wings' to 'attacking shadow play'?)
You can choose "Most extreme increase in body Attributes", "Intermediate", "Most extreme Increase in CA"
You are free to choose this, according to your needs,
your opinion is Good
And then the change, I forget, was someone in our community commented and asked for more of a certain attribute,
He convinced me, so I compared the two of them and chose the one he asked for with more attributes
You can compare the figures in the table and choose the one you need
I am busy recently, so i can't reply in time
Can you test a V7 training combine with setpiece routine? do they affect the CA growth?
just curious. thanks
So the coaches doesn't matter that much?
I´m training with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in my u19 with maxed out facilities, good youth trainers, good training ratings and Professionalism between 11 and 16 but my players dont even get 10 CA per season. Some player dont even got 1 Acc or Pace after 2 seasons...
@harvestgreen22
I’m looking at implemented Q10 as it seems to distribute the training more evenly.
What is [all attack group but CBs]? Is that just Attack Team session?
Maybe something is wrong with my setup but my youths are not gaining the acc/pace as expected..... should I move them to the first team? Becuase non of the trainings is actually improving anything (including full rest )
animatron said: So the coaches doesn't matter that much?
I cannot agree with this one cause I see a +5 CA per person from a bunch of 5* coaches, compared to 3*. But still no real effect on acc/pace
KaiFm said: @harvestgreen22
I’m looking at implemented Q10 as it seems to distribute the training more evenly.
What is [all attack group but CBs]? Is that just Attack Team session?
Your training is split into 3 groups: goalkeeping, defending, attacking. Defenders and DMs are put in the defending group by default so you have to move the FBs and DMs to the attacking group.
Is it possible to do this training schedule while simultaneously player learning a new player traits?
What i mean with player traits is , example : Run with ball through centre , Play one-two ETC
babasalat said: I´m training with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in my u19 with maxed out facilities, good youth trainers, good training ratings and Professionalism between 11 and 16 but my players dont even get 10 CA per season. Some player dont even got 1 Acc or Pace after 2 seasons...
I mentioned it on the first floor (if not, it might have been missed when the translator was translating).
To highlight the differences between different training programs,
Before testing, the attributes of all players were set to 10, age 20, potential 200PA, Professionalism 20
And in the top column of the table below, "30" represents 30 games per season.
These conditions all increase the amount of CA a player can get "per season". These CAs are then assigned to different training plans.
In other words, if your players do not meet these conditions, the expected effect will be reduced.
And if your player's condition is better than that, like Z10 in the table, it changes the condition to 17 years old, so it gets 8 more CA points
This test setting is mainly used to control the variables, and the actual effect you get will vary according to the actual situation
DudutDutut said: Is it possible to do this training schedule while simultaneously player learning a new player traits?
What i mean with player traits is , example : Run with ball through centre , Play one-two ETC
I don't know,
have not do any test about the effects of traits .
And what happens when train with trait
What do you think about Team Cohesion?
Asking because I've played a whole season with almost the same players and yet we have like 'neutral' for team cohesion. Would adding a 1 team bonding session to the training schedule mess up with the things?
All these start with Quickness focus. What would happen if we switched away from Quickness to General->Physical, wouldn't that make players overall slower, but stronger in other attributes, especially give them more stamina and work rate to better survive high intensity tactics and more jumping reach to win more headers? Let's say could we test a version of I8, but change from Quickness to Physical? See how much Pace/Acc we sacrifice to get other physical attributes higher?
I did some parallel testing with Ajax, since they have a lot of good youngsters with high PA.
In experiment A, I used V7 in first team, U21 and U19.
In experiment B, I used assistant manager for training for all teams.
At the end of the season, I took note of all CA growth + what attributes rose the most.
In B, when AI controls training, the CA growth is actually bigger. Players grow more rounded and they get more attributes increased.
In A, with V7, they get less CA points growth, but ACC/PAC are slightly more increased than in B.
I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest, since I got more growth by simply not touching training. True, ACC/PAC with V7 over a few years are significantly higher, but overall players profit more with AI training.
delra said: All these start with Quickness focus. What would happen if we switched away from Quickness to General->Physical, wouldn't that make players overall slower, but stronger in other attributes, especially give them more stamina and work rate to better survive high intensity tactics and more jumping reach to win more headers? Let's say could we test a version of I8, but change from Quickness to Physical? See how much Pace/Acc we sacrifice to get other physical attributes higher?
Excel
https://pixeldrain.com/u/L9e3LDBe
check Z19,
It's very close to the Quickness version
Its biggest benefit is that it adds more Work Rate
Because of Randomness,You can't tell the other difference,
The difference in the previous tests: the bad side is a slight reduction in Pace and Acceleration
Default test condition
It's only been tested once. Randomness introduces errors.
All attributes 10, PA200, age 20, injury, dirty 1, Professionalism 20.
The team consists of 1 goalkeeper, 2 centre-backs, 2 full-backs, 1 midfielders, 1 front midfielders, 2 wingers and 1 striker.
The default distribution in the group,
The defensive team has 2 centre-backs, 2 full-backs, 1 centre-back,
The attacking team consists of 1 midfielders, 1 midfielders, 2 wingers and 1 striker.
The coaching staff are all 5 stars, the training facilities are 5 stars, and 30 games are played.
The number of matches and Professionalism had a great influence.
[Double intensity]= training page, Rest page, training intensity scheduling, Set to "No pitch or gym work, No pitch or gym work, No pitch or gym work, double intensity, double intensity"
Orion said: What do you think about Team Cohesion?
Asking because I've played a whole season with almost the same players and yet we have like 'neutral' for team cohesion. Would adding a 1 team bonding session to the training schedule mess up with the things?
It won't have a big effect, it's just a slight decrease a very little bit of CA, you can just add it as you need
lasko911 said: I did some parallel testing with Ajax, since they have a lot of good youngsters with high PA.
In experiment A, I used V7 in first team, U21 and U19.
In experiment B, I used assistant manager for training for all teams.
At the end of the season, I took note of all CA growth + what attributes rose the most.
In B, when AI controls training, the CA growth is actually bigger. Players grow more rounded and they get more attributes increased.
In A, with V7, they get less CA points growth, but ACC/PAC are slightly more increased than in B.
I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest, since I got more growth by simply not touching training. True, ACC/PAC with V7 over a few years are significantly higher, but overall players profit more with AI training.
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well, Because there are strong and weak stats ,The origin purpose of this training was not to develop a balanced CA, or have max growth in CA ,
The purpose is to avoiding the waste of PA by "invalid attributes" as much as possible, and at the same time allowing "effective attributes" to grow as much as possible
Some attributes, will take up a lot of PA, no effect or even negative effects, Such as Decision and Technique
My current personal choices:
1.Extreme way to increase Physical class stats
[Rest]+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
or
[Recovery]x7+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
Explanation:
"Recovery" is actually a variant of rest. If there is any other training, "rest" will be invalid, but "recovery" will not, "recovery" is counted as a training, so it can be used as a "weight" to pull the weight of "Pace" and "Acc" and so on to make it closer to the "rest" CA distribution,
so the following 7 x recovery are added. It is used to pull the weight of the CA assigned to the Physical stats to pull up
(The disadvantage of recovery is that it slightly increases the weight of a less useful physical attribute, such as strength, but this disadvantage can be ignored)
2.Increase moderate levels of CA , as fewer invalid attributes as possible, and as many high value attributes as possible
[Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
or
[Quickness]+[Attacking Direct]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
3. Add as much CA as possible , while fewer invalid attributes as possible, and as many high value attributes as possible
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
or
[Physical]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7+[Double Intensity]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
Excel Training English 2
edit 27/12/2024 :
https://pixeldrain.com/u/R3imL2wX