juliius said: @harvestgreen22 Could you run a test where the schedule is: 1xQuickness and the additional focus on Strength? Expand
As shown in the table I mentioned this in my previous post. Height determines the maximum limit of Jumping reach growth that can be allocated (for each season)
That is to say, theoretically, any player of any height can train to achieve 20 jumps.
for taller players, the amount of time allowed for distribution is greater (if your training schedule allows for the allocation of "Jumping Reach" and theoretically, it is easier for them to reach 20
For players with a shorter height, if their initial "Jumping Reach" is low and they are older when you sign them, having missed out on the early growth period, it becomes much more difficult for them to reach 20
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA 284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA 306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA 276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it Expand
It is on row 280 of the table.
CA Passing Crossing Marking Penalty taking Technique Corners Long Throw Dribbling Tackling Free Kick Taking Finishing First touch Heading Longshot Flair Positioning Work rate Concentration Decision Leadership Aggression Vision Teamwork Off the ball Determination Bravery Anticipation Composure Acceleration Jumping reach Agility Stamina Balance Strengh Pace Natual fitness
Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results.
Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms The issue is that training in console version is simplified. So in few words:
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle. (Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond.
lucailvotto said: Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results. Expand
I haven't tested 6 to 12. Now there is: 1 to 18 6 to 18 1 to 6
Alexandru said: Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms The issue is that training in console version is simplified. So in few words:
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle. (Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond. Expand
I don't know how the PS5 will perform. Will it have the same mechanism? From the table, the simplest one is "[Match Practice]" for every week.
Pun said: Thanks @harvestgreen22 for all your amazing work. May I ask if you could add score for fm26 as well? Expand
I think the basic features of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
The main difference between them is probably as follows: FM26 Agility, Strength, Composure, Long Shots, Finishing should be a little More important.
FM26 Passing, Marking, Technique, Positioning, Stamina should be a little Less important.
So all you need to do is make some adjustments to the original coefficients, or simply visually estimate which training schedule is appropriate.
rmerino216 said: Is there a good schedule for preseason training? Expand
Unless you have specific requirements, I think there is no need for any difference. Just use the same throughout the entire season.
lucailvotto said: Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results. Expand
Could you show how you've set up the schedules? And perhaps what tactic you are using, because honestly i find it hard to believe the training itself makes your team play bad, i've tried basically any training set up and apart from influencing the attributes i've never seen any real difference in game
I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
ZaZ said: I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further. Expand
Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it?
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it? Expand
I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
ZaZ said: I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything. Expand
hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ?
ZaZ said: I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything. Expand
That is interesting, would like to see if it would work the same
SonikoZe said: hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ? Expand
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
ZaZ said: Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training. Expand
That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation. I'm using your training programs.
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
ZaZ said: I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further. Expand
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it? Expand
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
juliius said: @harvestgreen22 I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical? Expand
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes Expand
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this: Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ...... "358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling: It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this: Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ...... "358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling: It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects. Expand
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
@harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain.
I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken). I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration. What are the "con" of this training? Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Kriek said: I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken). I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration. What are the "con" of this training? Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again Expand
Training plan 156 is a really good plan. You don't have to set up players in an offensive or defensive group separately. The only downside is that the increase in dribbling ability is small.
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Thanks in advance! Expand
1. Yes, but keep in mind that at the same time as your ability levels go up, your relatively useless ability levels go up a lot
2. It's your choice. There are several training plans, and the amount of increase in ability is all there. You can choose whatever you want. I used the rank 334 on the score3 sheet based on the author's latest Excel, and the rank 282 on the score4 sheet for the rank 2nd tier, youth training.
3. Some plans or settings are correct.
4. Yes
5. Do not select roles/position and leave them blank.
6. Just one game a week is enough to grow.
7. The important thing is sharpness and you can raise a certain amount through friendly matches. It's normal for bench resources to be less sharp. If possible, one of the ways to increase sharpness is to put them in a friendly match in the second team.
@GeorgeFloydOverdosed between 284 and 306 I'd always go for 306 since it is also good on jumping reach
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
and theoretically, it is easier for them to reach 20
Could you run a test where the schedule is:
1xQuickness and the additional focus on Strength?
As shown in the table
I mentioned this in my previous post.
Height determines the maximum limit of Jumping reach growth that can be allocated (for each season)
That is to say, theoretically, any player of any height can train to achieve 20 jumps.
for taller players, the amount of time allowed for distribution is greater (if your training schedule allows for the allocation of "Jumping Reach"
For players with a shorter height, if their initial "Jumping Reach" is low and they are older when you sign them, having missed out on the early growth period, it becomes much more difficult for them to reach 20
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I have some free time again so I was doing my own analysis of the spreadsheets
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
Acceleration 0.97
Pace 1.0
Dribbling (DC/DL/DR/AML/AMR) 0.28
Concentration (DC/DL/DR) 0.22
Anticipation 0.13
Composure 0.1
Decisions -0.3
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
Results:
113: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
284: 3.17675 + 3.375 + 0.056 + 0.385 + 0.156 + 0.115 - 0.39 = 6.874 | 5-15-5
282: 3.32225 + 3.325 + 0.056 + 0.22 + 0.04875 + 0.015 - 0.12 = 6.867 | 15-15-15
306: 3.0555 + 3.425 + 0.048 + 0.396 + 0.1495 + 0.125 - 0.36 = 6.839 | 5-5-15
276: 3.019125 + 3.175 + 0.238 + 0.473 + 0.17225 + 0.1625 - 0.45 = 6.79 | 20-15-15
150: 2.91 + 3.0625 + 0.443 + 0.605 + 0.39 + 0.275 - 0.9 = 6.7855 | 90-90-90
260: 3.0009 + 2.875 + 0.42 + 0.605 + 0.365625 + 0.23125 - 0.759375 = 6.7384 | 105-105-105
90: 2.829 + 3.0625 + 0.466 + 0.568 + 0.349 + 0.266 - 0.81 = 6.7305 | 45-45-45
97: 2.813 + 3.125 + 0.373 + 0.583 + 0.3055 + 0.24 - 0.7125 = 6.727 | 105-100-100 (what I previously suggested)
129: 2.78875 + 2.925 + 0.52266 + 0.682 + 0.39975 + 0.245 - 0.87 = 6.693 | 100-80-80
331: 2.8009 + 3.025 + 0.39666 + 0.704 + 0.391625 + 0.23 - 0.855 = 6.693 | 105-105-105
123: 2.86958 + 3.1 + 0.24266 + 0.561 + 0.289 + 0.20333 - 0.64125 = 6.624 | 65-75-75
121: 2.93425 + 3.125 + 0.084 + 0.5005 + 0.099 + 0.07375 - 0.25125 = 6.565 | 85-95-85
99: 2.9827 + 3.1 + 0.12 + 0.418 + 0.1495 + 0.105 - 0.3675 = 6.5077 | 10-10-20
328: 2.7645 + 3.05 + 0.20533 + 0.396 + 0.221 + 0.1675 - 0.465 = 6.33933
188: 2.776625 + 2.925 + 0.252 + 0.396 + 0.212875 + 0.18375 - 0.54 = 6.206 | 90-90-100
The last figure is the total % intensity for GK-Defending-Attacking groups.
Raw performance Top 5:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.867
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79
High Dribbling:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019, 0.27 dribbling
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855, 0.443 dribbling
90: [Attackingx3][Quickness focus] - 6.7305, 0.466 dribbling
129: [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Defending][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence][Chance Creation][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 6.693, 0.523 dribbling
Best overall (subjective):
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
It is on row 280 of the table.
CA Passing Crossing Marking Penalty taking Technique Corners Long Throw Dribbling Tackling Free Kick Taking Finishing First touch Heading Longshot Flair Positioning Work rate Concentration Decision Leadership Aggression Vision Teamwork Off the ball Determination Bravery Anticipation Composure Acceleration Jumping reach Agility Stamina Balance Strengh Pace Natual fitness
243 [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2 [Addtional Focus Quickness] 速度 37.93 1.48 1.65 2.08 0.85 1.42 -0.62 0.13 1.63 0.95 -0.57 1.48 1.60 1.50 1.60 1.33 2.08 0.52 2.17 2.60 1.92 0.00 2.18 0.88 2.43 0.08 0.22 2.57 2.35 2.93 1.07 2.48 1.35 2.17 1.57 3.10 0.65
Thanks @harvestgreen22 for all your amazing work. May I ask if you could add score for fm26 as well?
harvestgreen22 said:
It is on row 280 of the table.
I mean the positional breakdown of 243
Is there a good schedule for preseason training?
@harvestgreen22
First of all, thanks a lot, really, for all the work made here.
I've a demand. I like the table which compare 6 to 18 attributes. Do you think it's possible to do the same thing with 6 to 12 ?
Keep the good work, thanks !
Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results.
Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms
The issue is that training in console version is simplified. So in few words:
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle.
(Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond.
lucailvotto said: Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results.
What training schedules deliver on the pitch?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I mean the positional breakdown of 243
The issue is that training in console version is simplified. So in few words:
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
There is a sub-page 243 .
Falbravv said: @harvestgreen22
First of all, thanks a lot, really, for all the work made here.
I've a demand. I like the table which compare 6 to 18 attributes. Do you think it's possible to do the same thing with 6 to 12 ?
Keep the good work, thanks !
excel (part 10)
https://pixeldrain.com/u/xK3jnvTp
I haven't tested 6 to 12.
Now there is:
1 to 18
6 to 18
1 to 6
Alexandru said: Hi, guys. I would appreciate if somebody could "translate" top schedule into PS5 terms
1. I can only put weekly focus without drilling into days. For example: Week 1 - Physical, Week 2 - Attacking, Week 3 - Defending, etc.
2. For a season I usually do 3xPhysical, 1xDefending, 1x Attacking which is kind of a 5 weeks cycle.
(Other possibilities which I almost never use - Technical, Tactical, Balanced, Big Match prep).
Could you advice what changes to "cycle" to make? Also for intensity - "No pitch no gym" for everything and "Double" full cond.
I don't know how the PS5 will perform. Will it have the same mechanism?
From the table, the simplest one is "[Match Practice]" for every week.
Pun said: Thanks @harvestgreen22 for all your amazing work. May I ask if you could add score for fm26 as well?
I think the basic features of FM24 can be applied to FM26.
The main difference between them is probably as follows:
FM26
Agility, Strength, Composure, Long Shots, Finishing
should be a little More important.
FM26
Passing, Marking, Technique, Positioning, Stamina
should be a little Less important.
So all you need to do is make some adjustments to the original coefficients, or simply visually estimate which training schedule is appropriate.
rmerino216 said: Is there a good schedule for preseason training?
Unless you have specific requirements, I think there is no need for any difference. Just use the same throughout the entire season.
lucailvotto said: Anyway, the on-field performances with these training schedules are extremely disappointing. The players develop quickly, but on the pitch the team doesn’t get results.
Could you show how you've set up the schedules? And perhaps what tactic you are using, because honestly i find it hard to believe the training itself makes your team play bad, i've tried basically any training set up and apart from influencing the attributes i've never seen any real difference in game
@harvestgreen22
I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical?
I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
ZaZ said: I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it?
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it?
I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
ZaZ said: I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ?
ZaZ said: I actually tested with half season each only, and results were very good. However, I don't have the tools or time to test in the same level as they do here, so I don't consider those tests very reliable, but more of a personal feeling. I assume doing one week each would be the same, but I couldn't test yet. I use that way in my save, but I didn't pay much attention to results to say anything.
That is interesting, would like to see if it would work the same
harvestgreen22 said: I haven't tested 6 to 12.
Now there is:
1 to 18
6 to 18
1 to 6
In my opinion, it will be the ultimate mark to really know the number of efficiency.
If you find time, thanks a lot in advance.
SonikoZe said: hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ?
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
ZaZ said: Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
That's what I thought. Thanks for the confirmation. I'm using your training programs.
harvestgreen22 said: excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
There is a sub-page 243 .
243 [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus]: 2.86958 + 3.125 + 0.4666 + 0.66 + 0.330416 + 0.2375 - 0.7875 = 6.9016 | 115-115-115
That places it 2nd according to my formula
113 [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus]: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
ZaZ said: I am currently mixing two training schedules, one for reallocating attributes to pace and acceleration, and another to grow CA. Basically, 1x Endurance, and 6x Attacking. I want to know if there is any difference between using each of those for half of the season, or alternating them every week. Is it possible to test, please?
If the combination of schedules work like an average, it would probably open space for optimizing training even further.
juliius said: Do you notice anything different when you try mixing them up? Of course testing would be nice, but have you noticed anything when using it?
rotate with [Endurance] And [Attacking]x6.xlsx
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1QV8Ph2a
or
https://mega.nz/file/YZMSDQzB#VU2H8rBQkSLo04xNRmdN4oZnE5WyH1GJhbnLMoZoLcM
The effect is indeed a mixture of the two , like :
Endurance , Marking +0.17
Attacking x6 , Marking +2.45
rotate with Endurance and Attacking x6 , Marking +1.2 ( ≈{(2.45+0.17)/2} , )
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical?
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 243 [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus]: 2.86958 + 3.125 + 0.4666 + 0.66 + 0.330416 + 0.2375 - 0.7875 = 6.9016 | 115-115-115
That places it 2nd according to my formula
113 [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus]: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
If we remove decisions, which is the least reliable part of my formula, it's 7.664 for 113 and 7.689 for 243. But the physical gains are also more balanced in 113 and there would be lower injury risk, so I think it's fair to say 113 is slightly better no matter how you slice it.
Might give it a realistic test later to see how 113 goes
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this:
Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ......
"358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling:
It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
harvestgreen22 said:
rotate with [Endurance] And [Attacking]x6.xlsx
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1QV8Ph2a
or
https://mega.nz/file/YZMSDQzB#VU2H8rBQkSLo04xNRmdN4oZnE5WyH1GJhbnLMoZoLcM
The effect is indeed a mixture of the two , like :
Endurance , Marking +0.17
Attacking x6 , Marking +2.45
rotate with Endurance and Attacking x6 , Marking +1.2 ( ≈{(2.45+0.17)/2} , )
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this:
Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ......
"358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling:
It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
@harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain.
Could you please visually add the training program that maximizes acceleration and speed?I don't understand any of the terms.
I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken).
I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration.
What are the "con" of this training?
Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again
Hi @harvestgreen22,
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Thanks in advance!
Kriek said: I can't maintain a good match sharpness with trainings with too much rest, like 506 (Growth from ZaZ if I'm not mistaken).
I find 156 interesting, with a good score, a decent use of CA and big gain in pace & acceleration.
What are the "con" of this training?
Should I put all my player in the attacking unit for this one, I can't find the information again
Training plan 156 is a really good plan.
You don't have to set up players in an offensive or defensive group separately.
The only downside is that the increase in dribbling ability is small.
JW said: Hi @harvestgreen22,
I’m new to FM and just started FM24 with Hertha BSC in the 2. Bundesliga. Training is the part I understand least, so thanks a lot for all your testing and work in this thread.
I’m a bit confused which schedules are for FM24 vs FM26, and I want to maximize CA growth for young players in season 1 (aiming for promotion).
1. For FM24, is 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] the best “fast CA” schedule for season 1?
2. Is it a good plan to switch in season 2 to 317 [Physical]x2 [Chance Conversion][Attacking] after selling players and bringing in higher-potential youth?
3. For 331, rest settings should be: No pitch/gym x3, then Double intensity x2 — correct?
4. Individual additional focus: Do I need to set Additional Focus = “Quickness” for every player on the individual training page (at least for all outfield players)?
5. On individual training, do I need to set roles/positions so Match Practice trains the right attributes + position familiarity?
6. You tested with 2 matches/week — if I usually have 1 match/week, should I add weekly friendlies or change 331?
7. If sharpness/cohesion become problems, what’s the best minimal tweak?
8. For goalkeepers: is Match Practice Training enough, or should I add individual GK training/focus?
Thanks in advance!
1. Yes, but keep in mind that at the same time as your ability levels go up, your relatively useless ability levels go up a lot
2. It's your choice. There are several training plans, and the amount of increase in ability is all there. You can choose whatever you want. I used the rank 334 on the score3 sheet based on the author's latest Excel, and the rank 282 on the score4 sheet for the rank 2nd tier, youth training.
3. Some plans or settings are correct.
4. Yes
5. Do not select roles/position and leave them blank.
6. Just one game a week is enough to grow.
7. The important thing is sharpness and you can raise a certain amount through friendly matches.
It's normal for bench resources to be less sharp. If possible, one of the ways to increase sharpness is to put them in a friendly match in the second team.
8. Do intensive training on Agility/Balance.