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
Hi @GeorgeFloydOverdosed,
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff.
dor said: 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. Expand
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff. Expand Thankyou for your compliment
So as HarvestGreen22 has said, we can know now with fair accuracy how much the attributes change, but weighting the attributes remains a bit of a conundrum.
HarvestGreen22's approach to this seems to be to weight according to attribute 6 > 18 win difference % and also add a flat 25% bonus to certain attributes such as dribbling. Dribbling in particular because it is difficult to train up.
I saw that tam1236 took an approach of using HarvestGreen22's attribute 1 > 20 goal difference(?) data, and scored taking into account every attribute.
For my own approach, I use roughly the values in my FM Genie Scout ratings file for just a few key attributes, as well as an arbitrary -0.3x weighting for 'decisions'. Additionally I use only the positions for a particular top knap tactic (i.e. no AMC), and for certain attributes (concentration, dribbling) only get them in positions where they actually count (based on my own extensive testing).
My FM Genie Scout ratings file values are the amalgamation of my own testing, HarvestGreen22's data, Orion's data, relative actual availability of attributes, and a few other things such as taking into account the implications of match sharpness. So I think my approach is superior.
Example of key problem I have identified with those 2 sources I mention:
HarvestGreen22 - Values are for entire team, not per position. Orion - Values are per position, and also actually more accurately predict results but not perfectly and it appears this is because Orion is assessing using 'match rating' which has been shown to favor technicals/mentals over physicals even when physicals actually win the games.
I've given the weights I used, so if you want to change them up you can just take the numbers I wrote down and redo them like this:
acc 0.97 new weight = 1.00 my weighted acc value = 3.17675
(3.17675/97)x100 = 3.275
Or, you could conduct my actual method, which is to go through HarvestGreen22's spreadsheet tables of results where there's a breakdown of each position, then highlight only the relevant positions for each relevant attribute, take the average and then apply your own weight to it.
I believe that explains my method, but I would like to elucidate on this whole matter a little bit more.
Although I personally believe my method is going to be the most predicatively accurate so far, it's still largely guesswork and I wouldn't begrudge others for favoring different weightings. I'm not sure myself about including 'decisions'. On the one hand, it has ~0 impact, so it should be weighted ~0, but on the other hand it hogs a lot of CA for itself, so you could theoretically say 1 dec (10 CA weight) = 1 pace (10 CA weight) = 1.00 weighting.. in the end I settled on -0.3x weighting, but I had considered 0.5x or 0.1x, so it's really quite arbitrary and this degree of inaccuracy is going to mess up the results quite badly:
So suddenly all those low intensity schedules don't look so great anymore, and the old tried and true meta is king again.
But if you did go with 113, you wouldn't be any worse off. And I included a lesser training schedule to show that although the hierarchy is disrupted, the wheat is still separated from the chaff.
With 97 you can see a reflection of my own track record. Before HarvestGreen22's latest data, I was doing my own experiments with less precision and believed that my 97 beat the 243 meta. In the end this turned out to be a bit erroneous, but I think it's scored high enough to show I haven't just been pulling stuff out of my ass. I know a lot of people just tend to make stuff up (just out of naivety and enthusiasm for narrative), when people assume they've actually done the hard research. I do ride with some assumptions myself sometimes, but mostly I use brute-force methods similar to HarvestGreen22 to find out and verify.
Another reason I included 188 there is because that's what HarvestGreen22 recommends for 'moderate growth, high quality' (albeit a slight variation, 317, where all members are in attack group). I agree with his recommendation of 85[match review] (or 100 - 2xmatch review) for 'least growth but highest quality', but I'm left scratching my head at this one. If you look at 317 the pace/acc gain is +5.84, which is decent but meh basically. Perhaps he is taking into account jumping reach which is +1.48, which is ~0.5 higher than typical. I personally left jumping reach out entirely, because I see it as an attribute a player either already has or he doesn't have - your DC with 12 jump reach isn't going to get to where he needs to be whether he's getting +1 or +1.5 each season. But this could explain the difference between my recommendation and HarvestGreen22's recommendation. No doubt he is also favoring lower CA, while I am in favor of more CA so long as it's good attributes.
I cannot find the excel file which contains the training results with the 30 matches played comparison. Did I miss the link somewhere? Is it possible to share it again, if I missed it?
I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session.
The top 3 are so close that choosing between them would be more about what you're going for. 243 is high CA gain and balanced. 113 is most efficient and produces fastest players. 150 is in my opinion actually the weakest of the three but then again it is also slightly lighter in workload intensity.
97 isn't actually 4th, I just wanted to see how it did, but it would roughly reflect how about the next best dozen or so would do.
ZaZ said: I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session. Expand
Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense.
juliius said: Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense. Expand
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is: - Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces) - Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness) - Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA) - Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
juliius said: So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
Expand
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
juliius said: When the first season came in with 16 i really wanted it to continue, because it's teh kind of thing i would want training to actually impact Expand
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
Tapeworm said: Could a kind and helpful person create a file of training programme number 113 and attach it for idiots like me who can't create a training schedule? Expand
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] And 334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] All member in defend group And 86 “rest”
Formulate three different types of growth requirements (high, medium, and low) to be used in the training schedule for the entire quarter
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 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical It's in excel "B1" , 339,400 . They are very close.
ZaZ said: @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. Expand
The situation is something like this (I might not have fully understood your meaning. If what I tested was not what you needed say it in a different way):
1.The "Position/Role/Duty" of the player remains set to the default value (Selected as "Playing position" This is the set of conditions used during the normal test.
2.Select one of the Role/Duty , which The position that the player is already familiar with Example: The player is a center back (DC) , with a position proficiency level of 20. (the position proficiency level ranges from 1 to 20 ) Select "Ball-playing defender - Defend"
Result: Some "green highlighted" attributes have appeared on the screen. A small portion of the CA will be assigned to these "green highlighted" attributes. This result has been mentioned before. I'm just repeating it here for clarity.
The growth of CA has been changed (in some cases it has increased, and in some cases it has decreased)
3.The player selects a completely new position with no position proficiency. Example: The player is a center back (DC) . Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result: The training effect nearly unchange. The growth of CA nearly unchange. The new position was train to at a proficiency level of approximately 10-12 after one year .
4.The player selects a completely new position with some position proficiency. Example: The player is a center back (DC) . He has 10 position proficiency of "Midfielder (centre)" Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result: The growth of CA change. The training effect change. (lower growth)
The new position was train to at a position proficiency level of approximately 18-20 after one year Reason: The player has mastered an additional position. When the position proficiency is low, it basically doesn't occupy the CA. When the position proficiency increases to around 12-14, he will suddenly occupy the CA. This resulted in a discrepancy between "Recommended Current Ability" and "Current Ability". The player's attributes will be forcibly reduced to match "Current Ability".
EmreBJK said: Could you please visually add the training program that maximizes acceleration and speed?I don't understand any of the terms. Expand
This table is too extensive.
In fact, all you need to do is set "Training Intensity Scheduling" and "Additional Focus" properly. The "acceleration and speed" of Any training will increase significantly.
If you are aiming for the ultimate "acceleration and speed" level, use "all Rest" If you want something simpler, use the [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] mentioned above.
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity" Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
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
He doesn't need to move player in the attacking unit. (because there is no indication in Excel)
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. Off-topic. If we take it to the extreme, by testing various combinations of training schedules, it could potentially increase the CA by a little bit more - perhaps around 2-3%. However, the cost would be an increased likelihood of injuries due to more training, or the allocation of attributes to less efficient ones. So, roughly speaking, this is the best option.
2.That's fine The options listed here are already quite good and have different growth tendencies for the purpose. If you want to pay more attention to the details (because there are too many projects and it's impossible to explain each one one by one), then you'll have to spend time looking at the Excel table to see what attributes each item has been added with.
3. Yes.
4. Yes. If they have grown sufficiently (for example, by reaching 19) You can choose to modify them. The effect of Addtional Focus will be to force a portion of the growth to be allocated to the thing you have chosen.
If they have reached their maximum (by reaching 20) You should change them. Avoid having the growth continue to be forcibly allocated to an attribute that is already full.
5.You can take a look at the content I wrote above (right in this reply )
6.In simple : If you think the players have already had enough match time, you don't need to arrange friendly matches. If you think the players haven't had enough match , then arrange friendly matches. They are beneficial and harmless, except that there is a certain risk of injury.
Complex say: The match is not a training . Enough match can give you 100% growth. As players grow older, they will start to require more formal match (around after the age of 22) and a certain level of reputation for them to achieve 100% growth. Some hidden attributes also affect whether one can achieve 100% growth. When the players are still young, they only need a relatively fewer number of friendly matches (or U18 U20 formal match ) to achieve 100% of their growth.
7.friendly matches , 2-3 for a week
8.The goalkeeper, you can choose Addtional Focus Agility and Balance .
Or other options are also possible, because many attributes of the goalkeeper are valid. For example, Vision, Aerial Reach, Anticipation, and Pace are also effective attributes for a goalkeeper. Any additional focus that can enhance them is good.
Jasninja said: I cannot find the excel file which contains the training results with the 30 matches played comparison. Did I miss the link somewhere? Is it possible to share it again, if I missed it? Expand
I haven't kept the previous test data. They were tested over about a year or more ago. The details of the tests at that time were much less compared to now. Many attributes were not recorded (at that time, I wasn't familiar with how to export the data)
Its testing conditions are "100 matches".“Season duration: For 12 months, 100 matchs played” You don't actually need to play 100 games to achieve the desired effect under the given conditions. Generally, we believe that around 30-40 games would be sufficient to reach 100% growth. For young players, its requirements will be even lower. This "100" merely serves as a guarantee that the players will be able to achieve full growth.
I just ran 6 seasons to test my injury hypothesis.
3 Seasons with: No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity 27 injuries on average
3 Seasons with: No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity, Double intensity 45 injuries on average
And the development was roughly the same, even slightly better for the one with less injuries, which i would guess is just from being injured less, so getting more games and training.
Obviously not necessarily a big enough sample size to determine anything. However i do think it might be worth to only train when the players are fully fit.
juliius said: Could test some of the schedules with having the training intensity set to: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity?
I would like to see these schedules tested with that:
Match practice, Physcial, Attacking, Defending, Additional focus quickness Physical, Additional focus quickness Attacking x 6, Additional focus quickness
When just doing small tests myself i get significantly less injuries in seasons when i only train when they have a full heart.
I would like to see how much if any impact it has on development Expand
no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity ——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%. This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule". Just a guess, It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
harvestgreen22 said: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity ——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%. This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule". Just a guess, It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day. Expand
How was the schedule set up in terms of getting rest after matches? It would change quite alot depending on what schedule was used and how many training modules was in said schedule. Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness?
harvestgreen22 said: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity ——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%. This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule". Just a guess, It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day. Expand
Do you have a 2 match week test save setup that you could share? I would like to test some stuff
juliius said: How was the schedule set up in terms of getting rest after matches? It would change quite alot depending on what schedule was used and how many training modules was in said schedule. Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness? Expand
https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H for： no schedule x3, double intensity x2 no schedule x4, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1 no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8". Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed. All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
Rain said: So is it more optimal to use Double intensity on both excellent and good condition or just on excellent? Expand
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
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
Hi @GeorgeFloydOverdosed,
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff.
dor said: 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.
Do you have a better advice?
H25 said: Hi @GeorgeFloydOverdosed,
First off, thanks a lot for taking the time to do this analysis and write it up — it’s really helpful for the rest of us trying to make sense of the spreadsheets.
Would you mind explaining how you arrived at the individual numbers in your totals (e.g., the 3.17675, 3.1, 0.27 etc.)? I can see the weightings you list (Acceleration 0.97, Pace 1.0, etc.), but I’m not fully following how you convert the spreadsheet values into those weighted components and then into the final score.
If you have a document / sheet you made to do the calculations (even just a template with the formulas), would you be willing to share it? That would make it much easier for others to reproduce and sanity-check the results.
Also, if you have the time, could you run the same calculation with AMC and DM included as well? Many of us play a 4-2-3-1, so having the numbers for AMC + (both) DM roles included would make it much easier to apply your work directly.
Thanks again for the effort — genuinely useful stuff.
Thankyou for your compliment
So as HarvestGreen22 has said, we can know now with fair accuracy how much the attributes change, but weighting the attributes remains a bit of a conundrum.
HarvestGreen22's approach to this seems to be to weight according to attribute 6 > 18 win difference % and also add a flat 25% bonus to certain attributes such as dribbling. Dribbling in particular because it is difficult to train up.
I saw that tam1236 took an approach of using HarvestGreen22's attribute 1 > 20 goal difference(?) data, and scored taking into account every attribute.
For my own approach, I use roughly the values in my FM Genie Scout ratings file for just a few key attributes, as well as an arbitrary -0.3x weighting for 'decisions'. Additionally I use only the positions for a particular top knap tactic (i.e. no AMC), and for certain attributes (concentration, dribbling) only get them in positions where they actually count (based on my own extensive testing).
My FM Genie Scout ratings file values are the amalgamation of my own testing, HarvestGreen22's data, Orion's data, relative actual availability of attributes, and a few other things such as taking into account the implications of match sharpness. So I think my approach is superior.
Example of key problem I have identified with those 2 sources I mention:
HarvestGreen22 - Values are for entire team, not per position.
Orion - Values are per position, and also actually more accurately predict results but not perfectly and it appears this is because Orion is assessing using 'match rating' which has been shown to favor technicals/mentals over physicals even when physicals actually win the games.
I've given the weights I used, so if you want to change them up you can just take the numbers I wrote down and redo them like this:
acc 0.97
new weight = 1.00
my weighted acc value = 3.17675
(3.17675/97)x100 = 3.275
Or, you could conduct my actual method, which is to go through HarvestGreen22's spreadsheet tables of results where there's a breakdown of each position, then highlight only the relevant positions for each relevant attribute, take the average and then apply your own weight to it.
I believe that explains my method, but I would like to elucidate on this whole matter a little bit more.
Although I personally believe my method is going to be the most predicatively accurate so far, it's still largely guesswork and I wouldn't begrudge others for favoring different weightings. I'm not sure myself about including 'decisions'. On the one hand, it has ~0 impact, so it should be weighted ~0, but on the other hand it hogs a lot of CA for itself, so you could theoretically say 1 dec (10 CA weight) = 1 pace (10 CA weight) = 1.00 weighting.. in the end I settled on -0.3x weighting, but I had considered 0.5x or 0.1x, so it's really quite arbitrary and this degree of inaccuracy is going to mess up the results quite badly:
With decisions -0.3x:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quick focus] - 6.9016
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
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 6.727
188: [Physical x 2][Chance Conversion][Attacking] - 6.206
Without decisions:
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 7.264
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 7.240
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 7.199
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.987
188: [Physical x 2][Chance Conversion][Attacking] - 6.74625
So suddenly all those low intensity schedules don't look so great anymore, and the old tried and true meta is king again.
But if you did go with 113, you wouldn't be any worse off. And I included a lesser training schedule to show that although the hierarchy is disrupted, the wheat is still separated from the chaff.
With 97 you can see a reflection of my own track record. Before HarvestGreen22's latest data, I was doing my own experiments with less precision and believed that my 97 beat the 243 meta. In the end this turned out to be a bit erroneous, but I think it's scored high enough to show I haven't just been pulling stuff out of my ass. I know a lot of people just tend to make stuff up (just out of naivety and enthusiasm for narrative), when people assume they've actually done the hard research. I do ride with some assumptions myself sometimes, but mostly I use brute-force methods similar to HarvestGreen22 to find out and verify.
Another reason I included 188 there is because that's what HarvestGreen22 recommends for 'moderate growth, high quality' (albeit a slight variation, 317, where all members are in attack group). I agree with his recommendation of 85[match review] (or 100 - 2xmatch review) for 'least growth but highest quality', but I'm left scratching my head at this one. If you look at 317 the pace/acc gain is +5.84, which is decent but meh basically. Perhaps he is taking into account jumping reach which is +1.48, which is ~0.5 higher than typical. I personally left jumping reach out entirely, because I see it as an attribute a player either already has or he doesn't have - your DC with 12 jump reach isn't going to get to where he needs to be whether he's getting +1 or +1.5 each season. But this could explain the difference between my recommendation and HarvestGreen22's recommendation. No doubt he is also favoring lower CA, while I am in favor of more CA so long as it's good attributes.
Kriek said: Do you have a better advice?
The training schedules listed in the comment right below, written by GeorgeFloydOverdosed, are all so good that you can basically use any of them.
I cannot find the excel file which contains the training results with the 30 matches played comparison. Did I miss the link somewhere? Is it possible to share it again, if I missed it?
I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session.
I've taken a closer look at the top schedules, adding in consideration of key GK attributes, jumping reach, and CA efficiency.
I'll post the calculations later, but here's a simplified summary:
Efficiency
113 - 100%
150 - 97.3%
243 - 92.6%
97 - 92.0%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
97 - 95.2%
Combined
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 99.3%
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 98.4%
243: [Quickness][Match Practice][Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 96.3%
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 93.6%
The top 3 are so close that choosing between them would be more about what you're going for. 243 is high CA gain and balanced. 113 is most efficient and produces fastest players. 150 is in my opinion actually the weakest of the three but then again it is also slightly lighter in workload intensity.
97 isn't actually 4th, I just wanted to see how it did, but it would roughly reflect how about the next best dozen or so would do.
Could a kind and helpful person create a file of training programme number 113 and attach it for idiots like me who can't create a training schedule?
ZaZ said: I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session.
Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense.
juliius said: Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense.
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is:
- Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces)
- Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness)
- Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA)
- Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
juliius said: So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
ZaZ said: Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
When the first season came in with 16 i really wanted it to continue, because it's teh kind of thing i would want training to actually impact
juliius said: When the first season came in with 16 i really wanted it to continue, because it's teh kind of thing i would want training to actually impact
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
Tapeworm said: Could a kind and helpful person create a file of training programme number 113 and attach it for idiots like me who can't create a training schedule?
Here you are
Kriek said: Here you are
Is there some secret sauce to getting these to actually load in game? I go to custom schedules and load it and nothing ever happens lol
Once its loaded you can find the program under Custom Schedules
Kriek said: Once its loaded you can find the program under Custom Schedules
Yeah no idea I load it like that and it always continues to show the "new schedule" with all rest
Rain said: Yeah no idea I load it like that and it always continues to show the "new schedule" with all rest
I have the same, but if I look again under Custom schedules it is there
Kriek said: I have the same, but if I look again under Custom schedules it is there
My save was bugged I started another and it works fine. Great game! Thanks
excel (part 11):
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
For the time being, I am inclined to...
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
And
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] All member in defend group
And
86 “rest”
Formulate three different types of growth requirements (high, medium, and low) to be used in the training schedule for the entire quarter
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
I might have missed it in the spreadsheets. Have tests been done to see the difference between 1xPhysical, 2xPhysical and 3xPhysical?
2xPhysical and 3xPhysical
It's in excel "B1" , 339,400 .
They are very close.
ZaZ said: @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.
The situation is something like this (I might not have fully understood your meaning. If what I tested was not what you needed say it in a different way):
1.The "Position/Role/Duty" of the player remains set to the default value (Selected as "Playing position"
This is the set of conditions used during the normal test.
2.Select one of the Role/Duty , which The position that the player is already familiar with
Example: The player is a center back (DC) , with a position proficiency level of 20. (the position proficiency level ranges from 1 to 20 ) Select "Ball-playing defender - Defend"
Result:
Some "green highlighted" attributes have appeared on the screen.
A small portion of the CA will be assigned to these "green highlighted" attributes.
This result has been mentioned before. I'm just repeating it here for clarity.
The growth of CA has been changed (in some cases it has increased, and in some cases it has decreased)
3.The player selects a completely new position with no position proficiency.
Example: The player is a center back (DC) .
Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result:
The training effect nearly unchange.
The growth of CA nearly unchange.
The new position was train to at a proficiency level of approximately 10-12 after one year .
4.The player selects a completely new position with some position proficiency.
Example: The player is a center back (DC) .
He has 10 position proficiency of "Midfielder (centre)"
Select "Midfielder (centre) - Centre Midfielder - Defend"
Result:
The growth of CA change.
The training effect change. (lower growth)
The new position was train to at a position proficiency level of approximately 18-20 after one year
Reason: The player has mastered an additional position.
When the position proficiency is low, it basically doesn't occupy the CA.
When the position proficiency increases to around 12-14, he will suddenly occupy the CA.
This resulted in a discrepancy between "Recommended Current Ability" and "Current Ability".
The player's attributes will be forcibly reduced to match "Current Ability".
EmreBJK said: Could you please visually add the training program that maximizes acceleration and speed?I don't understand any of the terms.
This table is too extensive.
In fact, all you need to do is set "Training Intensity Scheduling" and "Additional Focus" properly. The "acceleration and speed" of Any training will increase significantly.
If you are aiming for the ultimate "acceleration and speed" level, use "all Rest"
If you want something simpler, use the [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] mentioned above.
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
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
He doesn't need to move player in the attacking unit. (because there is no indication in Excel)
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.
Off-topic. If we take it to the extreme, by testing various combinations of training schedules, it could potentially increase the CA by a little bit more - perhaps around 2-3%. However, the cost would be an increased likelihood of injuries due to more training, or the allocation of attributes to less efficient ones. So, roughly speaking, this is the best option.
2.That's fine
The options listed here are already quite good and have different growth tendencies for the purpose.
If you want to pay more attention to the details (because there are too many projects and it's impossible to explain each one one by one), then you'll have to spend time looking at the Excel table to see what attributes each item has been added with.
3. Yes.
4. Yes.
If they have grown sufficiently (for example, by reaching 19)
You can choose to modify them. The effect of Addtional Focus will be to force a portion of the growth to be allocated to the thing you have chosen.
If they have reached their maximum (by reaching 20)
You should change them. Avoid having the growth continue to be forcibly allocated to an attribute that is already full.
5.You can take a look at the content I wrote above (right in this reply )
6.In simple :
If you think the players have already had enough match time, you don't need to arrange friendly matches.
If you think the players haven't had enough match , then arrange friendly matches. They are beneficial and harmless, except that there is a certain risk of injury.
Complex say:
The match is not a training .
Enough match can give you 100% growth.
As players grow older, they will start to require more formal match (around after the age of 22) and a certain level of reputation for them to achieve 100% growth.
Some hidden attributes also affect whether one can achieve 100% growth.
When the players are still young, they only need a relatively fewer number of friendly matches (or U18 U20 formal match ) to achieve 100% of their growth.
7.friendly matches , 2-3 for a week
8.The goalkeeper, you can choose Addtional Focus Agility and Balance .
Or other options are also possible, because many attributes of the goalkeeper are valid.
For example, Vision, Aerial Reach, Anticipation, and Pace are also effective attributes for a goalkeeper.
Any additional focus that can enhance them is good.
Jasninja said: I cannot find the excel file which contains the training results with the 30 matches played comparison. Did I miss the link somewhere? Is it possible to share it again, if I missed it?
I haven't kept the previous test data. They were tested over about a year or more ago. The details of the tests at that time were much less compared to now. Many attributes were not recorded (at that time, I wasn't familiar with how to export the data)
You might consider downloading this newer one.
excel (part 11):
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
Its testing conditions are "100 matches".“Season duration: For 12 months, 100 matchs played”
You don't actually need to play 100 games to achieve the desired effect under the given conditions. Generally, we believe that around 30-40 games would be sufficient to reach 100% growth. For young players, its requirements will be even lower. This "100" merely serves as a guarantee that the players will be able to achieve full growth.
harvestgreen22 said: Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Could test some of the schedules with having the training intensity set to: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity?
I would like to see these schedules tested with that:
Match practice, Physcial, Attacking, Defending, Additional focus quickness
Physical, Additional focus quickness
Attacking x 6, Additional focus quickness
When just doing small tests myself i get significantly less injuries in seasons when i only train when they have a full heart.
I would like to see how much if any impact it has on development
I just ran 6 seasons to test my injury hypothesis.
3 Seasons with:
No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity
27 injuries on average
3 Seasons with:
No schedule, No schedule, No schedule, Double intensity, Double intensity
45 injuries on average
And the development was roughly the same, even slightly better for the one with less injuries, which i would guess is just from being injured less, so getting more games and training.
Obviously not necessarily a big enough sample size to determine anything. However i do think it might be worth to only train when the players are fully fit.
juliius said: Could test some of the schedules with having the training intensity set to: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity?
I would like to see these schedules tested with that:
Match practice, Physcial, Attacking, Defending, Additional focus quickness
Physical, Additional focus quickness
Attacking x 6, Additional focus quickness
When just doing small tests myself i get significantly less injuries in seasons when i only train when they have a full heart.
I would like to see how much if any impact it has on development
no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity
——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%.
This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule".
Just a guess,
It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
harvestgreen22 said: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity
——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%.
This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule".
Just a guess,
It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
How was the schedule set up in terms of getting rest after matches? It would change quite alot depending on what schedule was used and how many training modules was in said schedule.
Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness?
harvestgreen22 said: no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity
——I had tested this setting before, under the test Conditions of two matches per week (with Natural Fitness set at 10). The growth of CA was lost by approximately 25%.
This is probably because the break time between the matches is not long enough for the players to regain their "The fifth intensity" required for training.
Then, I haven't try to test the detailed mechanism of "no schedule".
Just a guess,
It might simply have cancelled the training results for this day.
Do you have a 2 match week test save setup that you could share? I would like to test some stuff
So is it more optimal to use Double intensity on both excellent and good condition or just on excellent?
juliius said: How was the schedule set up in terms of getting rest after matches? It would change quite alot depending on what schedule was used and how many training modules was in said schedule.
Also 10 natural fitness is not particularly high, do we have any information on how natural fitness scales in terms of players regaining fitness?
https://pixeldrain.com/u/MMkdhT7H
for：
no schedule x3, double intensity x2
no schedule x4, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, double intensity x1
no schedule x3, Half intensity x1, Normal intensity x1
The new test, the natural fitness of this test is "8".
Except for PA, I changed it to "60 more than the initial CA" and no other conditions were changed.
All the other information should be fully included in the table, including the training schedule chart (with competition days on Wednesdays and Saturdays each week) and the training results.
The top 5 groups all tested 100 player samples, while the following groups used 10 samples each. Therefore, there will be a slight margin of error, but the differences can still be roughly observed.
Upload save: Currently, there is a problem with my internet connection. I don't know why the upload of large files gets interrupted. I will fix the internet connection and then proceed with the upload.
Rain said: So is it more optimal to use Double intensity on both excellent and good condition or just on excellent?
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
Hello sir.Could you please send me the download file for training plan 243?