juliius said: 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. Expand
harvestgreen22 said: 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.
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option. Expand
For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery).
ZaZ said: For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery). Expand
I left full rest days after matches. Theres a thing i don't know though. Let's say we play an away game and first module of the next day is spent on travel, does it still count as superrest?
juliius said: I left full rest days after matches. Theres a thing i don't know though. Let's say we play an away game and first module of the next day is spent on travel, does it still count as superrest? Expand No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't
Yarema said: No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't Expand
I assumed so, which is why i have been considering schedules where the monday is left completely to rest so 1 superrest per week is guaranteed. Issue just becomes with having enough modules left for training if we assume it's a 2 game week
This is what i've been thinking for when I have two away games in the same week.
For me the physical and match practice training seems the most important, so getting those in. I'm considering whether the rest on thursday is worth it. Or i should just put the attacking and defending on thursday like in the second picture, because then theres less rest, however the players that didn't play or are fit enough at least get's the training in. Also because of the travel superrest isn't a possibility anyway.
Hi guys, first of all kudos to everyone involved in testing this stuff. Second of all, when actually playing the game, do You apply these principles in first team training or are You using this training plans also in the youth team?
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason?
janusztokot said: Hi guys, first of all kudos to everyone involved in testing this stuff. Second of all, when actually playing the game, do You apply these principles in first team training or are You using this training plans also in the youth team?
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason? Expand
During the preseason, use the same training (it is highly recommended to arrange some friendly matches)
Great, thanks for all of Your answers! One last thing, I might be stupid and it might be very easy, but i can't figure out how to set the training for my reserve and u-19 teams. I took the responsibility for that area, but honestly I'm cluless where to set the training schedules for them. [FM26]
janusztokot said: Great, thanks for all of Your answers! One last thing, I might be stupid and it might be very easy, but i can't figure out how to set the training for my reserve and u-19 teams. I took the responsibility for that area, but honestly I'm cluless where to set the training schedules for them. Expand
If you go to the squad screen, there is a little thing where you can select your b team and u18/19s. Here if you click the small circles you can move between your youth team and senior team
juliius said: If you go to the squad screen, there is a little thing where you can select your b team and u18/19s. Here if you click the small circles you can move between your youth team and senior team Expand
jeeez, I'm actually comfortable with navigating this new UI, but I could be given all the time in the world and I wouldn't figure that out. Thanks!
janusztokot said: jeeez, I'm actually comfortable with navigating this new UI, but I could be given all the time in the world and I wouldn't figure that out. Thanks! Expand
Yeah, it's another one of the weird things about the new UI, personally i don't like it, but i'm gonna spare you a rant lol.
Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear
debelizec19 said: Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear Expand
Won't lie i don't have much idea about how Genie scout works, however i find it hard to believe there is a hard cap on how much pace a player can reach, as long as there still is PA available
debelizec19 said: Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear Expand Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says.
@juliius@Yarema hmm, very interesting. so,very quick conclusion. GS is not a reliable source for seeing player max potetial per attributes, only for total potetial. And what I can conclude, attributes will growth based on training that we are using and they will be high enough depending on max potential of player (higer potential, higer attributes ). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track
I mean there are no such thing as the best. Because what are you trying to achieve? Most pace and acc growth? Most CA growth? Or somewhere in between.
I prefer Physical, Match Practice, Attacking, Defending because it gives fast CA growth while also providing good Pace and Acceleration. However you won't end up with as freaky athletes as could be possible with another training schedule.
debelizec19 said: @juliius@Yarema hmm, very interesting. so,very quick conclusion. GS is not a reliable source for seeing player max potetial per attributes, only for total potetial. And what I can conclude, attributes will growth based on training that we are using and they will be high enough depending on max potential of player (higer potential, higer attributes ). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track Expand Well if you use assistant's schedules and your player reaches his PA it's probably pretty close to the attribute breakdown that GS will show. These broken schedules haven't been around for long and vast majority of players don't use them. Hidden attributes are of course important, but I've seen plenty of players that should develop based on everything that just don't. In the end you just have to see how they're actually developing.
Yarema said: Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says. Expand
The potential attributes in Genie Scout aren’t supposed to be accurate, they are just a roughly equal increase to each attribute until the potential cap is reached. So for example with a player with a lot of remaining growth you’ll see that most attributes increase by say 3 with a few at 4 or 2. It’s a bit more complicated that that because you have the 20 cap, attributes that don’t ever change, and attributes that don’t count towards CA, but roughly that’s what it does. So it isn’t factoring in the position, training or anything that would shift the balance of how you would optimize the growth. I take it as being a kind of worst case if the player hits his PA.
juliius said: I mean there are no such thing as the best. Because what are you trying to achieve? Most pace and acc growth? Most CA growth? Or somewhere in between.
I prefer Physical, Match Practice, Attacking, Defending because it gives fast CA growth while also providing good Pace and Acceleration. However you won't end up with as freaky athletes as could be possible with another training schedule. Expand
I want a little bit of everything. I want to use the 113 workout plan. Do you recommend it?
For a half of season of my save I started using one week of 113 and one week of 243. I don't know if it makes sense, but I'm seeing quite good developement already, most players developed in the most important areas so I'm sticking to it for a longer time.
Windth said: Hi, I’m new to this thread so I don’t understand much yet. Which training is the most meta in FM 26? I’d like to try it in one of my saves. Expand
To put it simply: 331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes 1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes 20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes 1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes 20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
As a suggestion, you can get those high performance trainings and combine with high efficiency trainings to produce a hybrid with lower CA gain. For example, 50% of 243 + 50% of 150, or other ratios like 25/75.
juliius said: 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.
harvestgreen22 said: 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.
For the fow I think the original "no schedule x3, double intensity x2" is still the best option.
For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery).
ZaZ said: For those tests, did you leave the day after matches with 3x rest to activate super-rest? It might make a difference if they are sent to rest during training days, or if they are sent to rest in resting days (which doubles recovery).
I left full rest days after matches. Theres a thing i don't know though. Let's say we play an away game and first module of the next day is spent on travel, does it still count as superrest?
leroysane43 said: Hello sir.Could you please send me the download file for training plan 243?
Here it is
juliius said: I left full rest days after matches. Theres a thing i don't know though. Let's say we play an away game and first module of the next day is spent on travel, does it still count as superrest?
No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't
Yarema said: No, only 3x rest works as super rest. Any other configuration doesn't
I assumed so, which is why i have been considering schedules where the monday is left completely to rest so 1 superrest per week is guaranteed. Issue just becomes with having enough modules left for training if we assume it's a 2 game week
This is what i've been thinking for when I have two away games in the same week.
For me the physical and match practice training seems the most important, so getting those in. I'm considering whether the rest on thursday is worth it. Or i should just put the attacking and defending on thursday like in the second picture, because then theres less rest, however the players that didn't play or are fit enough at least get's the training in. Also because of the travel superrest isn't a possibility anyway.
Hi guys, first of all kudos to everyone involved in testing this stuff. Second of all, when actually playing the game, do You apply these principles in first team training or are You using this training plans also in the youth team?
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason?
janusztokot said: Hi guys, first of all kudos to everyone involved in testing this stuff. Second of all, when actually playing the game, do You apply these principles in first team training or are You using this training plans also in the youth team?
Edit:
Also, what about GKs? Shouldnt we add at least one GK training session somewhere? And lastly, how about preseason?
During the preseason, use the same training (it is highly recommended to arrange some friendly matches)
There's no need to worry about the GKs. They can also grow. This post didn't focus on the GKs, but you can download the Excel file to see how much the GKs have grown.
excel 11
https://pixeldrain.com/u/95ceqXAf
https://mega.nz/file/EZ1S1CJA#4u39QpwLuA5TGhAN7eT_PoFk2DKt3s3BGhGzIPBZH9M
For both the first team and the youth team, I will use the same training (and make adjustments if there are any special requirements).
Great, thanks for all of Your answers!
One last thing, I might be stupid and it might be very easy, but i can't figure out how to set the training for my reserve and u-19 teams. I took the responsibility for that area, but honestly I'm cluless where to set the training schedules for them. [FM26]
janusztokot said: Great, thanks for all of Your answers!
One last thing, I might be stupid and it might be very easy, but i can't figure out how to set the training for my reserve and u-19 teams. I took the responsibility for that area, but honestly I'm cluless where to set the training schedules for them.
If you go to the squad screen, there is a little thing where you can select your b team and u18/19s. Here if you click the small circles you can move between your youth team and senior team
juliius said: If you go to the squad screen, there is a little thing where you can select your b team and u18/19s. Here if you click the small circles you can move between your youth team and senior team
jeeez, I'm actually comfortable with navigating this new UI, but I could be given all the time in the world and I wouldn't figure that out. Thanks!
janusztokot said: jeeez, I'm actually comfortable with navigating this new UI, but I could be given all the time in the world and I wouldn't figure that out. Thanks!
Yeah, it's another one of the weird things about the new UI, personally i don't like it, but i'm gonna spare you a rant lol.
Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear
debelizec19 said: Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear
Won't lie i don't have much idea about how Genie scout works, however i find it hard to believe there is a hard cap on how much pace a player can reach, as long as there still is PA available
debelizec19 said: Please, if anyone can explain it to me. In Genie Scout we have ability to see the potential of a player based on their attributes. So, if his pace, jumping reach or any other attribute has a given maximum value, we can chech it in GS when you click see potential attribute, does it can be changed with training or it is maximum value of attribute. Example, player has pace 10 but maximum is 15, shown in GS, is it possible to go over 15 for pace by using trainig for pace and acc. I hope my question is clear
Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says.
@juliius @Yarema hmm, very interesting. so,very quick conclusion. GS is not a reliable source for seeing player max potetial per attributes, only for total potetial. And what I can conclude, attributes will growth based on training that we are using and they will be high enough depending on max potential of player (higer potential, higer attributes
). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track
What is the best training program?
leroysane43 said: What is the best training program?
I mean there are no such thing as the best. Because what are you trying to achieve? Most pace and acc growth? Most CA growth? Or somewhere in between.
I prefer Physical, Match Practice, Attacking, Defending because it gives fast CA growth while also providing good Pace and Acceleration. However you won't end up with as freaky athletes as could be possible with another training schedule.
debelizec19 said: @juliius @Yarema hmm, very interesting. so,very quick conclusion. GS is not a reliable source for seeing player max potetial per attributes, only for total potetial. And what I can conclude, attributes will growth based on training that we are using and they will be high enough depending on max potential of player (higer potential, higer attributes
). And ofcourse, growth of attributes also depending on some hidden attributes, like professionalism, ambition and determination. Hope I am on good track
Well if you use assistant's schedules and your player reaches his PA it's probably pretty close to the attribute breakdown that GS will show. These broken schedules haven't been around for long and vast majority of players don't use them.
Hidden attributes are of course important, but I've seen plenty of players that should develop based on everything that just don't. In the end you just have to see how they're actually developing.
Yarema said: Not sure how it's determined, probably some general growth pattern for the position. But those are not hard caps and with training you can go above what it says.
The potential attributes in Genie Scout aren’t supposed to be accurate, they are just a roughly equal increase to each attribute until the potential cap is reached. So for example with a player with a lot of remaining growth you’ll see that most attributes increase by say 3 with a few at 4 or 2. It’s a bit more complicated that that because you have the 20 cap, attributes that don’t ever change, and attributes that don’t count towards CA, but roughly that’s what it does. So it isn’t factoring in the position, training or anything that would shift the balance of how you would optimize the growth. I take it as being a kind of worst case if the player hits his PA.
juliius said: I mean there are no such thing as the best. Because what are you trying to achieve? Most pace and acc growth? Most CA growth? Or somewhere in between.
I prefer Physical, Match Practice, Attacking, Defending because it gives fast CA growth while also providing good Pace and Acceleration. However you won't end up with as freaky athletes as could be possible with another training schedule.
I want a little bit of everything. I want to use the 113 workout plan. Do you recommend it?
For a half of season of my save I started using one week of 113 and one week of 243. I don't know if it makes sense, but I'm seeing quite good developement already, most players developed in the most important areas so I'm sticking to it for a longer time.
@harvestgreen22
Could you test a schedule of:
[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
Hi, I’m new to this thread so I don’t understand much yet. Which training is the most meta in FM 26? I’d like to try it in one of my saves.
juliius said: @harvestgreen22
Could you test a schedule of:
[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
466:[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
excel
https://mega.nz/file/NNsQ0QaC#tudRNF9uhPed_1ZYrFoesMZofeHD1Odt3E3rerqej_U
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZU6qjh58
Windth said: Hi, I’m new to this thread so I don’t understand much yet. Which training is the most meta in FM 26? I’d like to try it in one of my saves.
To put it simply:
331
[Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
harvestgreen22 said: 466:[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
excel
https://mega.nz/file/NNsQ0QaC#tudRNF9uhPed_1ZYrFoesMZofeHD1Odt3E3rerqej_U
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZU6qjh58
Thanks i appreciate it!
harvestgreen22 said: 466:[Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control
excel
https://mega.nz/file/NNsQ0QaC#tudRNF9uhPed_1ZYrFoesMZofeHD1Odt3E3rerqej_U
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ZU6qjh58
To put it simply:
331
[Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending]
Training Intensity Scheduling set as "no schedule, no schedule, no schedule, double intensity, double intensity"
Addtional Focus set as "Quickness "
On which days should we have the training?With two matches a week, do we really need a training match?
hey And regarding the pre-season, what training do you recommend?
HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
For GK (sorted best to worst):
334 - 40.3 CA | 4.5 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.6 ref (6.5 major) | 1 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.7 con, 2.9 ant (9 minor)
243 - 41.83 CA | 4.333 agil, 1 aer, 0.666 ref (6.0 major) | 1.33 pac, 3.16 vis, 2.83 con, 3.33 ant (10.65 minor)
150 - 44.5 CA | 3.5 agil, 1.5 aer, 1 ref (6.0 major) | 0 pac, 2.0 vis, 4.0 con, 3.5 ant (9.5 minor)
113 - 31.8 CA | 3.4 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.8 ref (5.6 major) | 1 pac, 2.8 vis, 3.4 con, 1.8 ant (9 minor)
97 - 37.2 CA | 2.8 agil, 1 aer, 1.2 ref (5.0 major) | 0.6 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.6 con, 3.4 ant (9 minor)
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
Jumping Reach:
334 - 1.4 jump
243 - 1.1666 jump
150 - 1.0625 jump
113 - 1.025 jump
97 - 0.925 jump
Decisions (low = good):
334 - 1.05 dec
113 - 2.15 dec
97 - 2.375 dec
243 - 2.625 dec
150 - 3 dec
Pace/Acc:
243: 6.08333
150: 6.0625
113: 6.375
97: 6.025
334: 6.0125
Dribbling:
243: 1.6666 drib
150: 1.58333 drib
97: 1.3333 drib
334: 1.0875 drib
113: 0.9666 drib
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes
1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes
20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689 + 0.5454 + 0.193617 + 0.23332 = 8.661337 / 38.9583 = 0.222323
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855 + 0.5454 + 0.17271 + 0.2125 = 8.61611 / 36.875 = 0.233657
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664 + 0.50904 + 0.16362 + 0.205 = 8.54166 / 35.575 = 0.240103
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395 + 0.4545 + 0.16362 + 0.185 = 8.24262 / 37.3 = 0.2209818
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking]: 7.3637 + 0.59085 + 0.16362 + 0.28 = 8.39817 / 31.21 = 0.2690859
To help clarify the true value of 'efficiency', I've added [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] to these, since it's the most efficient for just pure pace/acc.
100: [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] - 7.329584 + 0.34542 + 0.039996 + 0.2 = 7.915 / 18.05 = 0.4385
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
This can be simplified to:
Efficiency
100 - 100%
334 - 61.4%
113 - 54.8%
150 - 53.3%
243 - 50.7%
97 - 50.4%
92 - 49.7%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
92 - 98.3%
334 - 97.0%
97 - 95.2%
100 - 91.4%
Combined
100 - 95.7%
334 - 79.2%
113 - 76.7%
150 - 76.4%
243 - 75.3%
92 - 74.0%
97 - 72.8%
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: HarvestGreen22 is inclined to 331 or 334. I already did some calcs on 331 and didn't find it good enough to match the best, but 334 is a contender for the best due to its very high efficiency (performance per CA cost). I would still personally just go with the best performance (243) though.
For GK (sorted best to worst):
334 - 40.3 CA | 4.5 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.6 ref (6.5 major) | 1 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.7 con, 2.9 ant (9 minor)
243 - 41.83 CA | 4.333 agil, 1 aer, 0.666 ref (6.0 major) | 1.33 pac, 3.16 vis, 2.83 con, 3.33 ant (10.65 minor)
150 - 44.5 CA | 3.5 agil, 1.5 aer, 1 ref (6.0 major) | 0 pac, 2.0 vis, 4.0 con, 3.5 ant (9.5 minor)
113 - 31.8 CA | 3.4 agil, 1.4 aer, 0.8 ref (5.6 major) | 1 pac, 2.8 vis, 3.4 con, 1.8 ant (9 minor)
97 - 37.2 CA | 2.8 agil, 1 aer, 1.2 ref (5.0 major) | 0.6 pac, 2.4 vis, 2.6 con, 3.4 ant (9 minor)
In my view these are all strong results for GK, so these schedules don't come at the expense of GK.
I see low CA gain as somewhat important for GK unlike other positions, as I noticed GK has the highest CA cost of any position for an 'ideal' template, plus I think high PA GKs are in general difficult to get. But I didn't include this in my calculation.
Jumping Reach:
334 - 1.4 jump
243 - 1.1666 jump
150 - 1.0625 jump
113 - 1.025 jump
97 - 0.925 jump
Decisions (low = good):
334 - 1.05 dec
113 - 2.15 dec
97 - 2.375 dec
243 - 2.625 dec
150 - 3 dec
Pace/Acc:
243: 6.08333
150: 6.0625
113: 6.375
97: 6.025
334: 6.0125
Dribbling:
243: 1.6666 drib
150: 1.58333 drib
97: 1.3333 drib
334: 1.0875 drib
113: 0.9666 drib
9.09% weighting to the 3 main goalkeeping attributes
1.818% weighting to the 4 lesser GK attributes
20% weighting to jumping reach
My reasoning for these weightings is that a GK represents 9.09% of a team on the field and the 3 main attributes function basically as pace/acc do for outfield players. I gave the minor attributes a flat 20% weighting of the main ones (1.818% each), as we're talking fairly minuscule overall figures here anyway.
Jumping reach is more of a lowball guesstimate. In certain cases, jumping reach can be about as impactful as pace/acc, but I think more typically its value is that of a strong secondary attribute.
Although I have shown 'decisions' values here, it does not form part of my calculations. I figured it's going to be more accurate to simply divide the key attributes by the total CA cost, which will take decisions into account. So if you add in 'decisions' to below, it will double-count it and be invalid.
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] - 7.689 + 0.5454 + 0.193617 + 0.23332 = 8.661337 / 38.9583 = 0.222323
150: [Attacking x 6][Quickness focus] - 7.6855 + 0.5454 + 0.17271 + 0.2125 = 8.61611 / 36.875 = 0.233657
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.664 + 0.50904 + 0.16362 + 0.205 = 8.54166 / 35.575 = 0.240103
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] - 7.4395 + 0.4545 + 0.16362 + 0.185 = 8.24262 / 37.3 = 0.2209818
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking]: 7.3637 + 0.59085 + 0.16362 + 0.28 = 8.39817 / 31.21 = 0.2690859
To help clarify the true value of 'efficiency', I've added [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] to these, since it's the most efficient for just pure pace/acc.
100: [Match Reviewx2][Quickness] - 7.329584 + 0.34542 + 0.039996 + 0.2 = 7.915 / 18.05 = 0.4385
I've also added 92:[Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][Quickness focus] to give an idea about a considerable but inferior schedule would compare. Although 92 doesn't do much worse than 243, it would result in a lot more tiredness and injuries.
This can be simplified to:
Efficiency
100 - 100%
334 - 61.4%
113 - 54.8%
150 - 53.3%
243 - 50.7%
97 - 50.4%
92 - 49.7%
Performance
243 - 100%
150 - 99.5%
113 - 98.6%
92 - 98.3%
334 - 97.0%
97 - 95.2%
100 - 91.4%
Combined
100 - 95.7%
334 - 79.2%
113 - 76.7%
150 - 76.4%
243 - 75.3%
92 - 74.0%
97 - 72.8%
As a suggestion, you can get those high performance trainings and combine with high efficiency trainings to produce a hybrid with lower CA gain. For example, 50% of 243 + 50% of 150, or other ratios like 25/75.