In the Brazilian Football Manager community, we’ve been actively debating forum tests, shared experiments, and engine behavior, alongside long discussions with AI (ChatGPT). This article is the result of that process. Feel free to disagree, refute parts of it, or improve it — the intention is to collaboratively refine a practical understanding of how the FM engine truly works.
1 What CA is — and what it is not
Before talking about training, it’s essential to align concepts.
> CA (Current Ability) is an invisible internal value that represents a player’s current overall level. > Attributes do not generate CA. > Attributes do not directly “consume” CA.
The real engine flow is: Matches + development context → CA gain → automatic distribution of CA into attributes The most common misconception is thinking that: > “Training creates attributes” > “Attributes consume CA” None of this happens directly. What actually exists is conversion and allocation, not direct creation.
2 PA defines the ceiling — not the pace or the direction PA (Potential Ability): > does not generate attributes > does not push growth > does not guarantee development
PA only defines the maximum total ability budget a player can sustain. Two players with the same PA can: > grow at very different rates > develop completely different profiles > stagnate for different reasons
PA limits the budget — it does not decide where the budget is spent.
3 The PA–CA gap as the growth-rate engine The larger the gap between PA and CA, the higher the potential growth rate per season. Conceptual example: > 18 years old, high PA, low CA → large reallocation margin > 25 years old, high PA, already high CA → small margin
Even with similar matches and training: > the first player grows fast > the second grows very little
This “gap” is the structural space the engine has to work with.
4 Age: the silent multiplier The same PA–CA gap produces different results depending on age: > 16–19: very high conversion efficiency > 20–23: strong growth, but more role-directed > 24–26: punctual / selective growth > 27+: residual growth, focus shifts to maintenance
Age does not block growth — it defines how expensive growth becomes.
5 The central role of matches in CA gain The primary driver of CA gain is playing matches. When a player: > plays regularly > receives good match ratings > faces an appropriate competitive context (level, intensity, pressure)
matches generate CA. This applies to: > competitive matches > friendlies > Match Practice, which is one of the few training sessions that simulates real match experience
Without matches, CA growth is severely limited.
6 So what is training actually for? This is the most misunderstood part of Football Manager.
Training does NOT create CA. Training does NOT create attributes by itself.
Training exists to: > increase the conversion rate of gained CA > direct where that CA is allocated > prevent efficiency loss during development
In practical terms: > Players gain CA by playing > If training rating / happiness / intensity tolerance is high: > CA is efficiently distributed > If training rating is low: > part of the growth potential is wasted or diluted
Important: CA is not stored waiting for training to improve. If conversion conditions are poor, growth is simply less efficient.
7 What if a player performs well but trains poorly? This is the critical scenario.
Situation: > Player performs well in matches > Has PA–CA space > But has low training ratings
Result: Matches still generate CA, However: > attribute conversion is worse > growth is slower > part of the gain is internally diluted
In short: playing is a necessary condition training well is an efficiency condition
8 The “Chinese test” — and why it doesn’t contradict this In the well-known Chinese community test:
Players: > played many matches (competitive + friendlies) > often two matches per week
Team training: >almost entirely Rest / Recovery
Individual training: > focused (e.g. Quickness)
Result: players still developed significantly
Why? Because: > CA came from matches > Match Practice preserved competitive exposure > Individual training ratings were high > There was a large PA–CA gap
Light team training did not stop growth because: > it was not supposed to create CA > it simply did not interfere with conversion
This test shows that: matches create growth opportunity, training determines how well that opportunity is used.
9 Match Practice: a special session Match Practice deserves special attention.
It is one of the few sessions that: > simulates real match conditions > contributes to: > experience > match sharpness > indirect CA generation
That’s why it is: > extremely valuable > especially in weeks with few matches or for developing youngsters > It’s no coincidence it appears in almost every efficient training setup.
10 Why some attributes rise easily and others don’t Here we reach the technical core. The engine does not distribute CA equally. Each attribute has a different internal weight.
11- Diminishing returns: the Acceleration case Practical example: Player with 8 Acceleration Far below competitive standard Very little CA (sometimes ~0.2) already converts into +1 Acceleration Very fast development Player with 16 Acceleration Already elite-level To reach 17: requires much more CA (often close to 6 CA for +1) gains are often: diluted into other attributes or take many weeks to “close” the point Key point: There is no fixed CA cost There is a much higher CA requirement for the same +1 That’s why: 8 → 9 is cheap 16 → 17 is very expensive in efficiency terms In other words: the cost is not linear — it grows exponentially. Hence: focusing on physicals at low levels is extremely efficient pushing already elite physicals consumes a large part of the invisible budget “Acceleration up to 16 wins matches. Above 17, it wins forum debates.” Now the meaning is clear: up to 16: strong practical impact still acceptable cost above 16: marginal on-pitch gain disproportionate CA cost slows technical and mental development 16 is a very strong competitive efficiency point. Beyond that is theoretical optimization, not structural advantage.
12 Smart strategy: accelerate early, balance later This leads to an advanced individual training decision: Young players (16–21): prioritize Quickness until ~15–16 excellent cost-benefit ratio After that: continuing to push Acceleration consumes too much relative CA harms technical and mental growth Solid strategy: prioritize physicals early → stabilize → redirect This is not “slowing development” — it’s optimizing CA distribution.
Final conclusions Matches are the engine of growth Training defines conversion efficiency Match Practice is the key link between the two CA is not created by training Attributes do not directly “consume” CA High physical attributes have diminishing returns Training well doesn’t create growth — it amplifies it Understanding this completely changes: how you build training weeks how you use individual training how you develop youngsters why sometimes “nothing grows” despite good performances
Playing a lot already creates development. Training well defines where, how fast, and at what cost that development happens. Those who understand this stop asking: “What’s the best training?” and start asking: “Am I spending my invisible CA budget where it actually matters?”
📆 Structuring team training and individual training within this engine logic From this perspective, team training should be viewed less as a direct growth tool and more as a development support system. Since CA is generated mainly by matches, the ideal team training setup is one that maintains high training ratings, good condition, and a stable conversion environment without competing with the main growth source. That’s why efficient schedules heavily favor Recovery, Rest and Match Practice, especially in weeks with one or two matches. Recovery and Rest do not increase attributes, but they preserve condition, reduce hidden fatigue, and help keep training ratings high, which is essential for efficient CA conversion. Match Practice, meanwhile, simulates competitive exposure and acts as a bridge between matches and training, being particularly valuable for youngsters, rotation players, and one-match weeks. Highly specific sessions (defensive units, attacking units, set pieces, cohesion) serve tactical or situational purposes, but should not dominate the weekly structure when the main goal is physical development and sustainable CA growth.
Individual training is where real attribute prioritization happens, especially for physicals. Community testing consistently shows that Acceleration and Pace have disproportionate impact on match performance, which justifies focusing individual training on these attributes — particularly for young players with large PA–CA gaps. The key, however, is cost-efficiency: up to around 15–16 Acceleration/Pace, returns are excellent because the attributes are still below the practical ceiling and absorb CA efficiently. Beyond that point, diminishing returns apply: pushing Acceleration from 16 to 17 requires much more relative CA and often delays growth in technical and mental attributes. Therefore, the most efficient approach is to prioritize Acceleration and Pace early, reach a competitive plateau (~16), and then reduce intensity or switch individual focus to technical or mental attributes aligned with the player’s role. For veterans, the logic reverses: individual training serves primarily to maintain physicals and slow decline, not to generate growth, and should be kept at normal intensity, avoiding double intensity due to fatigue, injury risk, and reduced training ratings with little developmental return.
Thanks for the posts. Some of the stuff is paradigm shifting and goes against what we know so far, so backing it up with numbers would be really nice.
For example pace has been shown to be a great investment of CA at any level, while there may be diminishing returns it's questionable whether they outweigh the huge value of pace to begin with. Match ratings have had unimpressive results on player growth. You put a lot more value and importance into match practice than tests done so far, where it's close to replaceable by other sessions. The whole "CA" concept is completely new and assumes a couple of conversions that we've never heard of before. As I understood for example 30 full matches generate 20 CA, but if a player is 24 years old he only gets 5 of it and if training isn't stimulating enough perhaps in the end the actual growth is only 2 CA. Not saying it's incorrect, but it would be nice to see some backing of the claims.
(Due to language issues, I can't explain many details through the translator becausethe translator always misses or distorts some content.) Your explanation is more clearer. I can't explain this matter very well in English
Seb Wassell, who designed the new training system, repeatedly emphasized that training changes attributes which changes CA (not CA first, then attributes), and I think he said that PA is then taken account which affects CA and then attributes.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower.
Eddie said: 2 PA defines the ceiling — not the pace or the direction Expand
Worth saying that the ceiling is defined by country and league too. For example If You played as chinese club You could buy a high-PA chinese newgen generated somewhere else - or even could be lucky and get one, don't know if it's possible - but he will not progress in Your chinese club over a preset limit (about 70?). And same: if You played as Liechtensteiner club, You would get decent (but not great) newgens because You play in a swiss league but they dont cross 80 CA in Liechtenstein until they have second nationality (not sure here). You can loan players to Swiss club to get better CA it will not lower after return. Or wait until Liechtenstein/China/Andorra/sth else get better country rating after many succesful seasons.
tam1236 said: Worth saying that the ceiling is defined by country and league too. For example If You played as chinese club You could buy a high-PA chinese newgen generated somewhere else - or even could be lucky and get one, don't know if it's possible - but he will not progress in Your chinese club over a preset limit (about 70?). And same: if You played as Liechtensteiner club, You would get decent (but not great) newgens because You play in a swiss league but they dont cross 80 CA in Liechtenstein until they have second nationality (not sure here). You can loan players to Swiss club to get better CA it will not lower after return. Or wait until Liechtenstein/China/Andorra/sth else get better country rating after many succesful seasons. Expand How did you arrive at this conclusion
An example to disprove this hypothesis would be EBFM's test league which has North Korean players in an Algerian league, where North Korea is rank 111 and Algeria is rank 40, yet I've seen players at ~170 CA after 4 years of training
They were north korean BUT played in Algerian league which is not bad, so could get much better CA than in FC Pyongjang . These north korean players with PA 170 are strange - don't You think?
And it's not a hypothesis. I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
tam1236 said: They were north korean BUT played in Algerian league which is not bad, so could get much better CA than in FC Pyongjang . These north korean players with PA 170 are strange - don't You think?
And it's not a hypothesis. I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
This game is like driving a tramway Expand
I was curious so I did a test
I took an existing Gibraltarian player at a Gilbraltarian club, made him age 16 and 200 PA. Increased club training facilities to 20 and trained him using mostly meta training.
Starting CA was 72:
After 4 years was 155 CA:
Gibraltar started rank 202, ended 152.
By end of year 2, was at 123 CA and Gibraltar rank was 182.
Perhaps it was the type of training you were doing in your save
Interesting . "My" trainning was default training or rest/speed training or mixed - depends on year. I'm certain I'm right but really don't know how it works - definitely it's not so simple and that's what I knew. Maybe it concerns newgens, maybe Gibraltar is somehow british. On the other side, from my experience, You sholdnt reach CA 182 in such a weak league as Gibraltarian (Vanarama or anything similar).
Second thing that bothers me in Your simulation is this great jump of Gibraltar from 202 to 152 in 4 years. Because I was a coach of Liechtenstein too (and we know how awfully stupid coach is FM AI), won most matches (nearly all with better (as for ranking) some with much, much better opponents), drawed the rest (ok, lost to England twice and to Macedonia once), arranged all possible frendlies (and won all of them) and jumped (4 years too from 200_and_sth) only to 130 or sth like this
Competition level (league reputation?) is definitely an important consideration and there seems to be a CA cap to what you can realistically reach depending on that.
I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. So, which training is ultimately the most effective? Based on the Excel file, the best one is this: Quickness + Match Practice + Additional Focus Quickness (No Double Intensity).
Nikos said: I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. So, which training is ultimately the most effective? Based on the Excel file, the best one is this: Quickness + Match Practice + Additional Focus Quickness (No Double Intensity). Expand
There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Seb Wassell, who designed the new training system, repeatedly emphasized that training changes attributes which changes CA (not CA first, then attributes), and I think he said that PA is then taken account which affects CA and then attributes.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower. Expand
I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
bigloser said: There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it. Expand I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap. To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes). On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
tam1236 said: I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap. To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes). On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia. Expand
It’s largely minutes played and professionalism. A 20 professionalism/200 pa player will hit it 100% of the time if they play 30 games of minutes per year from the time they generate to age 27.
A player with only 10 will likely never hit their PA.
The only explanation is smaller countries don’t have enough games in a season to fully develop.
bigloser said: There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals. Expand
We are definitely looking for the best possible training in order to push our player as close as possible to his PA limit. This value may be predetermined, but if it is not developed properly, it will never be reached. That’s what I’m asking, whether you have settled on a specific training plan
As long as players get game time they will most likely hit their PA, there are schedules that does it faster than others, but then the thing you need to think about is whether you want a certain attribute distribution
Nikos said: We are definitely looking for the best possible training in order to push our player as close as possible to his PA limit. This value may be predetermined, but if it is not developed properly, it will never be reached. That’s what I’m asking, whether you have settled on a specific training plan Expand
Not necessarily, not all CA is created equal. A 120 CA player with 20/20 ACC/PAC is better than a 160 with 12/12 ACC/PAC.
I just used practice /quickness/attacking + recoveries with double intensity in Germany . If I were playing somewhere with weaker regens I’d just go full attacking direct+quickness. Though I noticed lower pa regens generally hit the big physical numbers early. Doing an MLS save and will see if I end up switching.
I think individual focus + double intensity is doing most of the heavy lifting. You get big gains to what ever you change it to. (I’ve tested with dribbling.)? But since ACC/PAC are the two best attributes and on the same individual training with no filler it’s by far the most efficient and best one to use.
If you are in the Wonderkid hoarding portion of a save, what you are really looking for are players with high pa, high professionalism and a good secondary attribute that sucks to train like dribbling/jumping reach and the cheese their acc/pac up to 16/17. Once your midfield and CD are all 16+ acc/pac you basically just face roll the game. The above training strategy ups their mentals good enough.
I actually like the technical regens best now because you can eventually get their acc/PAC super high. I have a midfielder intake that started at 7/7 and is up to 16/15 at 19. In a way these schedules make ACC/PAC less important for player acquisition because you can make almost anyone fast.
bigloser said: I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it. Expand The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case. Expand
I ve looked at old saves in FMRTE and most of my young players on an upward trajectory had a lower RCA than their CA. Pretty sure EBFM mentioned that young players can over grow their CA and adjust back down and that RCA only updates monthly. (It’s been a while) I’ve also seen older players close to their PA get an expensive attribute like acc/pad and then have cheaper ones adjust down the next month. You also have to remember that attributes aren’t really 1-20 it’s 1-200 (or 100 can’t remember.) the naming scheme is dumb imo.
I picked MLS specifically because they are relatively rich and have good facilities in addition to not playing games. (With the cap they have nothing else to spend it on.) I know there is difference in youth ratings which is why I said to look at 130-140 PA players which are still common in the U.S.. You would only be able to test this with hidden attributes visible. Ie Look at like LAFC / NYCFC 16 year olds with 130 PA and look at like Sheffield Wednesday level clubs with similar pa. 3 years later the English players that get a lot of PT on the u-19s and u-21s will lap their American peers:
I’m only in year 3 of my MLS save but the regens on my reserve team playing friendlies are way ahead their peers (I don’t have hiddens visible though. Even in older saves players that sit the bench at 15/16 grow more when they start playing.
In the Brazilian Football Manager community, we’ve been actively debating forum tests, shared experiments, and engine behavior, alongside long discussions with AI (ChatGPT). This article is the result of that process. Feel free to disagree, refute parts of it, or improve it — the intention is to collaboratively refine a practical understanding of how the FM engine truly works.
1 What CA is — and what it is not
Before talking about training, it’s essential to align concepts.
> CA (Current Ability) is an invisible internal value that represents a player’s current overall level.
> Attributes do not generate CA.
> Attributes do not directly “consume” CA.
The real engine flow is:
Matches + development context → CA gain → automatic distribution of CA into attributes
The most common misconception is thinking that:
> “Training creates attributes”
> “Attributes consume CA”
None of this happens directly.
What actually exists is conversion and allocation, not direct creation.
2 PA defines the ceiling — not the pace or the direction
PA (Potential Ability):
> does not generate attributes
> does not push growth
> does not guarantee development
PA only defines the maximum total ability budget a player can sustain.
Two players with the same PA can:
> grow at very different rates
> develop completely different profiles
> stagnate for different reasons
PA limits the budget — it does not decide where the budget is spent.
3 The PA–CA gap as the growth-rate engine
The larger the gap between PA and CA, the higher the potential growth rate per season.
Conceptual example:
> 18 years old, high PA, low CA → large reallocation margin
> 25 years old, high PA, already high CA → small margin
Even with similar matches and training:
> the first player grows fast
> the second grows very little
This “gap” is the structural space the engine has to work with.
4 Age: the silent multiplier
The same PA–CA gap produces different results depending on age:
> 16–19: very high conversion efficiency
> 20–23: strong growth, but more role-directed
> 24–26: punctual / selective growth
> 27+: residual growth, focus shifts to maintenance
Age does not block growth — it defines how expensive growth becomes.
5 The central role of matches in CA gain
The primary driver of CA gain is playing matches.
When a player:
> plays regularly
> receives good match ratings
> faces an appropriate competitive context (level, intensity, pressure)
matches generate CA.
This applies to:
> competitive matches
> friendlies
> Match Practice, which is one of the few training sessions that simulates real match experience
Without matches, CA growth is severely limited.
6 So what is training actually for?
This is the most misunderstood part of Football Manager.
Training does NOT create CA.
Training does NOT create attributes by itself.
Training exists to:
> increase the conversion rate of gained CA
> direct where that CA is allocated
> prevent efficiency loss during development
In practical terms:
> Players gain CA by playing
> If training rating / happiness / intensity tolerance is high:
> CA is efficiently distributed
> If training rating is low:
> part of the growth potential is wasted or diluted
Important:
CA is not stored waiting for training to improve.
If conversion conditions are poor, growth is simply less efficient.
7 What if a player performs well but trains poorly?
This is the critical scenario.
Situation:
> Player performs well in matches
> Has PA–CA space
> But has low training ratings
Result:
Matches still generate CA, However:
> attribute conversion is worse
> growth is slower
> part of the gain is internally diluted
In short:
playing is a necessary condition
training well is an efficiency condition
8 The “Chinese test” — and why it doesn’t contradict this
In the well-known Chinese community test:
Players:
> played many matches (competitive + friendlies)
> often two matches per week
Team training:
>almost entirely Rest / Recovery
Individual training:
> focused (e.g. Quickness)
Result:
players still developed significantly
Why? Because:
> CA came from matches
> Match Practice preserved competitive exposure
> Individual training ratings were high
> There was a large PA–CA gap
Light team training did not stop growth because:
> it was not supposed to create CA
> it simply did not interfere with conversion
This test shows that:
matches create growth opportunity, training determines how well that opportunity is used.
9 Match Practice: a special session
Match Practice deserves special attention.
It is one of the few sessions that:
> simulates real match conditions
> contributes to:
> experience
> match sharpness
> indirect CA generation
That’s why it is:
> extremely valuable
> especially in weeks with few matches or for developing youngsters
> It’s no coincidence it appears in almost every efficient training setup.
10 Why some attributes rise easily and others don’t
Here we reach the technical core.
The engine does not distribute CA equally.
Each attribute has a different internal weight.
“Expensive” attributes include:
> Acceleration
> Pace
> Strength
> Balance
They have:
high weighting
diminishing returns
11- Diminishing returns: the Acceleration case
Practical example:
Player with 8 Acceleration
Far below competitive standard
Very little CA (sometimes ~0.2) already converts into +1 Acceleration
Very fast development
Player with 16 Acceleration
Already elite-level
To reach 17:
requires much more CA (often close to 6 CA for +1)
gains are often:
diluted into other attributes
or take many weeks to “close” the point
Key point:
There is no fixed CA cost
There is a much higher CA requirement for the same +1
That’s why:
8 → 9 is cheap
16 → 17 is very expensive in efficiency terms
In other words:
the cost is not linear — it grows exponentially.
Hence:
focusing on physicals at low levels is extremely efficient
pushing already elite physicals consumes a large part of the invisible budget
“Acceleration up to 16 wins matches.
Above 17, it wins forum debates.”
Now the meaning is clear:
up to 16:
strong practical impact
still acceptable cost
above 16:
marginal on-pitch gain
disproportionate CA cost
slows technical and mental development
16 is a very strong competitive efficiency point.
Beyond that is theoretical optimization, not structural advantage.
12 Smart strategy: accelerate early, balance later
This leads to an advanced individual training decision:
Young players (16–21):
prioritize Quickness until ~15–16
excellent cost-benefit ratio
After that:
continuing to push Acceleration consumes too much relative CA
harms technical and mental growth
Solid strategy:
prioritize physicals early → stabilize → redirect
This is not “slowing development” — it’s optimizing CA distribution.
Final conclusions
Matches are the engine of growth
Training defines conversion efficiency
Match Practice is the key link between the two
CA is not created by training
Attributes do not directly “consume” CA
High physical attributes have diminishing returns
Training well doesn’t create growth — it amplifies it
Understanding this completely changes:
how you build training weeks
how you use individual training
how you develop youngsters
why sometimes “nothing grows” despite good performances
Playing a lot already creates development.
Training well defines where, how fast, and at what cost that development happens.
Those who understand this stop asking:
“What’s the best training?”
and start asking:
“Am I spending my invisible CA budget where it actually matters?”
📆 Structuring team training and individual training within this engine logic
From this perspective, team training should be viewed less as a direct growth tool and more as a development support system. Since CA is generated mainly by matches, the ideal team training setup is one that maintains high training ratings, good condition, and a stable conversion environment without competing with the main growth source. That’s why efficient schedules heavily favor Recovery, Rest and Match Practice, especially in weeks with one or two matches. Recovery and Rest do not increase attributes, but they preserve condition, reduce hidden fatigue, and help keep training ratings high, which is essential for efficient CA conversion. Match Practice, meanwhile, simulates competitive exposure and acts as a bridge between matches and training, being particularly valuable for youngsters, rotation players, and one-match weeks. Highly specific sessions (defensive units, attacking units, set pieces, cohesion) serve tactical or situational purposes, but should not dominate the weekly structure when the main goal is physical development and sustainable CA growth.
Individual training is where real attribute prioritization happens, especially for physicals. Community testing consistently shows that Acceleration and Pace have disproportionate impact on match performance, which justifies focusing individual training on these attributes — particularly for young players with large PA–CA gaps. The key, however, is cost-efficiency: up to around 15–16 Acceleration/Pace, returns are excellent because the attributes are still below the practical ceiling and absorb CA efficiently. Beyond that point, diminishing returns apply: pushing Acceleration from 16 to 17 requires much more relative CA and often delays growth in technical and mental attributes. Therefore, the most efficient approach is to prioritize Acceleration and Pace early, reach a competitive plateau (~16), and then reduce intensity or switch individual focus to technical or mental attributes aligned with the player’s role. For veterans, the logic reverses: individual training serves primarily to maintain physicals and slow decline, not to generate growth, and should be kept at normal intensity, avoiding double intensity due to fatigue, injury risk, and reduced training ratings with little developmental return.
Thanks for the posts. Some of the stuff is paradigm shifting and goes against what we know so far, so backing it up with numbers would be really nice.
For example pace has been shown to be a great investment of CA at any level, while there may be diminishing returns it's questionable whether they outweigh the huge value of pace to begin with.
Match ratings have had unimpressive results on player growth.
You put a lot more value and importance into match practice than tests done so far, where it's close to replaceable by other sessions.
The whole "CA" concept is completely new and assumes a couple of conversions that we've never heard of before. As I understood for example 30 full matches generate 20 CA, but if a player is 24 years old he only gets 5 of it and if training isn't stimulating enough perhaps in the end the actual growth is only 2 CA. Not saying it's incorrect, but it would be nice to see some backing of the claims.
Great! Our viewpoints are the same : https://fm-arena.com/thread/14456-corrigendum-for-previous-test-error-friendly-matches-actually-count-as-the-number-of-matches-playing-friendly-matches-can-increase-ca/
(Due to language issues, I can't explain many details through the translator becausethe translator always misses or distorts some content.)
Your explanation is more clearer. I can't explain this matter very well in English
Seb Wassell, who designed the new training system, repeatedly emphasized that training changes attributes which changes CA (not CA first, then attributes), and I think he said that PA is then taken account which affects CA and then attributes.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower.
Eddie said: 2 PA defines the ceiling — not the pace or the direction
Worth saying that the ceiling is defined by country and league too. For example If You played as chinese club You could buy a high-PA chinese newgen generated somewhere else - or even could be lucky and get one, don't know if it's possible - but he will not progress in Your chinese club over a preset limit (about 70?). And same: if You played as Liechtensteiner club, You would get decent (but not great) newgens because You play in a swiss league but they dont cross 80 CA in Liechtenstein until they have second nationality (not sure here). You can loan players to Swiss club to get better CA it will not lower after return. Or wait until Liechtenstein/China/Andorra/sth else get better country rating after many succesful seasons.
tam1236 said: Worth saying that the ceiling is defined by country and league too. For example If You played as chinese club You could buy a high-PA chinese newgen generated somewhere else - or even could be lucky and get one, don't know if it's possible - but he will not progress in Your chinese club over a preset limit (about 70?). And same: if You played as Liechtensteiner club, You would get decent (but not great) newgens because You play in a swiss league but they dont cross 80 CA in Liechtenstein until they have second nationality (not sure here). You can loan players to Swiss club to get better CA it will not lower after return. Or wait until Liechtenstein/China/Andorra/sth else get better country rating after many succesful seasons.
How did you arrive at this conclusion
An example to disprove this hypothesis would be EBFM's test league which has North Korean players in an Algerian league, where North Korea is rank 111 and Algeria is rank 40, yet I've seen players at ~170 CA after 4 years of training
They were north korean BUT played in Algerian league which is not bad, so could get much better CA than in FC Pyongjang . These north korean players with PA 170 are strange - don't You think?
And it's not a hypothesis.
I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
This game is like driving a tramway
tam1236 said: They were north korean BUT played in Algerian league which is not bad, so could get much better CA than in FC Pyongjang . These north korean players with PA 170 are strange - don't You think?
And it's not a hypothesis.
I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
This game is like driving a tramway
I was curious so I did a test
I took an existing Gibraltarian player at a Gilbraltarian club, made him age 16 and 200 PA. Increased club training facilities to 20 and trained him using mostly meta training.
Starting CA was 72:
After 4 years was 155 CA:
Gibraltar started rank 202, ended 152.
By end of year 2, was at 123 CA and Gibraltar rank was 182.
Perhaps it was the type of training you were doing in your save
Interesting . "My" trainning was default training or rest/speed training or mixed - depends on year.
I'm certain I'm right but really don't know how it works - definitely it's not so simple and that's what I knew. Maybe it concerns newgens, maybe Gibraltar is somehow british. On the other side, from my experience, You sholdnt reach CA 182 in such a weak league as Gibraltarian (Vanarama or anything similar).
Second thing that bothers me in Your simulation is this great jump of Gibraltar from 202 to 152 in 4 years. Because I was a coach of Liechtenstein too (and we know how awfully stupid coach is FM AI), won most matches (nearly all with better (as for ranking) some with much, much better opponents), drawed the rest (ok, lost to England twice and to Macedonia once), arranged all possible frendlies (and won all of them) and jumped (4 years too from 200_and_sth) only to 130 or sth like this
Competition level (league reputation?) is definitely an important consideration and there seems to be a CA cap to what you can realistically reach depending on that.
I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. So, which training is ultimately the most effective? Based on the Excel file, the best one is this: Quickness + Match Practice + Additional Focus Quickness (No Double Intensity).
Nikos said: I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. So, which training is ultimately the most effective? Based on the Excel file, the best one is this: Quickness + Match Practice + Additional Focus Quickness (No Double Intensity).
There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Seb Wassell, who designed the new training system, repeatedly emphasized that training changes attributes which changes CA (not CA first, then attributes), and I think he said that PA is then taken account which affects CA and then attributes.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower.
I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
bigloser said: There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap.
To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes).
On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
tam1236 said: I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap.
To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes).
On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
It’s largely minutes played and professionalism. A 20 professionalism/200 pa player will hit it 100% of the time if they play 30 games of minutes per year from the time they generate to age 27.
A player with only 10 will likely never hit their PA.
The only explanation is smaller countries don’t have enough games in a season to fully develop.
bigloser said: There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals.
We are definitely looking for the best possible training in order to push our player as close as possible to his PA limit. This value may be predetermined, but if it is not developed properly, it will never be reached. That’s what I’m asking, whether you have settled on a specific training plan
As long as players get game time they will most likely hit their PA, there are schedules that does it faster than others, but then the thing you need to think about is whether you want a certain attribute distribution
Nikos said: We are definitely looking for the best possible training in order to push our player as close as possible to his PA limit. This value may be predetermined, but if it is not developed properly, it will never be reached. That’s what I’m asking, whether you have settled on a specific training plan
Not necessarily, not all CA is created equal. A 120 CA player with 20/20 ACC/PAC is better than a 160 with 12/12 ACC/PAC.
I just used practice /quickness/attacking + recoveries with double intensity in Germany . If I were playing somewhere with weaker regens I’d just go full attacking direct+quickness. Though I noticed lower pa regens generally hit the big physical numbers early. Doing an MLS save and will see if I end up switching.
I think individual focus + double intensity is doing most of the heavy lifting. You get big gains to what ever you change it to. (I’ve tested with dribbling.)? But since ACC/PAC are the two best attributes and on the same individual training with no filler it’s by far the most efficient and best one to use.
If you are in the Wonderkid hoarding portion of a save, what you are really looking for are players with high pa, high professionalism and a good secondary attribute that sucks to train like dribbling/jumping reach and the cheese their acc/pac up to 16/17. Once your midfield and CD are all 16+ acc/pac you basically just face roll the game. The above training strategy ups their mentals good enough.
I actually like the technical regens best now because you can eventually get their acc/PAC super high. I have a midfielder intake that started at 7/7 and is up to 16/15 at 19. In a way these schedules make ACC/PAC less important for player acquisition because you can make almost anyone fast.
bigloser said: I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
I ve looked at old saves in FMRTE and most of my young players on an upward trajectory had a lower RCA than their CA. Pretty sure EBFM mentioned that young players can over grow their CA and adjust back down and that RCA only updates monthly. (It’s been a while) I’ve also seen older players close to their PA get an expensive attribute like acc/pad and then have cheaper ones adjust down the next month. You also have to remember that attributes aren’t really 1-20 it’s 1-200 (or 100 can’t remember.) the naming scheme is dumb imo.
I picked MLS specifically because they are relatively rich and have good facilities in addition to not playing games. (With the cap they have nothing else to spend it on.) I know there is difference in youth ratings which is why I said to look at 130-140 PA players which are still common in the U.S.. You would only be able to test this with hidden attributes visible. Ie Look at like LAFC / NYCFC 16 year olds with 130 PA and look at like Sheffield Wednesday level clubs with similar pa. 3 years later the English players that get a lot of PT on the u-19s and u-21s will lap their American peers:
I’m only in year 3 of my MLS save but the regens on my reserve team playing friendlies are way ahead their peers (I don’t have hiddens visible though. Even in older saves players that sit the bench at 15/16 grow more when they start playing.