bf3metro said: Hey, based on all the testing you’ve done here, do you have what you’d consider an optimal schedule to actually use week-to-week over a full season?
I’ve been using ZaZ’s Growth 2, but in my save it really isn’t delivering the development I expected.
What I’m mainly looking for is a schedule that pushes CA growth as fast as possible so players reach their PA quickly, rather than just maximizing CA efficiency.
Would you recommend switching fully to something like 260 / 214 / 156 depending on the players’ CA–PA gap, or do you have a specific weekly/monthly rotation you think is optimal in practice? Expand ZaZ Growth 2 would be 1064.2675-1115.573
Oddly enough the 2-match Physicalx2 Attackingx2 scores better than the Physicalx5 Attackingx5 and results in higher CA gain too.
Because CA-PA gap is a critical accelerant to growth, you actually want the lowest overall CA growth possible - while highest in the CA growth where it matters. There is a hard cap on CA per season anyway, which is ~20-25 (someone has reported ~30 i think). If your players aren't developing much, it's more likely that they're over 18 and not getting enough match experience. No match experience for older players can reduce growth to ~1 CA/season.
masterjackfruit said: I personally like the training schedules with recovery the most, I try to keep my backup players sharpness as high as possible and recovery seems to preserve sharpness better than rest. Also I notice that for some reason the Attacking session yields an unusual number of injuries, more so than Defending or Overall. I could be wrong, but it's something I've noticed in my saves. Expand It's a more subjective matter, but what I found is that using home friendly matches against the worst team possible is better than using recovery periods in training.
Friendly matches improve morale, build familiarity, build up match sharpness a lot better, and I daresay even result in less injuries.
When using all recovery I noticed that it tends to result in too low condition and eventually fatigue, so it had to be half recovery half rest, which also can be tedious to set up properly each week.
I can't remember if this is the case, but recovery might also interact differently with the other training modules to produce different results than what it shown in HarvestGreen's spreadsheets.
I've done most of the remaining training schedules in HarvestGreen's spreadsheet.
We have a new top one, that I've highlighted green. This one was actually suggested by tam1236 back in january. He took the HarvestGreen attribute test findings and did a calculation on it to find this as the best training schedule.
It even has pretty good efficiency, though I suspect the workload could be too high to be worth using with all those modules. Very impressive though given it also has one of the highest CA gains (37.75), so it's particularly good if you want to keep your players looking well rounded for aesthetic reasons without compromising on actual performance.
It turns out there are a lot of very high efficiency options above 1000 (so still ~85%+ of the absolute best), and the most efficient is now Recoveryx13. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's interesting there's a profound difference in training quality between rest and recovery on their own.
I've highlighted in yellow some schedules that stand out to me, but I haven't taken a close look yet.
Because CA-PA gap is a critical accelerant to growth, you actually want the lowest overall CA growth possible - while highest in the CA growth where it matters. There is a hard cap on CA per season anyway, which is ~20-25 (someone has reported ~30 i think). If your players aren't developing much, it's more likely that they're over 18 and not getting enough match experience. No match experience for older players can reduce growth to ~1 CA/season. Expand
This is how I’m understanding the schedules from everything you’ve posted:
Best universal choice for me Very strong weighted development: 1115.573 You specifically said it produced higher CA gain than the much heavier Physical x5 + Attacking x5 schedule Moderate workload: ~105% Seems suitable whether the player is 16, 20 or 27, provided older players get enough match experience
260 — Physical + Match Practice + Attacking x2 + Quickness focus — 98/100
Best when players have a large CA–PA gap Highest weighted improvement of the tested schedules: 1156.35 Slightly more aggressive CA usage than 214 Seems particularly strong for young players / wonderkids with lots of PA still available
Best once players are closer to PA Lower CA cost: 24.20 Still very strong weighted improvement: 1026.72 Seems useful for preserving the CA–PA gap while still improving valuable attributes
So I’d currently summarize them as:
214 = universal GOAT 260 = big CA–PA gap GOAT 156 = near-PA GOAT
Or another way:
260 = high CA–PA gap / maximum useful development 214 = phenomenal development, very efficient, and apparently strong actual CA gain 156 = once players are getting close to PA
My main goal is simply to get CA increasing as much as possible across the whole squad, roughly ages 16–29.
So between 214 (Physical x2 + Attacking x2) and 260 (Physical + Match Practice + Attacking x2), which one would you personally use as the main schedule?
I understand now that preserving the CA–PA gap matters, and that match experience becomes crucial after 18, so I’m not necessarily looking for the schedule with the highest CA cost.
What I’m really looking for is the one that gives the best actual CA progression over time, while still developing the important weighted attributes well.
If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use?
Hi, I'm new to this rabbit hole of training schedules. With the format in which you all write these (e.g. "Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution" ), does it matter on which days and in which order I put them when creating a schedule in-game, as long as I keep super rest after home matches?
Winksy said: Hi, I'm new to this rabbit hole of training schedules. With the format in which you all write these (e.g. "Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution" ), does it matter on which days and in which order I put them when creating a schedule in-game, as long as I keep super rest after home matches? Expand
No it doesn't matter. Also helps if you set your matches to only be Wednesday and Saturday that way you can set it and forget it.
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att 214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att 260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att 142 = 125% GK, 125% Def, 125% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
bf3metro said: If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use? Expand I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att 214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att 260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att 142 = 160% GK, 160% Def, 160% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above Expand
Got it, thanks — that clears things up a lot.
For now I’m testing 331 (Physical + Match Practice + Attacking + Defending, with Quickness focus) in my save and I’ll compare the actual CA gains against what I was getting with 214.
Since you said you’ll come back with more in 1–2 days, I’ll wait for that before drawing any final conclusions.
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
Rain said: Maybe it's just me but I never see any improvements when training GK reactions Expand I see GKs almost maxing out all 3 trained attributes with that individual training. Never had much luck with agility though, but maybe I never gave it enough chance.
Yarema said: I see GKs almost maxing out all 3 trained attributes with that individual training. Never had much luck with agility though, but maybe I never gave it enough chance. Expand
Maybe I'll have to keep it on then. Could just be the main player I was using it on
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've re-examined training according to what matters in the Premier League 2.1 weights, for both outfield and GK.
This time I was able to calculate everything quickly and comprehensively utilizing ChatGPT with HarvestGreen's excel sheets.
I haven't calculated every schedule exhaustively, just the ones you see here, most of which were the most promising previously.
Overall I recommend either 260 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] for squad with high CA-PA gap or 156 [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict][Quickness Focus] with low CA-PA gap. Or 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] for something inbetween.
Green = The new best training schedules, in my opinion Light blue = The two schedules I have last recommended. They're both still worth considering. Deep blue = ZaZ's recommended schedule Pink = A long time popular meta Purple = HarvestGreen's last recommendation
Where no focus is listed, it's Quickness Focus.
Workload will be a little inaccurate, as I eyeballed the intensity bars rather than calculated it. Expand
Sorry if this has already been said but are these all at x2 training intensity?
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this. Expand
I think I understand the trade-off now:
214 = best overall balance once you include outfield + GK + CA efficiency + workload, and also the safer/easier option over a full competitive season. 331 = highest absolute gain and slightly better match sharpness, but less efficient overall. 211 = very strong, especially for GK and sharpness, but probably too awkward/heavy to use properly with a first team playing 2 matches a week. 260 / 142 = still elite, but not quite as attractive once workload and efficiency are included.
bf3metro said: Hey, based on all the testing you’ve done here, do you have what you’d consider an optimal schedule to actually use week-to-week over a full season?
I’ve been using ZaZ’s Growth 2, but in my save it really isn’t delivering the development I expected.
What I’m mainly looking for is a schedule that pushes CA growth as fast as possible so players reach their PA quickly, rather than just maximizing CA efficiency.
Would you recommend switching fully to something like 260 / 214 / 156 depending on the players’ CA–PA gap, or do you have a specific weekly/monthly rotation you think is optimal in practice?
ZaZ Growth 2 would be 1064.2675-1115.573
Oddly enough the 2-match Physicalx2 Attackingx2 scores better than the Physicalx5 Attackingx5 and results in higher CA gain too.
[Physical]x2[Attacking]x2 = 1115.573 / 33.83 = 32.976
[Physical]x5[Attacking]x5 = 1064.2675 / 27.85 = 38.214
Both of these are very close to the best.
Because CA-PA gap is a critical accelerant to growth, you actually want the lowest overall CA growth possible - while highest in the CA growth where it matters. There is a hard cap on CA per season anyway, which is ~20-25 (someone has reported ~30 i think). If your players aren't developing much, it's more likely that they're over 18 and not getting enough match experience. No match experience for older players can reduce growth to ~1 CA/season.
masterjackfruit said: I personally like the training schedules with recovery the most, I try to keep my backup players sharpness as high as possible and recovery seems to preserve sharpness better than rest. Also I notice that for some reason the Attacking session yields an unusual number of injuries, more so than Defending or Overall. I could be wrong, but it's something I've noticed in my saves.
It's a more subjective matter, but what I found is that using home friendly matches against the worst team possible is better than using recovery periods in training.
Friendly matches improve morale, build familiarity, build up match sharpness a lot better, and I daresay even result in less injuries.
When using all recovery I noticed that it tends to result in too low condition and eventually fatigue, so it had to be half recovery half rest, which also can be tedious to set up properly each week.
I can't remember if this is the case, but recovery might also interact differently with the other training modules to produce different results than what it shown in HarvestGreen's spreadsheets.
I've done most of the remaining training schedules in HarvestGreen's spreadsheet.
We have a new top one, that I've highlighted green. This one was actually suggested by tam1236 back in january. He took the HarvestGreen attribute test findings and did a calculation on it to find this as the best training schedule.
It even has pretty good efficiency, though I suspect the workload could be too high to be worth using with all those modules. Very impressive though given it also has one of the highest CA gains (37.75), so it's particularly good if you want to keep your players looking well rounded for aesthetic reasons without compromising on actual performance.
It turns out there are a lot of very high efficiency options above 1000 (so still ~85%+ of the absolute best), and the most efficient is now Recoveryx13. I wouldn't recommend it, but it's interesting there's a profound difference in training quality between rest and recovery on their own.
I've highlighted in yellow some schedules that stand out to me, but I haven't taken a close look yet.
104 [Recovery]x13 = 1008.64 / 17.32 = 58.23557
85 [Match Review] = 1008.62 / 17.40 = 57.96667
100 [Match Review]x2 = 1005.48 / 17.72 = 56.74831
105 [Quickness][Attacking] = 1014.63 / 17.84 = 56.87276
52 [Match Tactics] = 1033.08 / 19.54 = 52.87001
124 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Recovery]x10 = 1001.86 / 21.70 = 46.16820
127 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Match Review] = 1002.89 / 22.92 = 43.75742
125 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence] = 1032.49 / 24.20 = 42.66488
126 [Quickness]x2[Aerial Defence] = 1013.15 / 23.92 = 42.35535
122 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence] = 1020.02 / 24.26 = 42.04700
116 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion] = 1022.72 / 24.57 = 41.61579
94 [Physical][Tactical][Recovery]x7 = 1053.14 / 25.88 = 40.69397
118 [Physical]x3[Tactical] = 1042.33 / 25.51 = 40.85927
138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical] = 1046.47 / 26.48 = 39.51926
93 [Physical][Tactical] = 1061.43 / 27.12 = 39.13827
215 [Physical]x3[Attacking] = 1018.42 / 25.91 = 39.30606
213 [Physical]x2[Attacking] = 1043.1425 / 27.79 = 37.53665
95 [Match Practice][Recovery]x7 = 1052.22 / 28.04 = 37.52568
106 [Quickness][Attacking][Overall] = 1051.52 / 28.96 = 36.31077
325 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending][Defending Engaged] = 1126.288 / 31.62 = 35.61379
321 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1081.229 / 31.46 = 34.36834
340 [Physical]x2[Attacking Wings][Attacking][All in Attack Group] = 1085.2745 / 31.27 = 34.73855
334 [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking][All in Defend Group] = 1078.23 / 31.21 = 34.54758
317 [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion][Attacking][All in Attack Group] = 1070.2455 / 30.71 = 34.84811
186 [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1074.0845 / 31.24 = 34.38555
53 [Match Practice] = 1038.74 / 30.02 = 34.60293
335 [Physical][Quickness][Ground Defence][Attacking][All in Defend Group] = 1103.957 / 32.56 = 33.90531
96 [Physical][Tactical][Match Practice][Recovery]x7 = 1112.92 / 32.98 = 33.74530
98 [Defending]x3[Attacking]x2[Physical]x3[Match Practice]x2[Ground Defence] = 1112.56 / 33.72 = 32.99525
91 [Attacking]x5[Defending]x5[Match Practice]x2[GoalKeeping][No focus] = 1126.31 / 34.78 = 32.38384
338 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Recovery]x7 = 1117.508 / 34.99 = 31.93792
112 [Physical][Match Practice][Chance Conversion] = 1117.34 / 35.60 = 31.38596
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces = 1126.966 / 35.78 = 31.49709
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution = 1182.2185 / 37.75 = 31.317
149 [Match Practice][Attacking][Match Tactics]x2[Tactical]x2 = 1100.35 / 35.50 = 30.99577
205 Game preset training 1 'Preset-Training Style-Balance' [Overall][Defending][Attacking][Set Piece Routines][Outfield][Recovery]x2 = 1125.04 / 36.50 = 30.82301
97 [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the front][Quickness] = 1122.54 / 36.48 = 30.77138
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: ZaZ Growth 2 would be 1064.2675-1115.573
Oddly enough the 2-match Physicalx2 Attackingx2 scores better than the Physicalx5 Attackingx5 and results in higher CA gain too.
[Physical]x2[Attacking]x2 = 1115.573 / 33.83 = 32.976
[Physical]x5[Attacking]x5 = 1064.2675 / 27.85 = 38.214
Both of these are very close to the best.
Because CA-PA gap is a critical accelerant to growth, you actually want the lowest overall CA growth possible - while highest in the CA growth where it matters. There is a hard cap on CA per season anyway, which is ~20-25 (someone has reported ~30 i think). If your players aren't developing much, it's more likely that they're over 18 and not getting enough match experience. No match experience for older players can reduce growth to ~1 CA/season.
This is how I’m understanding the schedules from everything you’ve posted:
214 — Physical x2 + Attacking x2 + Quickness focus — 100/100
Best universal choice for me
Very strong weighted development: 1115.573
You specifically said it produced higher CA gain than the much heavier Physical x5 + Attacking x5 schedule
Moderate workload: ~105%
Seems suitable whether the player is 16, 20 or 27, provided older players get enough match experience
260 — Physical + Match Practice + Attacking x2 + Quickness focus — 98/100
Best when players have a large CA–PA gap
Highest weighted improvement of the tested schedules: 1156.35
Slightly more aggressive CA usage than 214
Seems particularly strong for young players / wonderkids with lots of PA still available
156 — Physical + Quickness + Transition Restrict + Quickness focus — 92/100
Best once players are closer to PA
Lower CA cost: 24.20
Still very strong weighted improvement: 1026.72
Seems useful for preserving the CA–PA gap while still improving valuable attributes
So I’d currently summarize them as:
214 = universal GOAT
260 = big CA–PA gap GOAT
156 = near-PA GOAT
Or another way:
260 = high CA–PA gap / maximum useful development
214 = phenomenal development, very efficient, and apparently strong actual CA gain
156 = once players are getting close to PA
My main goal is simply to get CA increasing as much as possible across the whole squad, roughly ages 16–29.
So between 214 (Physical x2 + Attacking x2) and 260 (Physical + Match Practice + Attacking x2), which one would you personally use as the main schedule?
I understand now that preserving the CA–PA gap matters, and that match experience becomes crucial after 18, so I’m not necessarily looking for the schedule with the highest CA cost.
What I’m really looking for is the one that gives the best actual CA progression over time, while still developing the important weighted attributes well.
If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use?
Hi, I'm new to this rabbit hole of training schedules. With the format in which you all write these (e.g. "Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution" ), does it matter on which days and in which order I put them when creating a schedule in-game, as long as I keep super rest after home matches?
Winksy said: Hi, I'm new to this rabbit hole of training schedules. With the format in which you all write these (e.g. "Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution" ), does it matter on which days and in which order I put them when creating a schedule in-game, as long as I keep super rest after home matches?
No it doesn't matter. Also helps if you set your matches to only be Wednesday and Saturday that way you can set it and forget it.
Actually 211 surprisingly has a low workload despite the number of modules. And it scores highly for GK too.
142 GK - 1048.42 / 42.33 = 24.76643
211 GK - 1000.59 / 43.25 = 23.14023
260 GK - 965.23 / 43.00 = 22.44721
212 GK - 868.76 / 41.00 = 21.18927
214 GK - 805.20 / 39.33 = 20.45888
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att
214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att
260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att
142 = 125% GK, 125% Def, 125% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
bf3metro said: If you had to pick only one between 214 and 260 for the entire squad, which one would you use?
I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
So for now should we stick with 331 then you think?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Actually 211 surprisingly has a low workload despite the number of modules. And it scores highly for GK too.
142 GK - 1048.42 / 42.33 = 24.76643
211 GK - 1000.59 / 43.25 = 23.14023
260 GK - 965.23 / 43.00 = 22.44721
212 GK - 868.76 / 41.00 = 21.18927
214 GK - 805.20 / 39.33 = 20.45888
211 = 130% GK, 100% Def, 90% Att
214 = 100% GK, 100% Def, 100% Att
260 = 105% GK, 105% Def, 105% Att
142 = 160% GK, 160% Def, 160% Att
..and now, as I was examining HarvestGreen's own rankings, I gradually cottoned to the fact that there's a huge standout error in my data.
214, 211, 142 and 260 are all at the top of his rankings just like mine.. yet he has 331 as the best. I figured there has to be something amiss here, and sure enough, getting ChatGPT to recalculate it gives 1202.567.
That means HarvestGreen's recommendation of 331, would in fact be the best schedule for outfield.
I could have sworn I verified it with ChatGPT as 1020.63 three times just to be sure at the time. So I went back to check, since I still had the convo open:
Fuckin' ChatGPT man..
I presume it got at least most of them right, but now I can't be certain some weren't miscalculated by ChatGPT.
Anyway, at least we know from the backing of HarvestGreen's rankings that 331, 260, 211, 214 and 142 are the top ones and that the numbers are most likely correct for at least those.
You should be aware also this mirroring of HarvestGreen's data is a pleasant unexpected surprise. I did have HarvestGreen's weights as a starting or reference point for Premier League 2.1, but as you can see with Rain's comparison test of HarvestGreen's weights vs. Premier League 2.1, things should have changed substantially in the end. So it's surprising that the favored training schedules nonetheless align.
I'll get back to you in a day or two, as things are still evolving right now, as you can see from my words above
Got it, thanks — that clears things up a lot.
For now I’m testing 331 (Physical + Match Practice + Attacking + Defending, with Quickness focus) in my save and I’ll compare the actual CA gains against what I was getting with 214.
Since you said you’ll come back with more in 1–2 days, I’ll wait for that before drawing any final conclusions.
214 = (((10x1115.573) + 805.20) / ((10x33.83) + 39.33)) / 1 = 31.6737
211 = (((10x1182.2185) + 1000.59) / ((10x37.75) + 43.25)) / 0.977272 = 31.1847
331 = (((10x1202.567) + 1000) / ((10x39.62) + 43)) / 1.05 = 28.2454
260 = (((10x1156.35) + 965.23) / ((10x38.98) + 43.00)) / 1.05 = 27.5696
142 = (((10x1135.2835) + 1048.42) / ((10x36.43) + 42.33)) / 1.25 = 24.3981
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus]
211 [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Physical][Chance Conversion][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence] [Distribution][Quickness Focus]
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
Maybe it's just me but I never see any improvements when training GK reactions
"Hello. Could you provide the latest developments using the scoring system via FM Genie Scout 24?"
Rain said: Maybe it's just me but I never see any improvements when training GK reactions
I see GKs almost maxing out all 3 trained attributes with that individual training. Never had much luck with agility though, but maybe I never gave it enough chance.
Yarema said: I see GKs almost maxing out all 3 trained attributes with that individual training. Never had much luck with agility though, but maybe I never gave it enough chance.
Maybe I'll have to keep it on then. Could just be the main player I was using it on
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I've re-examined training according to what matters in the Premier League 2.1 weights, for both outfield and GK.
This time I was able to calculate everything quickly and comprehensively utilizing ChatGPT with HarvestGreen's excel sheets.
I haven't calculated every schedule exhaustively, just the ones you see here, most of which were the most promising previously.
Overall I recommend either 260 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] for squad with high CA-PA gap or 156 [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict][Quickness Focus] with low CA-PA gap. Or 214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] for something inbetween.
Weighted attribute improvement:
260: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 = 1156.35
142: [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 = 1135.2835
212: 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces = 1126.97
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] = 1122.54
338: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Recovery]x7[Quickness Focus] = 1117.508
214: [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] = 1115.573
149: [Match Practice][Attacking][Match Tactics]x2[Tactical]x2 = 1101.13
139: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending] = 1091.794
339: [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] = 1086.43
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] = 1079.689
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] = 1079.6675
334: [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1078.23
90: [Attacking]x3 = 1061.16
466: [Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control = 1056.47
147: [Attacking][Match Tactics]x3 = 1046.77
164: [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence]x2[Match Review] = 1039.84
166: [Resistance][Quickness][Chance Conversion] = 1028.64
156: [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] = 1026.7215
331: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] = 1020.63
160: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Transition Restrict]x2 = 1018.89
148: [Attacking][Match Tactics]x3[Tactical]x2 = 1011.46
327: [Quickness][Match Practice][Attacking]x2[Strength Focus] = 1005.93
116: [Physical]x2[Chance Conversion] = 1001.58
65: [Chance Creation] = 1000.90
53: [Match Practice] = 992.97
170: [Endurance][Quickness][Chance Conversion] = 962.78
123: [Quickness][Attacking][Transition Restrict] = 958.12
106: [Quickness][Attacking][Overall] = 948.62
83: [Community Outreach] = 940.47
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] = 927.185
161: [Physical][Quickness][Aerial Defence][Recovery]x7 = 916.81
75: [One on Ones] = 910.01
54: [Attacking Wings] = 907.79
55: [Attacking Patient] = 891.86
99: [Chance Conversion][Match Review] = 848.14
168: [Quickness]x2[Chance Conversion] = 838.56
86: [Rest]Quickness Focus] = 792.26
43: [Rest][No Focus] = 735.1305
Weighted attribute improvement divided by CA cost:
86: [Rest]Quickness Focus] = 792.26 / 17.53 = 45.194
43: [Rest][No Focus] = 735.1305 / 16.85 = 43.628
156: [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] = 1026.7215 / 24.20 = 42.42
166: [Resistance][Quickness][Chance Conversion] = 1028.64 / 25.71 = 40.010
65: [Chance Creation] = 1000.90 / 25.80 = 38.794
139: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending] = 1091.794 / 28.71 = 38.027
466: [Quickness][Physical][Attacking] Additional focus: Ball Control = 1056.47 / 29.00 = 36.430
334: [Physical]x2[Aerial Defence][Attacking] = 1078.23 / 31.21 = 34.545
214: [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] = 1115.573 / 33.83 = 32.973
338: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Recovery]x7[Quickness Focus] = 1117.508 / 34.99 = 31.939
212: 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces = 1126.97 / 35.78 = 31.495
142: [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 = 1135.2835 / 36.43 = 31.164
149: [Match Practice][Attacking][Match Tactics]x2[Tactical]x2 = 1101.13 / 35.50 = 31.017
97: [Chance creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from front][Quickness][Quick focus] = 1122.54 / 36.48 = 30.771
339: [Quickness][Attacking][Match Practice] = 1086.43 / 35.72 = 30.416
90: [Attacking]x3 = 1061.16 / 34.98 = 30.335
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] = 1079.6675 / 36.20 = 29.825
260: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 = 1156.35 / 38.98 = 29.664
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] = 1079.689 / 37.93 = 28.460
331: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending] = 1020.63 / 39.62 = 25.759
GK:
142: [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 = 1048.42
260: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 = 965.23
214: [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] = 805.20
156: [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] = 717.03
139: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending] = 662.44
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] = 614.57
86: [Rest][Quickness Focus] = 310.616
43: [Rest][No Focus] = 282.70
10x outfield + 1x GK:
260: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 = 1138.975
142: [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 = 1127.386
214: [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus] = 1087.357
139: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending] = 1052.762
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] = 1037.405
156: [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] = 998.567
86: [Rest][Quickness Focus] = 748.474
43: [Rest][No Focus] = 694.000
Workload:
156: [Physical][Quickness][Transition Restrict] = 95%
260: [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking]x2 = 100%
214: [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2 = 105%
243: [Quickness][Match Practice[Attackingx2][Quickness focus] = 120%
142: [Physical][Quickness][Attacking]x3 = 125%
139: [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Defending] = 135%
Notes:
Green = The new best training schedules, in my opinion
Light blue = The two schedules I have last recommended. They're both still worth considering.
Deep blue = ZaZ's recommended schedule
Pink = A long time popular meta
Purple = HarvestGreen's last recommendation
Where no focus is listed, it's Quickness Focus.
Workload will be a little inaccurate, as I eyeballed the intensity bars rather than calculated it.
Sorry if this has already been said but are these all at x2 training intensity?
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: 214 = (((10x1115.573) + 805.20) / ((10x33.83) + 39.33)) / 1 = 31.6737
211 = (((10x1182.2185) + 1000.59) / ((10x37.75) + 43.25)) / 0.977272 = 31.1847
331 = (((10x1202.567) + 1000) / ((10x39.62) + 43)) / 1.05 = 28.2454
260 = (((10x1156.35) + 965.23) / ((10x38.98) + 43.00)) / 1.05 = 27.5696
142 = (((10x1135.2835) + 1048.42) / ((10x36.43) + 42.33)) / 1.25 = 24.3981
So here I am trying to take into account outfield + GK + CA efficiency + intensity.
HarvestGreen didn't include the GK stats for 331 as far as I can see, so I've just inserted a high value of 1000. Even with this high value for GK, it doesn't seem as quite as good overall as 214 or 211, though it does have the highest absolute gain in its favor.
There is one more thing to add into the assessment, which is the effect on other various in-game factors:
214 [Physical]x2[Attacking]x2[Quickness Focus]
331 [Physical][Match Practice][Attacking][Defending][Quickness Focus]
211 [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Physical][Chance Conversion][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence] [Distribution][Quickness Focus]
331 has a slight edge over 214 due to the better balancing of match sharpness.
211 is much better for match sharpness, but is probably going to wear down condition too much during the competitive season, especially if you have weeks with 2 matches. The main problem with 211 is that it would be so finicky to implement that in all likelihood you're not going to implement it properly every week, and the careful handling of condition would add to this. 211 is nonetheless very good for GK and absolute gain, both of which 214 falls a bit short on.
One more thing to say about 214 is that its what I found to be best using a different method previously. So where things are roughly equal, I'm inclined to lean towards it anyway. And in HarvestGreen's assessment, 214 also scores higher on his 'quality' index than these other 2.
So overall I will still be recommending 214. I just realized that 331 was actually my 2nd recommendation before, I didn't realize until now that that was HarvestGreen's recommendation.
It might be worth setting up 211 for your u21s/u18s, especially if they have no competitive league or cup and you can set and forget it with weekly friendlies for the whole season. Reason is, u21s/u18s easily end up in match sharpness ruts they never get out of, and low match sharpness is a big influence on injury rate, and more injuries = less development.
It's splitting hairs between 214 and 331, so if you feel more comfortable going with 331, that's perfectly fine.
One thing left unaddressed is GK focus. HarvestGreen's data used 'Agility and Balance' as GK focus, so we can't be sure of the effect of any others. But it seems to be the case that Agility isn't as critical as a few others: Determination, Reflexes, Concentration. Personally I've started favoring 'GK reactions' because it focuses on two of those (Reflexes, Concentration). But there's no data on this.
I think I understand the trade-off now:
214 = best overall balance once you include outfield + GK + CA efficiency + workload, and also the safer/easier option over a full competitive season.
331 = highest absolute gain and slightly better match sharpness, but less efficient overall.
211 = very strong, especially for GK and sharpness, but probably too awkward/heavy to use properly with a first team playing 2 matches a week.
260 / 142 = still elite, but not quite as attractive once workload and efficiency are included.