Winglwongl said: Thanks for replying, I had the highest ones one double and the others on normal, changed that now...
That someone like Guehi looks like this after winning quadruple still is crazy to me. He was on BPD and Quickness for basically the entire save and still loses the important attributes for BPD?
I haven't done the research ofc, but intuitively it would only make sense because the schedules used had no sessions for the technical? Expand
Well, it is hard to know without more data. I am still testing that schedule. He should grow technical attributes because of Match Practice, Attacking and Defending sessions. I have to investigate it more.
Winglwongl said: Can someone help me, I used the ZaZ and the recommended from here and with Crystal Palace I have multiple players that look like this, they lose all their technicals but the physicals don't even get boosted a lot or anything? I rest the players with low fitness for 2 days after games?
Expand
Are you using double intensity? That training schedule assumes double intensity, and no pitch or gym work for tired players. Also, set all players for Quickness individual training (Reflexes for GK). It should give similar results to what they are getting here with their routines.
freshandy said: I think that choosing a role for positional training does not mean a higher training load. However, you can check this yourself on a player's training page which also shows the training load. Choose a role and unselect it and check if the training load changes.
@ZaZ What are your findings about the light training schedule? Especially regarding injury proneness, match sharpness and suitability for youth teams (and maybe development of goalkeepers)? I have been using this schedule for only some weeks but I have the (first) impression that match sharpness is clearly more difficult to maintain. Expand
Injuries are low, and match sharpness is not a problem. It is good for youth teams, but I still didn't have time to compare with previous to see if it is indeed better.
harvestgreen22 said: * This is translated by a language translator and then manually corrected, there may be some loss of meaning after translation
Test setup: The league has 4 teams, A, C, D team is set to 4231 Meta tactics (https://fm-arena.com/thread/12667-god-of-chaos-v1/), B team is set to 4141 weak tactics, all attributes of all players are set to 10, locking various attributes.
Modify the player attributes of Team A (except for the goalkeeper, that is, adjust 10 players) to the corresponding value. Statistical the goal difference.
The C and D teams use a very strong 4231 tactics, which tests the players' defensive ability and performance under pressure from strong teams. The B team uses the weak 4141 tactics to test the players' ability to Beat up weak teams and score lots of goals.
It took 10 days to test, two computers together. 2 of the attributes were tested by the help of the community netizen , and the other 70 were tested by me. Inspired by this https://fm-arena.com/table/26-player-attributes-testing/ (November 2023 version)I thought, What if the attribute is 1 ?
1.How to read this table?
The standard(Control) group represents the goal difference of Team A when all attributes are 10, which is 20.1.
## Look at Technique 20, which represents Team A (apart from the goalkeeper) skill attribute increases from 10 to 20, and Statistical the goal difference of Team A, it's 16.5. 16.5 < 20.1 (standard) In other words, the Technique has increased by 10, but the goal difference has decreased. But not by much.
## Look at Vision 1 and Vision 20, 20.0 and 38.5 respectively. 20.0 < 20.1 < 38.5 In other words, when Vision is reduced from 10 to 1, so there is no change. However, when Vision was increased from 10 to 20, resulting in a goal difference increase of (38.5-20.1)=18.4
2. Noteworthy attributes
Lowering the Work rate 1 , it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate. A player with a Work rate is not desirable. But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Passing, Crossing, Marking, First touch, Positioning, Decision, Teamwork, Off the ball, Bravery, are all attributes that can be considered useless.
Technique and Flair, Higher values lead to worse performance. Spoiler
Yes, it's a scam. To Flair. There are two guesses, one is that "fancy tricks" cause players to spend more "frames" on the movement, resulting in a decrease in efficiency. The other is that more "fancy tricks" contribute not enough to the mathematical expectation when attacking, while the mathematical expectation of being scored when defending increases more than attacking scored
Core attributes are these: Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless), Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
According to the comparison of attribute 20 with attribute 10: Pace + Acceleration 2 most important cores, Jumping reach + Dribbling 2 secondary cores, Balance can be considered a level 3 attribute, level 4 attribute Anticipation and Concentration
Other attributes, which are although have effect, but much less effective.
Note that the difference between attributes is only used to show the degree of differentiation and cannot be used for direct quantified comparisons.(Because it's not standardized) . For example, "difference from the standard value +40" is not twice as useful as "difference from the standard value +20" .
3.Sample
According to the Law of Large Numbers in statistics, as long as the sample is large enough, the value you get will be closer and closer to the mathematical expectation
In terms of important attributes, there are about 950-1080 Match samples. According to statistical estimates, the margin error of attribute is ≤ 3.
In the non-important attributes, there are about 450 Match samples. According to statistical estimates, the margin error of attribute is ≤ 8
4.margin error
Is that a conclusion that only applies to 4231 and certain opponents? You know, tactics can vary a lot. Moreover, 4231 players are not evenly distributed, for example, there is only 1 striker. And tactics, duties, and commands all affect the importance of attributes. There is also the test of the Go-on-holiday, even if the game is set to maximum detail, will it get unreal values?
——Go-on-holiday have been studied, and I won't repeat it in a lot of words, but I choose to trust their findings
——Taking into account different tactics and different opponents, an additional 3,600 match were played, To test two other tactics, one is Default tiki-taka 433. And Default counter-attack 442. They will have different standard values and different attributes deviating from the standard, but "importance level" of each attribute not change.
For example, in the tactics where Passing is more important, Passing (around 24 in the table) is still not important than dribbling (more than 50 in the table) or Finishing (33 in the table) in any tactic. This also shows that the game is not complicated to do a separate set of calculations for each tactic, but a relatively universal calculation method. And this method of calculation, my personal observation, is more conducive to offensive.
——Similarly, the problem of player distribution does not have a "decisive" effect, but only a statistical perturbation of some value.
5.Multiple variables
some comments said that the performance of attributes is A multi-variable problem, for example, the A attribute is evaluated at the same time as the B attribute.
Some people will think that testing a player who First touch 10 and Finishing 15, because the player can't stop the ball and it doesn't matter how high the Finishing is, so this test is wrong.
However, if an attribute is weighted with one or more other attributes, all associated attributes must be found. In the end all testing is either pointless or too tedious to do. Since it is statistically possible to tell the difference, let's use this result as a conclusion
Now, imagine a mathematical problem. Player A's Composure is 10, provides 20% of the goal scoring ability. Finishing 10, providing 10 accuracy shots on goal per game. The end result is 10x20%=2 balls.
If this is a multivariate problem, then Composure 20, assuming it provides 50% of the goal scoring ability. The end result is 10x50%=5 balls. So 2 becomes 5. The difference "5-2=3" may or may not be obvious. Those that are not obvious are actually the effect of interaction is not good, since it is so small, it can simply be ignored. If there is an effect, it must be reflected in the statistical results.
Unless it is using some more complex mechanism, for example, it detects composure 20, and if the shot is not ≥15, the goal scoring ability % does not increase. I'm not going to consider that possibility.
6.don't bring the logic of reality into the game
For example, there is such a reply: there is no "speed 20" and other attributes are 10 in reality . Or, "Should use balabala" attributes to design all forwards/centers/back guards to reflect the real situation.
The results, as long as the control variable method is followed, make no difference (since the game seems unlikely to use the "more complex" mechanics mentioned above).
7. Why not test each player individually, such as the striker
Because it's so much work, And the impact each player has on the team's goal difference is likely to be the difference between the actual measured value and the standard value, which is always disturbed by larger random perturbations, because a tactic is mostly 1-3 strikers, who make up less than 30% of the 11 men. If you want to measure the true value, you need a very, very large number of samples
8. The goalkeeper? Similar to the above reasons. mishap If you want to measure the true value, you need a very, very large number of samples
9. Why testing just one season The result is completely inaccurate? (from reply) The random perturbation in the game is very large, which means that if you only play 30 to 40 games (a season), the result is likely to deviate significantly from the true value
One might also suspect that the test is not rigorous enough, it's not scientific enough, it's not an actual season, it's a nice ideal environment, and so on, and then argue that the empirical results under a lot of interference are more accurate than the results obtained under the control variable method
10.thoughts
Like the previous "1CA Win Champion", many people will dismiss this as a conspiracy theory before testing reveals the game mechanics. After the revelation, some players believe that this kind of testing is just excessive pursuit of intensity at the expense of game life. But that's not the purpose of the test.
My goal in testing this is the same as the goal of many gamers: to force the game company to continuously improve the old mechanics it has used for years, to change the fundamental engine flaws, and to prevent players from playing a "placebo simulator". Why a placebo simulator? There are people who take real football and put a lot of time and energy into the game, there are a lot of players who put a lot of energy into the video, I also enjoy these passionate things But, As a result, the game engine does not do these functions at all, these players believe and carefully prepared, essentially reflected in the game engine is useless. The game relies on some very simple data and then randomizes it to make players think they are playing a real simulation. Then the game company can just change the appearance of their game, sell it for generations, and advertise that they are making a simulation full of interactivity
What's more, the authorities have banned discussions on official forums and continue to mislead consumers. You can only find information in unofficial forums.
Like the game training system I tested, I only played the FM2024 generation , and now only a 300 hours player, and many previous generations, plus the latest generation, have a lot of players who spend a lot of time researching and sharing their training findings. As a result, these players actually played a placebo simulator
There are even some emotionally invested players who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to believe (forgive me for being overly aggressive) the results of these tests that reveal Physical man is Superman. These players who have invested money and effort should enjoy the same experience as the simulation theory, not the illusion of a fake mechanic.
It's not the player's fault, it's the game company's fault. players love football simulation games, doesn't mean you should accept a flawed game, especially when the game's biggest selling point and publicity point is simulation. You can choose not to play. Or you can stay and protest together in one way or another and force the game company to change. You can also play the game as much as you want, without deliberately using these "intensity mechanics" and have fun. Expand
My guess for why high Technical and Decisions is detrimental is because the game does not know what actions are the most effective. If you look at technical attributes, you will see that dribbling is more efficient than passing or shooting, possibly because pace and acceleration are over tuned in the engine, and dribbling makes use of both attributes. So, characters with high technical will have increased chance of success for passes and shots, while characters with high decisions will find better opportunities to pass and shoot. Unfortunately, the most effective is to pass and shoot as little as possible, unless you have those attributes much higher than dribbling attributes (including pace and acceleration).
So, in short, if I am not wrong: Pass 20 + Technique 20 + Other 10 > Pass 20 + Technique 10 + Other 10. Pass 20 + Technique 10 + Dribbling 20 + Pace 20 + Acceleration 20 + Other 10 > Pass 20 + Technique 20 + Dribbling 20 + Pace 20 + Acceleration 20 + Other 10.
The same is probably true for long shots or finishing.
Continum said: What if you are training a player for another position than his natural one? Then you have to choose a role right? Which again impacts training load. Expand
As far as I know, players are always training for a position, and the role is used to define the base attributes to grow during training. Optimally, you should use the position that gives the best attributes, but I usually do their expected role in tactic just because I like to see maximum tactic familiarity (which probably has no effect in performance).
Bradjc94 said: Hey mate, I know you said that you set the additional focus of all players to Quickness and GK Reflexes, but do you still do individual focus i.e. positioning training? And would this be the same for under 21 players? Expand
I put them to train for their playing position (or opposite side of the field for FBs and IFs). And yes, I do the same for under 21.
Middleweight165 said: @ZaZ How would you adapt the schedule for weeks when theres travel? If travel after the Saturday game, I'm doing full rest with manual rest on monday and moving match practice to wednesday and moving defending to tuesday just to make the load for each day a bit less (not sure if that matters). What training would you put on the previous sunday, the day after the game? Expand
You can copy any of the days and repeat it on that travel sunday. Physical, Attack + Defend, or Match Practice if available.
No need to divide the attack and defending to reduce the load, since the load was already thought to minimize injuries.
You can put the player for sale for 0 to generate interest, then reject all offers, and increase the price gradually, rejecting all non-negotiable offers, until you get an offer that can be negotiated (that will be close to the real value of the player). Doing that will bring more offers than just trying to sell without a price tag.
Continum said: So instead of rest on the travel day you would add training sessions? I think I've read earlier in this thread that I should add rest on travel days and a full day of rest the day after in order to achieve super rest. I might be wrong. What do you recommend? Expand
When I discovered super rest, I tried all combinations to see what triggers it, what works, and what does not work. In short, it needs three rest sessions in the same day plus send the player to rest (manually, or "no pitch or gym work".
The mechanics of training work like this: if you add any training session in that day (including Travel or Recovery, players are considered "not resting", so they do not recover energy from Rest sessions, even if you had two Rest sessions during that day. Therefore, Rest is only useful if you have three sessions, else it will only be reducing training intensity to reduce injuries. There is actually some natural daily regeneration that happens independent of training, but that has nothing to do with resting.
So, what happens when you super rest is that you still get the fatigue and condition recovery from three rest sessions (which only happens if you have no other training session or Travel), even though you are resting at home (which triggers another recovery of fatigue and condition).
If you are interested, Max did this video below about our discoveries on rest.
any idea how to adapt to schedule like that? Expand
You cannot super rest with travel, so just add training sessions there. You will still rest with the "no gym or pitch" settings, it will just not recover as much.
Results will not be very different than what they got here with some tactics. I am checking stuff like injuries, and use of the "empty" training in youth teams.
Just be mindful when training players in different positions, as that will increase their attribute weighting for defining CA. In some cases, that will cause players to peak with much lower attributes.
fmanagerenjoyer said: Hello. Is left footed cb is necessary or it is only a choice? Expand
Do not bother much. The difference in performance is marginal, if not inexistent. In practice, a left footed player will have an easier time to pass the ball to the left. That will make players from the left move the ball more to wide areas of the field, while players from the right will move the ball more to the middle, since the engine tries to favor decisions with higher chance to succeed (based on a weight system). However, the difference is not big enough to make it a decisive factor, and I would easily use a winger or fullback with "wrong" foot, if it was a better player.
Add full rest after the match, and remove one Physical, Attack, and Defend. You can also keep Physical and remove a Match Practice instead, if you want to focus more on physical attributes.
BulldozerJokic said: I don't think it's that naive in situations you have no access to good PA players. I won multiple CL in a row with 90-100 CA youngsters just buy redistributing their attributes into physicals by not training (!) them at all. Expand
I would say it is fair to do that in the lowest divisions when your training facilities are bad, but the game is usually not very challenging in that level, and you can often get fast players for free to win those leagues.
Footballenjoyer said: @ZaZ The schedule you showed is H6 but with 2xPhysical instead of 1x Quickness. It's probably slightly better in term of overall attribute gains since it does train a significant attribute - balance which quickness doesn't cover.
Big 2 is Acc/Pace. A tier below - JR, Dribbling, AGI (defenders), Balance (attackers). The non tier S attributes (Acc/Pace) does significant reduce the performance of the players if they are too far below the league based on experience.
There's probably some balance to be found that's optimal once more and more people start trying this method. Since more training session per week probably lead to more injuries in theory, All we know is - you need double intensity, 2x match practice, Quickness x 1 (2x physical might be better, unsure). Then It's either 1x overall or 1xattack+defend or blank.
I will leave this https://www.playgm.cc/thread-970401-1-1.html for those who can read Chinese, Harvestgreen posted a bunch of test results on there. I think I tend to lean on just 1x Quickness per week. Expand
The idea to use double intensity to focus on the most efficient sessions is good, since match practice can only be used twice a week. However, like I said before, I think it is naive to focus only on three attributes that will represent half of the performance, and ignore the remaining half. That's why I prefer physical instead of quickness.
Footballenjoyer said: After testing it a bit and based on the testing so far by Harvestgreen22, Most efficient ones that not just maximize physical attributes but delaying decay appeared to be K5 (3 training per week), L5 (4 training per week), I6 (4 Training per week), H6 (5 Training per week).
Imo L5 seems like the best since it has slight better growth than I6, Keeping in mind more training sessions = more chance of injuries. Whether L5 is worth it over K5 would be up to your personal preference.
I would do this training schedule and combine with the glitch of "super rest" and sprinkle in some match focus. To me, it would produce the best players ability wise in accordance to Acc/Pace/JR over performance even it doesn't produce the most well rounded players. You would look at more 18/16/10 instead of 16/16/14 guys in terms of Acc/pace/dribbling. Expand
I am currently trying the schedule below. The goal is to use double intensity to allow me to focus on sessions that really matter, aiming to maximize CA growth while having good emphasis on physical attributes.
Continum said: Do you set any individual role training or additional focus only? Expand
I set to their playing positions, or opposite side if they are full backs or wingers.
Continum said: And another question, do you use this schedule for the youth team as well? Expand
It works for both youth and main teams.
Footballenjoyer said: The only issue with this schedule is there's no significant increase between 2x physical training and 7 x physical training per week shown in multiple test ran in other posts in this forum.
Looks like the only way to speed up physical attribute growth is intensity. Then it's either max CA growth schedule on half intensity or the Chinese forum method that prioritize physical while trying to delay as much decay of non physical attributes. Expand
I am working on a new schedule with two physical sessions.
Flashedmind said: If you use the physical schedule for 5 years, the player should have around +10 in pace-acc-jump and then have 40 CA left to distribute across mental/technicals, which is still a lot if you can pick the attributes to be developed. Expand
Just a small correction. If you do that and then change to normal training, it will not train only technical and mental, but it will also continue training physical. That means you would not need to wait until pace and acceleration are at 20, since they would continue growing.
Just an experiment. The idea is to make wingers work like wide midfielders, and mark the opponent wingers, allowing fullbacks to be an extra layer of defense.
That someone like Guehi looks like this after winning quadruple still is crazy to me. He was on BPD and Quickness for basically the entire save and still loses the important attributes for BPD?
I haven't done the research ofc, but intuitively it would only make sense because the schedules used had no sessions for the technical?
Well, it is hard to know without more data. I am still testing that schedule. He should grow technical attributes because of Match Practice, Attacking and Defending sessions. I have to investigate it more.
Are you using double intensity? That training schedule assumes double intensity, and no pitch or gym work for tired players. Also, set all players for Quickness individual training (Reflexes for GK). It should give similar results to what they are getting here with their routines.
@ZaZ What are your findings about the light training schedule? Especially regarding injury proneness, match sharpness and suitability for youth teams (and maybe development of goalkeepers)?
I have been using this schedule for only some weeks but I have the (first) impression that match sharpness is clearly more difficult to maintain.
Injuries are low, and match sharpness is not a problem. It is good for youth teams, but I still didn't have time to compare with previous to see if it is indeed better.
Test setup: The league has 4 teams, A, C, D team is set to 4231 Meta tactics (https://fm-arena.com/thread/12667-god-of-chaos-v1/), B team is set to 4141 weak tactics, all attributes of all players are set to 10, locking various attributes.
Modify the player attributes of Team A (except for the goalkeeper, that is, adjust 10 players) to the corresponding value.
Statistical the goal difference.
The C and D teams use a very strong 4231 tactics, which tests the players' defensive ability and performance under pressure from strong teams.
The B team uses the weak 4141 tactics to test the players' ability to Beat up weak teams and score lots of goals.
It took 10 days to test, two computers together. 2 of the attributes were tested by the help of the community netizen , and the other 70 were tested by me.
Inspired by this https://fm-arena.com/table/26-player-attributes-testing/ (November 2023 version)I thought, What if the attribute is 1 ?
1.How to read this table?
The standard(Control) group represents the goal difference of Team A when all attributes are 10, which is 20.1.
## Look at Technique 20, which represents Team A (apart from the goalkeeper) skill attribute increases from 10 to 20, and Statistical the goal difference of Team A, it's 16.5.
16.5 < 20.1 (standard)
In other words, the Technique has increased by 10, but the goal difference has decreased. But not by much.
## Look at Vision 1 and Vision 20, 20.0 and 38.5 respectively.
20.0 < 20.1 < 38.5
In other words, when Vision is reduced from 10 to 1, so there is no change.
However, when Vision was increased from 10 to 20, resulting in a goal difference increase of (38.5-20.1)=18.4
2. Noteworthy attributes
Lowering the Work rate 1 ,
it have very serious consequences (goal difference -110),
and it should be ensured that a player has at least 6 and preferably 10 Work rate.
A player with a Work rate is not desirable.
But continuing to increase Work rate (from 10->20) is low effect. The difference between Work rate 10 and Work rate 20 is relative small.
The 6-point attribute seems to be the threshold for some attributes.
Passing, Crossing, Marking, First touch, Positioning, Decision, Teamwork, Off the ball, Bravery, are all attributes that can be considered useless.
Technique and Flair, Higher values lead to worse performance.
Spoiler Yes, it's a scam.
To Flair. There are two guesses,
one is that "fancy tricks" cause players to spend more "frames" on the movement, resulting in a decrease in efficiency.
The other is that more "fancy tricks" contribute not enough to the mathematical expectation when attacking, while the mathematical expectation of being scored when defending increases more than attacking scored
Core attributes are these:
Special : Work rate (need to reach 10, higher is useless),
Pace, Acceleration, Jumping reach, Dribbling, Balance, Concentration, Anticipation, Determination，Agility.
According to the comparison of attribute 20 with attribute 10:
Pace + Acceleration 2 most important cores,
Jumping reach + Dribbling 2 secondary cores,
Balance can be considered a level 3 attribute,
level 4 attribute Anticipation and Concentration
Other attributes, which are although have effect, but much less effective.
Note that the difference between attributes is only used to show the degree of differentiation and cannot be used for direct quantified comparisons.(Because it's not standardized) . For example, "difference from the standard value +40" is not twice as useful as "difference from the standard value +20" .
3.Sample
According to the Law of Large Numbers in statistics, as long as the sample is large enough, the value you get will be closer and closer to the mathematical expectation
In terms of important attributes, there are about 950-1080 Match samples. According to statistical estimates, the margin error of attribute is ≤ 3.
In the non-important attributes, there are about 450 Match samples. According to statistical estimates, the margin error of attribute is ≤ 8
4.margin error
Is that a conclusion that only applies to 4231 and certain opponents?
You know, tactics can vary a lot.
Moreover, 4231 players are not evenly distributed, for example, there is only 1 striker.
And tactics, duties, and commands all affect the importance of attributes.
There is also the test of the Go-on-holiday, even if the game is set to maximum detail, will it get unreal values?
——Go-on-holiday have been studied, and I won't repeat it in a lot of words, but I choose to trust their findings
——Taking into account different tactics and different opponents, an additional 3,600 match were played,
To test two other tactics, one is Default tiki-taka 433. And Default counter-attack 442.
They will have different standard values and different attributes deviating from the standard, but "importance level" of each attribute not change.
For example, in the tactics where Passing is more important,
Passing (around 24 in the table) is still not important than dribbling (more than 50 in the table) or Finishing (33 in the table) in any tactic.
This also shows that the game is not complicated to do a separate set of calculations for each tactic, but a relatively universal calculation method.
And this method of calculation, my personal observation, is more conducive to offensive.
——Similarly, the problem of player distribution does not have a "decisive" effect, but only a statistical perturbation of some value.
5.Multiple variables
some comments said that the performance of attributes is A multi-variable problem, for example, the A attribute is evaluated at the same time as the B attribute.
Some people will think that testing a player who First touch 10 and Finishing 15, because the player can't stop the ball and it doesn't matter how high the Finishing is, so this test is wrong.
However, if an attribute is weighted with one or more other attributes, all associated attributes must be found. In the end all testing is either pointless or too tedious to do.
Since it is statistically possible to tell the difference, let's use this result as a conclusion
Now, imagine a mathematical problem. Player A's Composure is 10, provides 20% of the goal scoring ability. Finishing 10, providing 10 accuracy shots on goal per game. The end result is 10x20%=2 balls.
If this is a multivariate problem, then Composure 20, assuming it provides 50% of the goal scoring ability. The end result is 10x50%=5 balls. So 2 becomes 5. The difference "5-2=3" may or may not be obvious.
Those that are not obvious are actually the effect of interaction is not good, since it is so small, it can simply be ignored.
If there is an effect, it must be reflected in the statistical results.
Unless it is using some more complex mechanism, for example, it detects composure 20, and if the shot is not ≥15, the goal scoring ability % does not increase. I'm not going to consider that possibility.
6.don't bring the logic of reality into the game
For example, there is such a reply: there is no "speed 20" and other attributes are 10 in reality .
Or, "Should use balabala" attributes to design all forwards/centers/back guards to reflect the real situation.
The results, as long as the control variable method is followed, make no difference (since the game seems unlikely to use the "more complex" mechanics mentioned above).
7. Why not test each player individually, such as the striker
Because it's so much work,
And the impact each player has on the team's goal difference is likely to be the difference between the actual measured value and the standard value, which is always disturbed by larger random perturbations, because a tactic is mostly 1-3 strikers, who make up less than 30% of the 11 men.
If you want to measure the true value, you need a very, very large number of samples
8. The goalkeeper?
Similar to the above reasons. mishap
If you want to measure the true value, you need a very, very large number of samples
9. Why testing just one season The result is completely inaccurate? (from reply)
The random perturbation in the game is very large, which means that if you only play 30 to 40 games (a season), the result is likely to deviate significantly from the true value
One might also suspect that the test is not rigorous enough,
it's not scientific enough,
it's not an actual season,
it's a nice ideal environment,
and so on,
and then argue that the empirical results under a lot of interference are more accurate than the results obtained under the control variable method
10.thoughts
Like the previous "1CA Win Champion", many people will dismiss this as a conspiracy theory before testing reveals the game mechanics. After the revelation, some players believe that this kind of testing is just excessive pursuit of intensity at the expense of game life. But that's not the purpose of the test.
My goal in testing this is the same as the goal of many gamers: to force the game company to continuously improve the old mechanics it has used for years, to change the fundamental engine flaws, and to prevent players from playing a "placebo simulator". Why a placebo simulator? There are people who take real football and put a lot of time and energy into the game, there are a lot of players who put a lot of energy into the video, I also enjoy these passionate things
But,
As a result, the game engine does not do these functions at all, these players believe and carefully prepared, essentially reflected in the game engine is useless. The game relies on some very simple data and then randomizes it to make players think they are playing a real simulation. Then the game company can just change the appearance of their game, sell it for generations, and advertise that they are making a simulation full of interactivity
What's more, the authorities have banned discussions on official forums and continue to mislead consumers. You can only find information in unofficial forums.
Like the game training system I tested, I only played the FM2024 generation , and now only a 300 hours player, and many previous generations, plus the latest generation, have a lot of players who spend a lot of time researching and sharing their training findings.
As a result, these players actually played a placebo simulator
There are even some emotionally invested players who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to believe (forgive me for being overly aggressive) the results of these tests that reveal Physical man is Superman. These players who have invested money and effort should enjoy the same experience as the simulation theory, not the illusion of a fake mechanic.
It's not the player's fault, it's the game company's fault. players love football simulation games, doesn't mean you should accept a flawed game, especially when the game's biggest selling point and publicity point is simulation. You can choose not to play. Or you can stay and protest together in one way or another and force the game company to change. You can also play the game as much as you want, without deliberately using these "intensity mechanics" and have fun.
My guess for why high Technical and Decisions is detrimental is because the game does not know what actions are the most effective. If you look at technical attributes, you will see that dribbling is more efficient than passing or shooting, possibly because pace and acceleration are over tuned in the engine, and dribbling makes use of both attributes. So, characters with high technical will have increased chance of success for passes and shots, while characters with high decisions will find better opportunities to pass and shoot. Unfortunately, the most effective is to pass and shoot as little as possible, unless you have those attributes much higher than dribbling attributes (including pace and acceleration).
So, in short, if I am not wrong:
Pass 20 + Technique 20 + Other 10 > Pass 20 + Technique 10 + Other 10.
Pass 20 + Technique 10 + Dribbling 20 + Pace 20 + Acceleration 20 + Other 10 > Pass 20 + Technique 20 + Dribbling 20 + Pace 20 + Acceleration 20 + Other 10.
The same is probably true for long shots or finishing.
As far as I know, players are always training for a position, and the role is used to define the base attributes to grow during training. Optimally, you should use the position that gives the best attributes, but I usually do their expected role in tactic just because I like to see maximum tactic familiarity (which probably has no effect in performance).
I put them to train for their playing position (or opposite side of the field for FBs and IFs). And yes, I do the same for under 21.
You can copy any of the days and repeat it on that travel sunday. Physical, Attack + Defend, or Match Practice if available.
No need to divide the attack and defending to reduce the load, since the load was already thought to minimize injuries.
When I discovered super rest, I tried all combinations to see what triggers it, what works, and what does not work. In short, it needs three rest sessions in the same day plus send the player to rest (manually, or "no pitch or gym work".
The mechanics of training work like this: if you add any training session in that day (including Travel or Recovery, players are considered "not resting", so they do not recover energy from Rest sessions, even if you had two Rest sessions during that day. Therefore, Rest is only useful if you have three sessions, else it will only be reducing training intensity to reduce injuries. There is actually some natural daily regeneration that happens independent of training, but that has nothing to do with resting.
So, what happens when you super rest is that you still get the fatigue and condition recovery from three rest sessions (which only happens if you have no other training session or Travel), even though you are resting at home (which triggers another recovery of fatigue and condition).
If you are interested, Max did this video below about our discoveries on rest.
any idea how to adapt to schedule like that?
You cannot super rest with travel, so just add training sessions there. You will still rest with the "no gym or pitch" settings, it will just not recover as much.
Results will not be very different than what they got here with some tactics. I am checking stuff like injuries, and use of the "empty" training in youth teams.
Do not bother much. The difference in performance is marginal, if not inexistent. In practice, a left footed player will have an easier time to pass the ball to the left. That will make players from the left move the ball more to wide areas of the field, while players from the right will move the ball more to the middle, since the engine tries to favor decisions with higher chance to succeed (based on a weight system). However, the difference is not big enough to make it a decisive factor, and I would easily use a winger or fullback with "wrong" foot, if it was a better player.
Add full rest after the match, and remove one Physical, Attack, and Defend. You can also keep Physical and remove a Match Practice instead, if you want to focus more on physical attributes.
I would say it is fair to do that in the lowest divisions when your training facilities are bad, but the game is usually not very challenging in that level, and you can often get fast players for free to win those leagues.
Big 2 is Acc/Pace. A tier below - JR, Dribbling, AGI (defenders), Balance (attackers). The non tier S attributes (Acc/Pace) does significant reduce the performance of the players if they are too far below the league based on experience.
There's probably some balance to be found that's optimal once more and more people start trying this method. Since more training session per week probably lead to more injuries in theory, All we know is - you need double intensity, 2x match practice, Quickness x 1 (2x physical might be better, unsure). Then It's either 1x overall or 1xattack+defend or blank.
I will leave this https://www.playgm.cc/thread-970401-1-1.html for those who can read Chinese, Harvestgreen posted a bunch of test results on there. I think I tend to lean on just 1x Quickness per week.
The idea to use double intensity to focus on the most efficient sessions is good, since match practice can only be used twice a week. However, like I said before, I think it is naive to focus only on three attributes that will represent half of the performance, and ignore the remaining half. That's why I prefer physical instead of quickness.
Imo L5 seems like the best since it has slight better growth than I6, Keeping in mind more training sessions = more chance of injuries. Whether L5 is worth it over K5 would be up to your personal preference.
I would do this training schedule and combine with the glitch of "super rest" and sprinkle in some match focus. To me, it would produce the best players ability wise in accordance to Acc/Pace/JR over performance even it doesn't produce the most well rounded players. You would look at more 18/16/10 instead of 16/16/14 guys in terms of Acc/pace/dribbling.
I am currently trying the schedule below. The goal is to use double intensity to allow me to focus on sessions that really matter, aiming to maximize CA growth while having good emphasis on physical attributes.
I set to their playing positions, or opposite side if they are full backs or wingers.
Continum said: And another question, do you use this schedule for the youth team as well?
It works for both youth and main teams.
Footballenjoyer said: The only issue with this schedule is there's no significant increase between 2x physical training and 7 x physical training per week shown in multiple test ran in other posts in this forum.
Looks like the only way to speed up physical attribute growth is intensity. Then it's either max CA growth schedule on half intensity or the Chinese forum method that prioritize physical while trying to delay as much decay of non physical attributes.
I am working on a new schedule with two physical sessions.
Just a small correction. If you do that and then change to normal training, it will not train only technical and mental, but it will also continue training physical. That means you would not need to wait until pace and acceleration are at 20, since they would continue growing.