debelizec19 said: Thank You @freshandy for the explanation. So, if we look on Zaz example, after AFC match there is travel and we can not use superrest but why he didn't use superrest before Brighton match and after Aston Villa match on sunday 31.12.? Expand
If there is another session on the day like travel or match focus you cannot get a super rest, so there is no point scheduling rests
Would it be possible to test some other additional focuses? Like strength for jumping reach or ball control for dribbling, maybe others. For example with V7 schedule or whatever people most commonly use except with a different additional focus, and you can probably use same metrics as you already do.
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point.
To put it simply: [Recovery]x7 It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight" Expand
Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions?
Eppstar said: Here is the progression of three players after 9 seasons. I used R5 training for the U19s and V7 training for the first and second teams. They spent 2 years in the U19s, 1 year in the second team (Championnat National 2), and the rest in the first team.
PS: I made these three players younger at the start of the game because I wanted to observe their progression over the longest possible period. Expand
That goalkeepers development looks super interesting. We've established roughly how things work for outfield players but I didn't think it would work so well on a GK
Han106 said: So what I'm taking from this is that the coaching assignments seem to have no effect at all. In fact I have no idea if coaching even has an effect on player growth. Why do we even have coaches? Expand
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I vaguely remember from EBFM videos that coaches don't matter that much for highly professional players but gain in value with lower professionalism. Since these tests are done with 20/20 it's possible the effect is small and within the margin of error.
Steelwood said: Well what I found since posting that is that you will be fine as long as you make sure that training responsibility is set to the assistant. If not, they will get upset almost immediately, all of mine were upset about the standard of strength coaching Expand
Speaking of which. I haven't gone through every single routine in here so maybe it's included somewhere. Has Workthespace world cup corner routine been tested? Everyone seems to be using it lately
A Smile said: When we are constantly adjusting to a tactic, it is normal for such things to happen. To my surprise, the test results of 4800 or even 9600 matches still have a difference of 0.4 points. I think SI has adjusted something in the background, which leads to the instability of the test results. Although I don't have a relatively scientific and reasonable testing method like ARENA, I still feel this instability. Expand
That's completely normal. As you can see from the tables it is estimated that results are correct within rougly +-1 point. 0,4 is well within that range.
pawel said: for some reason my players dont make progress, in first month he made nice progress and then 0 even tho he played whole season i use this training
EDIT: if someone can please give me advice Expand He made some progress, is close to potential, in a bad league with mediocre facilities. Not sure what you are expecting. You won't be getting 25 CA per year.
Maybe we could take a step back and not conclude everything based on like 0,1 differences. These tests are great but there is still plenty of error in them due to sample size.
Compare for example H7 and S7. Huge difference for no apparent reason and even in the opposite direction as most others would suggest.
YAMS49 said: Been an FM player for ages and after reading this absolutely fascinating thread I have to ask a question if I may. Great work by the way, truly great work.
Rest & Individual Training Focus - I presume even with a schedule of full Rest the Individual Training Focus is still being done by the player/game in the background? So Individual Training Focus Quickness is still receiving Double Intensity even with full Rest in the team/main schedule?
This seems strange as the whole idea of rest is to rest is it not? If you're resting then surely you shouldn't be working on your Individual Training? Is this just a quirk of the training system?
Thank you. Expand
Rest session in a team session, doesn't mean players can't do their individual stuff.
Thank you for this test. As suspected a little bit of weak foot ability is good, but after that doesn't seem to be worth the cost. And for that reason I don't really like players who are good with both feet.
There might be an argument to be made to train weak foot of players who are terrible at it.
Possebrew said: Awesome work! I'm lacking superlatives to thank you!
The extremes of 1 in some of these attributes are staggering. At the same time, this is also good news! It means you can't just take a player with 20Pac/Acc/Dri and dominate everything. Well-rounded players are still desirable.
I wouldn't have expected that being single footed has such a big impact. This comes in stark contrast to some mainstream advice that it's not worth improving the weak-foot. It also means that it's worth comparing boosting off-foot VS traits like: 'Avoid weaker foot'
The gap between low determination, anticipation, concentration & dribbling is also surprising.
Decision being worthless left me flabbergasted! Expand
The difference between onefooted and both footed is really not that big and considering CA cost I'd argue it's better to invest that into some actual attributes. Could maybe use a test with value of say 6 and 10 or something.
ZaZ said: 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). Expand
Still not sure if it trains all roles for a certain position or the one you use in the tactic. The main issue though seems to be that when I select both role and additional training the players complain about too much work and if I remove the role it's mostly fine. So something doesn't add up. With Match practice being such a vital part of training schedules some clarity would be nice.
Flashedmind said: Having analysed this post and related posts and discussions on training schedules, I think I agree with one of ZaZ's comments that you can use the physical attribute maximisation schedule in the youth team and then use the D6 schedule for the first team.
The most interesting finding to me is that you can "cheat" a player's CA-PA ratio if you have the time for it. The schedules show that you can increase a player's CA by around 5-6 per year, all of these points distributed across paca-acc-jump (e.g +2 in each). The main advantage is that you retain the player's PA, because you don't "waste" it on other, less important attributes (which is sad but true in current engine). If you do this from ages 15-18, you can add +6 to pace-acc-jump which is a lot, and then shift towards the schedules that focus on CA growth when the player goes to first team.
Practical example: let's say player has 80 CA and 150 PA, which means that 70 CA can still be attributed in development. If you use the D6 schedule, the player will grow 25 CA per year, of which 5 goes into pace-acc-jump and 20 into other attributes. This means that after 3 years the player will have reached their potential and the distribution of attributes will be on a ratio 1/4 physical/other.
For the same example, if you use the physical attribute maximising schedule, after 3 years the player will have gone from 70 CA to around 85 CA with all increases in attributes in pace-acc-jump (around +5 each). The difference is that the player still has a lot of their potential to be fulfilled, and then you can switch to the D6 schedule once the desired physical attributes are reached. The 85 CA player still has 65 CA to fill in, meaning that another 2-3 years of using D6 schedule can be used to maximise CA growth whilst still developing the physicals.
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.
In other words, if you have the time, you can finetune a player's development by first allowing their physicals to be developed greatly and then shifting to other attributes whilst not neglecting physicals.
Im aware that overall, playing matches is most important and that the player's hidden attributes are a decisive factor. I'm also well aware that a lot more discussions can be had on this matter and that further finetuning of these findings is necessary (e.g. the impact of coaching staff, the negative impact on team cohesion or tactical familiarity of the schedules).
Thoughts? Expand
Assuming it actually works in this ideal way. The issue is you are taking numbers from a perfect player. A 150 PA player with less than ideal professionalism will not grow in this way. Anyone who has been tracking development of players will tell you that yes maybe 25 CA per season is sometimes possible, it's very improbable even with the best of prospects and certainly not year after year.
So instead of 5 points in physicals and 5 CA growth it'll be more like 1-2. Additionally since his growth will be so slow it'll take a long time before you are able to offer him game time. Also no other team will want to take him on loan because his CA will be so low, doesn't matter if his distribution is super meta.
I think the tests are valid, but in a real game once you factor in that PA isn't 200, that facilities aren't always 20/20, coaches not ideal, professionalism rarely 20, you can't really offer them enough game time ... everything put together means that the redistribution into physical attributes is probably way too slow. Unless you want to waste 5 seasons for each player in the hopes that some of them work out and that you can catch up on CA growth afterwards (also very questionable as growth slows down with age).
Do you feel the super rest day is necessary in 1 match weeks? The way I see is for it to be worth it it would have to be right on the breaking point so that 1 day super rest completely rests the squad and 1 day of "normal" rest doesn't so the squad would take the 2nd normal rest day as well (or possibly 2 vs 3 day rest situation)
For me the striker is easily scoring 1 goal per game, with the rest of the front 3 scoring about a goal every 2nd game and a ton of assists between then. Even the fullbacks are contributing massively and the DMs with a 25 yard strike every now and then. Honestly this tactic is incredibly efficient and fun to watch.
I can do "another focus" test next time ,
You can give an example of which focus you need to test (For example with V7 schedule + xxx focus)
V7 + strength focus mainly, but can try others if you want: ball control, attacking movement ...
So, if we look on Zaz example, after AFC match there is travel and we can not use superrest but why he didn't use superrest before Brighton match and after Aston Villa match on sunday 31.12.?
If there is another session on the day like travel or match focus you cannot get a super rest, so there is no point scheduling rests
I ask because at a certain point one might prefer other attributes than pure speed. For example center backs don't seem to develop much jumping reach and strength using these schedules, or maybe they do and I've just been unlucky. I'd rather have a 14 pace 14 acc 14 jumping reach center back than 16, 16 and 10. 10 vs 14 is probably too big of a gap, but just to illustrate the point.
check N11
(To save time, I only tested them for 1 season)
To put it simply:
[Recovery]x7
It's used to "remove/lower" certain weights so that the most important attributes get more assigned weight
Then, A8 is the training program proposed by EBFM (I added [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] to this) and it takes 11 training sessions per week
I achieved the same results in about 5 training per week in another exercise by "increasing/decreasing the weight"
Have you tried basically no training but with 7 recovery sessions?
PS: I made these three players younger at the start of the game because I wanted to observe their progression over the longest possible period.
That goalkeepers development looks super interesting. We've established roughly how things work for outfield players but I didn't think it would work so well on a GK
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, I vaguely remember from EBFM videos that coaches don't matter that much for highly professional players but gain in value with lower professionalism. Since these tests are done with 20/20 it's possible the effect is small and within the margin of error.
That's a coaching issue not schedule
That's completely normal. As you can see from the tables it is estimated that results are correct within rougly +-1 point. 0,4 is well within that range.
Pretty sure SI hasn't touched FM24 since march.
EDIT: if someone can please give me advice
He made some progress, is close to potential, in a bad league with mediocre facilities. Not sure what you are expecting. You won't be getting 25 CA per year.
Compare for example H7 and S7. Huge difference for no apparent reason and even in the opposite direction as most others would suggest.
Rest & Individual Training Focus - I presume even with a schedule of full Rest the Individual Training Focus is still being done by the player/game in the background? So Individual Training Focus Quickness is still receiving Double Intensity even with full Rest in the team/main schedule?
This seems strange as the whole idea of rest is to rest is it not? If you're resting then surely you shouldn't be working on your Individual Training? Is this just a quirk of the training system?
Thank you.
Rest session in a team session, doesn't mean players can't do their individual stuff.
Non-dominant feet = 6 11.7
Non-dominant feet = 10 12.7
Left Feet = Right Feet = 20 20.1
Thank you for this test. As suspected a little bit of weak foot ability is good, but after that doesn't seem to be worth the cost. And for that reason I don't really like players who are good with both feet.
There might be an argument to be made to train weak foot of players who are terrible at it.
The extremes of 1 in some of these attributes are staggering.
At the same time, this is also good news!
It means you can't just take a player with 20Pac/Acc/Dri and dominate everything.
Well-rounded players are still desirable.
I wouldn't have expected that being single footed has such a big impact. This comes in stark contrast to some mainstream advice that it's not worth improving the weak-foot. It also means that it's worth comparing boosting off-foot VS traits like: 'Avoid weaker foot'
The gap between low determination, anticipation, concentration & dribbling is also surprising.
Decision being worthless left me flabbergasted!
The difference between onefooted and both footed is really not that big and considering CA cost I'd argue it's better to invest that into some actual attributes. Could maybe use a test with value of say 6 and 10 or something.
Still not sure if it trains all roles for a certain position or the one you use in the tactic. The main issue though seems to be that when I select both role and additional training the players complain about too much work and if I remove the role it's mostly fine. So something doesn't add up. With Match practice being such a vital part of training schedules some clarity would be nice.
The most interesting finding to me is that you can "cheat" a player's CA-PA ratio if you have the time for it. The schedules show that you can increase a player's CA by around 5-6 per year, all of these points distributed across paca-acc-jump (e.g +2 in each). The main advantage is that you retain the player's PA, because you don't "waste" it on other, less important attributes (which is sad but true in current engine). If you do this from ages 15-18, you can add +6 to pace-acc-jump which is a lot, and then shift towards the schedules that focus on CA growth when the player goes to first team.
Practical example: let's say player has 80 CA and 150 PA, which means that 70 CA can still be attributed in development. If you use the D6 schedule, the player will grow 25 CA per year, of which 5 goes into pace-acc-jump and 20 into other attributes. This means that after 3 years the player will have reached their potential and the distribution of attributes will be on a ratio 1/4 physical/other.
For the same example, if you use the physical attribute maximising schedule, after 3 years the player will have gone from 70 CA to around 85 CA with all increases in attributes in pace-acc-jump (around +5 each). The difference is that the player still has a lot of their potential to be fulfilled, and then you can switch to the D6 schedule once the desired physical attributes are reached. The 85 CA player still has 65 CA to fill in, meaning that another 2-3 years of using D6 schedule can be used to maximise CA growth whilst still developing the physicals.
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.
In other words, if you have the time, you can finetune a player's development by first allowing their physicals to be developed greatly and then shifting to other attributes whilst not neglecting physicals.
Im aware that overall, playing matches is most important and that the player's hidden attributes are a decisive factor. I'm also well aware that a lot more discussions can be had on this matter and that further finetuning of these findings is necessary (e.g. the impact of coaching staff, the negative impact on team cohesion or tactical familiarity of the schedules).
Thoughts?
Assuming it actually works in this ideal way. The issue is you are taking numbers from a perfect player. A 150 PA player with less than ideal professionalism will not grow in this way. Anyone who has been tracking development of players will tell you that yes maybe 25 CA per season is sometimes possible, it's very improbable even with the best of prospects and certainly not year after year.
So instead of 5 points in physicals and 5 CA growth it'll be more like 1-2. Additionally since his growth will be so slow it'll take a long time before you are able to offer him game time. Also no other team will want to take him on loan because his CA will be so low, doesn't matter if his distribution is super meta.
I think the tests are valid, but in a real game once you factor in that PA isn't 200, that facilities aren't always 20/20, coaches not ideal, professionalism rarely 20, you can't really offer them enough game time ... everything put together means that the redistribution into physical attributes is probably way too slow. Unless you want to waste 5 seasons for each player in the hopes that some of them work out and that you can catch up on CA growth afterwards (also very questionable as growth slows down with age).