harvestgreen22 said: [Addtional Focus Quickness] , Addtional Focus = "Super weight"  , It can reverse some of the weight of other training

check A-L3,F9,E10
(It is difficult to explain + translate, I have time later to measure all their properties like B10-- L11 and explain them again)


https://pixeldrain.com/u/6C1HCKvX
https://pixeldrain.com/u/rGmAz3Y7
https://pixeldrain.com/u/9CxMn28p

J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them,
just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar.
This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V).
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
Can be tied to
(Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary Expand


https://pixeldrain.com/u/QBsRr1bH
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"

pixar said: Do you recommend double intensity for all levels of fatigue or just full intensity with no training at all?

In short, do you recommend the one in the first image or the one in the second image?

1

2


Additionally, I created a program based on your recommendations.



For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces. Expand


second one intensity.

——For those who use team bonding and set piece tactics to raise morale, I wanted to place the routine training in empty spots to increase the efficiency of set pieces.

that's ok , Arrange it according to your needs

AFant said: Wow, baffling result! Removing [Quickness] from M10 somehow removed all non-physical development that should've come from the Match Practice and Attacking sessions and in turn increased the physical development.

These results indicate that the "weight" hypothesis is incorrect, but additive training also doesn't fit and "more impact of additional focus" only partially fits. I have no immediate explanation for how these results can come about.

On a positive note J11 seems to yield even better low-CA results than a pure resting schedule. Expand


[Addtional Focus Quickness] , Addtional Focus = "Super weight"  , It can reverse some of the weight of other training

check A-L3,F9,E10
(It is difficult to explain + translate, I have time later to measure all their properties like B10-- L11 and explain them again)


https://pixeldrain.com/u/6C1HCKvX
https://pixeldrain.com/u/rGmAz3Y7
https://pixeldrain.com/u/9CxMn28p

J11 and J10 are very similar, there is no much difference between them,
just not enough sample caused some error, you can think of them as similar.
This J11 and J10 I tested and mentioned a long time ago (H,N,V).
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
Can be tied to
(Rest) no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
But it increases the risk of injury, so it's not necessary

AFant said: Yes, I'm sorry. I first assumed it was implied but I edited for clarity right as you posted. Expand


1.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]
2.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]
3.
[Attacking Shadow Play]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
4.
[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x [Recovery]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]

5.
[Physical]
6.
[Quickness]
7.
[Physical]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
8.
[Quickness]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]


ok , Now 1-4 on list.
Do you need 5-8?  I don't test 5-8 if you don't need it

AFant said: I'm not entirely convinced that the "assignment according to weights based on sessions performed" hypothesis is proven. I think alternative hypotheses are that they either are very effective physical training sessions or just intensely work the individual focus which ends up being more effective than a physical training session. Looking into EBFM's data which I only had a vague recollection of the Recovery session didn't have as significant results as I recalled and should give higher growth in Jumping/Strength than Pace/Acceleration if it was the case it was as simple as a session that added attributes, so just being effective sessions may not be true either. Rest wasn't included in the data but I would presume it to be very similar to Recovery. His data also suggests Physical sessions being almost as good for Pace, Acceleration, Agility and Balance as Quickness, but with significantly higher impact on Jumping, Strength, Stamina and Work Rate.

To test this I'd like to see results from one/several of the most effective programs with the Quickness session excluded (E.g. Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery, or Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery) and compare the results to the programs with quickness included. If the weighting hypothesis is true then excluding the Quickness session would tank physical development as it wouldn't have a weight outside of the individual focus, but I have a feeling that excluding the Quickness sessions will have either a neglible or even positive impact.

FM23 training session data (EBFM): https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/iil3uzylhhkakvw7a4eex/Training%207%20for%20Dropbox.xlsx?rlkey=8qe1b84rqx7623tzbkxwjts8b&e=4&dl=0

Tl;dr:
Do a comparative test where you drop the Quickness session altogether:

[Attacking Shadow Play]

And/or

[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+7x[Recovery] Expand



1.
Attacking Shadow Play+7x Recovery
2.
Match Practice+Attacking+7x Recovery

You need to test these two, right?
Do they need +[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]?

pixar said: There are too many complicated visual tables on this subject and I find it really tiring to review them.

Can you share the most efficient weekly training program according to the most up-to-date test results in the first post?

Thank you very much in advance. Expand


A relatively simple one (some details may be missed)

[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in main team

（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in U18 team

twkmax said: @harvestgreen22 Why do, for some attributes, your results differ a lot from the ykykyk05251 (a chinese game developer) results? Expand

I don't know him. I'm a new player , just played from late October
My guess is that the initial conditions and version of the game he used were different from mine

caffeiner said: Just a small update on my findings:

As before, I did 10 seasons (this means 300 matches). The configuration is the same as the other comment.

Databattle 1 has ALL attributes on 20. The other teams have ALL attributes on 20, EXCEPT Technique which is on 1.

Hypothesis: IF Technique doesn't matter, what we expect is to that results of the league will be random or close to random. IF Technique is NEGATIVE, what we expect is that Databattle 1 will be WORSE than the other teams overall.

Results: Databattle 1 overperformed all other teams in most seasons, having better GD, Position, winrate and more points most of the time. It won the league 7 times (7/10), and has higher mean points, GD, wins, and position. See images for more info (On the correlation matrix, the "Technique 20" data point is simply 1 if the team is Databattle 1, and 0 if it isn't. Also, remember that POSITION is "inversed", so having lower position is actually better). Even in the seasons it did not win, it came second by AT MOST 4 points.

Conclusion: When everything else is at 20, is seems to be better to have technique at 20 than it is to have it at 1. Eventually I'll add more data to this analysis, as I feel 10 tournaments/300 matches is a small amount, but for now I'll test other attributes in the same manner. Expand

Thanks for your work, I'm also slowly trying a new initial condition,
Four teams use replicants, different 4-3-3,
then test what the goal difference is without changing the attributes,
then test what the goal difference is with -10 Technique
1,500 games(match) tested now. I expect to increase it to about 5000.

svonn said: Looking at the initial tests from @harvestgreen22, it is clear that not all attributes have a linear effect. Attributes like work rate seem to have a "saturation point", so anything above 10 has diminishing returns. There may be something similar at play here - testing with 1 technique might have a high effect, 10 might be some kind of sweet spot, while the drop above might be due to something like statistical noise or some other threshold that allows actions that aren't helpful, especially if the whole team is doing them. Expand

Thanks for your work, I'm also slowly trying a new initial condition,
Four teams use replicants, different 4-3-3,
then test what the goal difference is without changing the attributes,
then test what the goal difference is with -10 Technique
1,500 games tested now. I expect to increase it to about 5000.

flob said: Okay thanks! As I don't know how to do that 2nd part, I guess I will just ignore the comments then. May I ask, as a follow up question, do you take control of the other teams like U21 and U18 and use the same training schedules? Or do you leave all that standard and to the assistant? Expand

If I think there are players who need special separation, I choose to take over the U18/U21 training and then put them on a different training schedule.

You can also decide if you want to do this according to your preference

animatron said: There is no photo on the link i think Expand

Footballenjoyer said: So you actually get more CA increase from not having any coaches at all in the



Can you please reupload the imgur link since it's dead.

The result from age change shouldn't be too surprising since developers have always said younger players develop faster.

So beside the obvious 4 (strength, quickness, shot stopping, Possession Technical) Should we assign coaches to Defending tatical (concentration) and/or Possession Tactical (Anticipation) Expand

https://pixeldrain.com/u/a2ht7fuS



I reuploaded the picture to another web disk

flob said: @harvestgreen22 Do you maybe have a thought/idea on players complaining about training in general like the screenshot I posted a copple days ago in this topic? Do you not have this issue? If so, which training schedule do you use then if I may ask? Expand

They would 100% complain, and then I would ignore them.
My feeling is that these complaints won't have a big impact on morale

If you want to have no complaints, you have to give the responsibility to the Assistant.
Then, set up the training plan and individual training. Select "Only once" when setting up.
This way, it looks like the Assistant is in charge, but you're actually in control.
But NPCS don't complain about NPC , so they have no complaints at all

Footballenjoyer said: What if you just don't assign coaches in those categories? Expand

don't assign coaches in those categories = Y10

https://imgur.com/a/YZRx9Iv
Compare M10 and Z10,
To my great surprise
Test conditions,
Change From age 20, to age 17,

CA increased from 20s to 30s per season,
Physical attributes, no proportional increase,
And this part of the increase in CA is basically technical and mental.

Han106 said: I just thought of this what if you setup up your coaches where they are 5 stars in Quickness/Strength and Possession Technical and 1 star everywhere else, can you handicap the growth in the bad attributes? @harvestgreen22 Expand


coaches where they are 5 stars in Quickness/Strength and Possession Technical and 1 star everywhere else = B11



https://imgur.com/a/YZRx9Iv
Compare M10 and Z10,
To my great surprise
Test conditions,
Change From age 20, to age 17,

CA increased from 20s to 30s per season,
Physical attributes, no proportional increase,
And this part of the increase in CA is basically technical and mental.

Pabsquatch said: Quick question. On Z8, wouldn't it be better to train defensive shadow play instead of attacking shadow play, since defensive trains both anticipation and concentration at 60%. Since no other training requiers an attacking unit, you can move every player to the defensive unit. Expand

This is ok optional, Z8,

Sometimes I put so much emphasis on reducing the "Number of training required per week" that I overlook some effects, So I picked a "3 training per week",
You can choose as you like

some updated

It was scattered, because I also randomly put together some training schedules in my free time, and I didn't think about anything

caffeiner said: I did some tests with flair but didn't really notice a negative correlation.
4 team league, teams B, C, D have all players with 20 in all normal attributes. Team A players have everything on 20 except flair, which is on 1. All attributes are frozen (this means that the attributes stay on the same level all season). All players are proficient in all positions. The formation used was a 4-1-1-3-1, for all teams (FB (De), CD (De), DM (Su), CM (Su), W (At), AM (Su), AF (At)).

I ran 10 seasons (the first season 10 times, to be precise). Team A won the league twice, got third a couple of times and second a couple too. The goal difference wasn't really relevant either: 19, 15, -6,-1, -16, -10, -2, 15, -6, 12.

Didn't test combinations or other attributes, though.

Of course, 10 seasons amounts to a very small number of matches in a league with 4 teams (300 matches per team), so more testing is surely required. Expand

Thank you. If I have time I'll keep expanding the sample to see if it's random, if it's due to certain conditions, or if it's true

Footballenjoyer said: What if you just don't assign coaches in those categories? Expand

I hadn't thought of it that way. It's a novel idea. I'll try it out when I have time

Han106 said: I just thought of this what if you setup up your coaches where they are 5 stars in Quickness/Strength and Possession Technical and 1 star everywhere else, can you handicap the growth in the bad attributes? @harvestgreen22 Expand

I hadn't thought of it that way. It's a novel idea. I'll try it out when I have time