Han106 said: A point I would like to make is that if it is your goal to min-max your Pace and Acceleration, I would think anything that effects amount of growth would increase the amount of Pace and Acceleration that a player gets per year. Like for example low professionalism means less Pace and Acceleration YoY and high professionalism means more. These are the other factors which can juice up the amount of whatever attribute you are looking to min-max. So this is why I believe this 2nd part to be important. Expand
Yes absolutely agree, which is why I would argue that it is the combination of professionalism and CA/PA margin that is key for younger players. But that is something we already knew, in addition to match time and to a lesser extent training facilities
Seems like it does say that between 20-25, minutes played and league rep matter a lot.
Does the margin of growth thing not seem very obvious? Higher gap between CA and PA = more growth.
Still can't get over the fundamental flaw in the system where concepts like CA and PA seem to be irrelevant when a few attributes are disproportionally more important than all the others combined
Delicious said: You are misunderstanding what training does in FM and those test.
Conclusion is there are many factors that make your wonderkids grow, like personality, hiddens etc.
I don't know how you people came to the conclusion that you can create a 20 pace or 20 acceleration player if he ain't supposed to go to that. Expand
Not sure why you presume that everyone else is misunderstanding training when the purpose of this forum is discussing game mechanics and many of the commenters here have contributed to this discussion in a positive way. As for me personally, I'm pretty sure I understand training in FM. My comment was meant to discuss some concepts of harvestgreen22 finding's in a more abstract or theoretical manner. Of course there are other factors in play, I recognise this in the last paragraph of my comment.
If a player "ain't supposed to do that" then I suppose you mean he doesn't have the right combination of hidden attributes, personality and PA to acquire high numbers in a sufficient number of attributes. Isn't it precisely the goal of research like this to contribute to us discovering under what circumstances and what types of players "are supposed to do that" ?
As Yarema touched upon, ultimately what we want to have is a generalisable training schedule which allows for optimal development of players of different levels of PA, hidden attributes and personalities. It's not hard to see that a player with 180+ PA and 20 professionalism will be able to develop crazy attributes with the current training schedules. It's more about, as you yourself say, taking into account the realism of the game and making sure that the training schedules contribute to both the development aspect (e.g. increasing attributes and avoiding injuries) as well as the 'team' aspect (e.g. team cohesion, tactical familiarity, sharpness).
Me personally, I'd like to have more insight into how much agency we ourselves have in targeting specific attributes to develop through training, or if it's all just a meme by FM to give the illusion of making a meaningful impact with training. For example (again abstract), imagine you have a team full of central defenders and you only target marking, heading and tackling with training, how much of the attribute growth do you actually control with training? Will the physicals remain the same (or deteriorate) or are they hardcoded to improve no matter what training you use?
I've read through some other training posts and will experiment with the following schedules, which try to combine some of the insights from different contributors (I haven't decided on training intensity but I now use no pitch - no pitch - no pitch - half - double):
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).
Yes absolutely agree, which is why I would argue that it is the combination of professionalism and CA/PA margin that is key for younger players. But that is something we already knew, in addition to match time and to a lesser extent training facilities
Seems like it does say that between 20-25, minutes played and league rep matter a lot.
Does the margin of growth thing not seem very obvious? Higher gap between CA and PA = more growth.
Still can't get over the fundamental flaw in the system where concepts like CA and PA seem to be irrelevant when a few attributes are disproportionally more important than all the others combined
Conclusion is there are many factors that make your wonderkids grow, like personality, hiddens etc.
I don't know how you people came to the conclusion that you can create a 20 pace or 20 acceleration player if he ain't supposed to go to that.
Not sure why you presume that everyone else is misunderstanding training when the purpose of this forum is discussing game mechanics and many of the commenters here have contributed to this discussion in a positive way. As for me personally, I'm pretty sure I understand training in FM. My comment was meant to discuss some concepts of harvestgreen22 finding's in a more abstract or theoretical manner. Of course there are other factors in play, I recognise this in the last paragraph of my comment.
If a player "ain't supposed to do that" then I suppose you mean he doesn't have the right combination of hidden attributes, personality and PA to acquire high numbers in a sufficient number of attributes. Isn't it precisely the goal of research like this to contribute to us discovering under what circumstances and what types of players "are supposed to do that" ?
As Yarema touched upon, ultimately what we want to have is a generalisable training schedule which allows for optimal development of players of different levels of PA, hidden attributes and personalities. It's not hard to see that a player with 180+ PA and 20 professionalism will be able to develop crazy attributes with the current training schedules. It's more about, as you yourself say, taking into account the realism of the game and making sure that the training schedules contribute to both the development aspect (e.g. increasing attributes and avoiding injuries) as well as the 'team' aspect (e.g. team cohesion, tactical familiarity, sharpness).
Me personally, I'd like to have more insight into how much agency we ourselves have in targeting specific attributes to develop through training, or if it's all just a meme by FM to give the illusion of making a meaningful impact with training. For example (again abstract), imagine you have a team full of central defenders and you only target marking, heading and tackling with training, how much of the attribute growth do you actually control with training? Will the physicals remain the same (or deteriorate) or are they hardcoded to improve no matter what training you use?
I've read through some other training posts and will experiment with the following schedules, which try to combine some of the insights from different contributors (I haven't decided on training intensity but I now use no pitch - no pitch - no pitch - half - double):
Feel free to share your thoughts and comments
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?