GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: The first paragraph is stretching my mental capacity, but I think I have a response. I know that attributes don't have linear CA weighting, so there has to be RCA before it becomes CA. EBFM tried to deduce the exact formula on CA calculations and gave up on it. I tried myself and also failed to work it out.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case. Expand
I ve looked at old saves in FMRTE and most of my young players on an upward trajectory had a lower RCA than their CA. Pretty sure EBFM mentioned that young players can over grow their CA and adjust back down and that RCA only updates monthly. (It’s been a while) I’ve also seen older players close to their PA get an expensive attribute like acc/pad and then have cheaper ones adjust down the next month. You also have to remember that attributes aren’t really 1-20 it’s 1-200 (or 100 can’t remember.) the naming scheme is dumb imo.
I picked MLS specifically because they are relatively rich and have good facilities in addition to not playing games. (With the cap they have nothing else to spend it on.) I know there is difference in youth ratings which is why I said to look at 130-140 PA players which are still common in the U.S.. You would only be able to test this with hidden attributes visible. Ie Look at like LAFC / NYCFC 16 year olds with 130 PA and look at like Sheffield Wednesday level clubs with similar pa. 3 years later the English players that get a lot of PT on the u-19s and u-21s will lap their American peers:
I’m only in year 3 of my MLS save but the regens on my reserve team playing friendlies are way ahead their peers (I don’t have hiddens visible though. Even in older saves players that sit the bench at 15/16 grow more when they start playing.
Nikos said: We are definitely looking for the best possible training in order to push our player as close as possible to his PA limit. This value may be predetermined, but if it is not developed properly, it will never be reached. That’s what I’m asking, whether you have settled on a specific training plan Expand
Not necessarily, not all CA is created equal. A 120 CA player with 20/20 ACC/PAC is better than a 160 with 12/12 ACC/PAC.
I just used practice /quickness/attacking + recoveries with double intensity in Germany . If I were playing somewhere with weaker regens I’d just go full attacking direct+quickness. Though I noticed lower pa regens generally hit the big physical numbers early. Doing an MLS save and will see if I end up switching.
I think individual focus + double intensity is doing most of the heavy lifting. You get big gains to what ever you change it to. (I’ve tested with dribbling.)? But since ACC/PAC are the two best attributes and on the same individual training with no filler it’s by far the most efficient and best one to use.
If you are in the Wonderkid hoarding portion of a save, what you are really looking for are players with high pa, high professionalism and a good secondary attribute that sucks to train like dribbling/jumping reach and the cheese their acc/pac up to 16/17. Once your midfield and CD are all 16+ acc/pac you basically just face roll the game. The above training strategy ups their mentals good enough.
I actually like the technical regens best now because you can eventually get their acc/PAC super high. I have a midfielder intake that started at 7/7 and is up to 16/15 at 19. In a way these schedules make ACC/PAC less important for player acquisition because you can make almost anyone fast.
tam1236 said: I would say, there is definitely a kind of league/country cap. To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes). On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia. Expand
It’s largely minutes played and professionalism. A 20 professionalism/200 pa player will hit it 100% of the time if they play 30 games of minutes per year from the time they generate to age 27.
A player with only 10 will likely never hit their PA.
The only explanation is smaller countries don’t have enough games in a season to fully develop.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Seb Wassell, who designed the new training system, repeatedly emphasized that training changes attributes which changes CA (not CA first, then attributes), and I think he said that PA is then taken account which affects CA and then attributes.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower. Expand
I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
Nikos said: I haven’t reached a conclusion yet. So, which training is ultimately the most effective? Based on the Excel file, the best one is this: Quickness + Match Practice + Additional Focus Quickness (No Double Intensity). Expand
There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals.
So I decided to create a calculator that just tells me which player/players to put on the field/buy.
What the calculator does: It aggregates the points, goals, goals conceded into a single score, akin to the 5 star system the game provides. So the highest rated player in the table should always be the best player.
Once you downloaded the views, you can use the print feature in FM24 to export a Web Print of the table. I recommend you name the exports as such to remember which one goes where, or the application might not be able to read the information correctly: "squad_data.html" "scouted_player_data.html" "players_in_range_data.html"
Once it's uploaded, you can click on the player and get a pareto chart along with their attributes.
Perhaps it's best you play around a bit with it and let me know what works and what stinks, or if you find any bugs. Expand
I did something similar with the old table's Goal Differential to create a "META" rating. But I just used a weighted average of PAC/ACC (27.5) + JUMP/DRI (15) + Ant/Bal/AGI/CNT (3.75) to get a rating out of 100.
I still use the positional ykyky and squirrel plays ratings just for shits and giggles as well though. Players that rank highly on these but have mediocre META scores are usually still good, but the reverse is also true.
1. Yeah any of the tactics with a good rating or above on this website is pretty busted.
2. CA is misleading, only like 6-7 attributes are impactful across the board. ACC/PAC is roughly 3x more impactful then the next best attributes (Jumping Reach/Dribbling). Some guy on reddit built a roster of all 110 CA or less real players and finished 2nd in the EPL just by stacking ACC/PAC with default tactics and going on holiday. Generally the lower the level the more over powered fast players are.
3. Yes just look the zealand video about the over powered corner routine.
Juicebat said: I've been setting my U-20 training schedules to full rest double intensity and my first team schedules to v7. Is this ideal for overall growth?
Also do you recommend loaning out prospects for game time at the cost of not having control over training? Expand
Depends on the save and how much you need/want to optimize PA into physicals. The bottleneck is first team minutes to reach PA so realistically you’ll need to loan guys out to consistently hit it. Even if you have reserves there is limited minutes there too.
In my experience managing in Germany, players who seem to have a decent amount of PA/professionalism hit at least 15+ acc/pac just doing V7 by 18-20 and usually get to at least 17s before maxing out. The 30 ca gain is not realistic in a real save unless you have a ton of first team minutes to give and someone with really high professionalism but the acc/pac usually gets priority.
I would only bother with no training if I was trying to do something that actually required like 90 PA players with 20/20 pac/acc. Which is intake only saves, winning ACL with like an Indian team, club WC with a MLS team (salary capped), etc Basically in any European save, you eventually get rich enough to buy/keep high PA regens because of UCL money.
Seems to support the hypothesis that some of the attributes are good when on a limited number of players and/or role specific. Back half he starts editing attributes.
Doesn’t really change the fact that signing Fast players is best but I did find it interesting.
Rhumble said: Yep , im lost tbh , it could just be me or something is missing somewhere but i just dont see the information in laymans terms, i read and reread the opening post but whether the translation from Chinese to English isnt quite getting through i dont know, if we could know the attributes needed from important down for each position then it might start to make sense. Expand
Having high amount of attributes like Decisions across the board makes a teams perform worse but having high on certain positions is an increase in team performance. They think this is due players being more likely to take an action if certain attributes are high and it becomes counterproductive. (Decisions is good on DCs but not good when it’s high everywhere.)
The 2nd point: Higher Player performance Ratings also don’t necessarily lead to more wins. Increasing attributes will increase the individual player rating but team performance will go down. I think the example given is passing on AMC made his rating go up but the gd went down and the ratings were in Chinese.
The meta attributes are ones that don’t cause players to counter act each other and are additive.
TBH, I’m fairly convinced we are just slowly recreating the AI weightings from a couple years ago.
RikersFlesh said: The importance of athleticism isn't that horribly unrealistic IMO (are clubs with poor athleticism winning top leagues regularly?) and I'm not sure it's even that unbalanced. I think you can win big leagues with good but not elite pace/acceleration (12-13) in a lot of positions. With some meta tactics, even good speed is optional - with one of the better 4-2-3-1 tactics I had Isco rack up assists with his 11/11 or whatever.
If I'm going to object to something about the game it's how quickly athleticism falls off for players over 31 and how nothing in the game (hidden attribute, trait, natural fitness) exists to counteract that. Expand
It's pretty unrealistic imo, I think IRL that the actual physical speed of players is a lot closer together across professional leagues than what's represented in game. The biggest difference is how fast the best players can process information and react while keeping their technique. I always assumed SI juiced the physical stats of top players so they would be clearly better in the engine.
Maybe I've just watched a lot of bad super athletic soccer players following US Men's teams and MLS. It cracks me up that the best stragegy in FM is to just recreate US Soccer's strategy in the 90s-2000s.
Yarema said: Like I said maybe in another thread. Issue with such B teams is that they are semipro. So players don't train full time and they will hardly develop. Expand
My example is Stuttgart II (indivual team is professional) that plays in the Regionalliga. It's not viewable/loadable. There are no standings/individual games, but you can see your players season stats. You can also manipulate who starts by moving them up to the first team.
It may be classified as a Semi-Pro league, I think IRL there are Pro- Semi and Amateur that play in those leagues.
juliius said: I hope some of you guys know this, because i don't. How much value do the u18 and u21 games have in comparison to first team football, in terms of generating player growth? I seem to remember first team football being more valuable. Am i wrong? Expand
In my experience it's a lot more. I'm surprised the league rep didn't matter in HG's testing.
B teams not in loadable leagues(like German Regional) usually do not develop much after 18 even if you micro manage the roster to make sure guys get phantom games. This may be CA dependent because the especially bad players that I move to the 2nd team to prevent them taking time from better prospects in the youth team tend get up arrows for a year or so before stopping.
Getting consistent 20-30 minutes of game time in blowouts for the first team gets more development than youth teams.
This may be selection bias since I'm more likely to force game time for high PA players.
azsumnasko said: Have there been a discussion on how to optimize the effect of having fast players - e.g. A tactic probably more direct one with standard block. What are your experiences with this (I know all tactics will benefit fast players, but I'd like to have the most fit for low CA and max result) Expand
In lower leagues where you can reasonably get a 2+ ACC/PAC across the board against the entire league. Just put trigger press all the way up /run a high press/high line then put your fastest players in their natural position in a semi-coherent formation.
Graz said: So the next question is how to maximise youth intake? If the first 3/4 years (15-19) are the most important for growth and maximising physicals, what are the best ways to increase our RNG for youth candidate?
1. Head of Youth Development 20-20 Judging Potential, Working with youngsters 2. HoYD very strong personality with high Professionalism, Ambition & determination (Model Citizen/Perfectionist) 3. "Exceptional youth recruitment" 4. Feeder clubs with Exceptional youth recruitment and "may send academy players to train at..."
(FWIW, I have all these with my current Brighton Save and I've only had 1 "A" rated youth in 4 seasons)
Anything else I've missed or overlooked?
Also what would be the ideal strategy, send them on loan ASAP to increase their overall development or keep them in this specific training structure until they're 19 and then send them out on loan? I suppose it would depend if they max Pace/Acc before they're 19? Expand
I don't think 1 matters. Just #2, #3 + maxed Junior Coaching and Facilities and maybe feeder clubs. For #4, Has it been proven that this doesn't just change the nationality of your own intake?
idek0k said: I started a save to test this out, in a real club in real conditions. Im the dominant club in the league and we've been doing pretty well. Im in January now, and almost none of my players improved. Most of them had a decline in a lot of attributes with no growth. Is there a reason for this? I followed everything precisely.
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one [Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness] Expand
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
AIK said: Could be that most tactics are playing with low crosses as well.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play. Expand
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
kvasir said: For most attributes, you can figure out if they’re defensive or offensive based on goals for/goals against, but jumping reach isn’t as clear. Do the +14 goals come mainly from set pieces or open play? It’s probably set pieces, right? This just reinforces how jumping reach doesn’t matter much for strikers, like the ykykyk findings from a few years ago, especially since most top tactics rely on low crosses. Having 2-3 defensive players with good jumping reach should be plenty to score from set pieces and defend them effectively.
If my thinking is off here, let me know. Expand
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.
But what this would mean is that it can't simply be +1 pace > +10 CA, nor +10 CA > +1 pace.
It must be, as you say, something like attribute increase > RCA increase > CA changes to match RCA. If RCA exceeds the PA cap, then attributes are dropped equally across the board to fit the PA cap. We see this if you make a 200 PA all '20' attribute player, where attributes end up at ~17 in-game, and also when players hit their PA through training where +1 pace happens but then many other attributes have a slight down arrow (0.2 decline) so that CA fits within PA.
If instead it was +1 CA first (i.e. through playing match), then +1 pace couldn't occur if CA was at PA, since CA wouldn't be able to increase in the first place. I suppose you could have +1 RCA happen, but since +1 RCA can't be +0 attributes, +1 pace must necessarily happen first.
As I mentioned, but didn't explain, young players also improve with zero matches. And if you look at the data, it turns out that a function of 'professionalism' is that it permits significant growth for players in lieu of playing matches. From a narrative perspective this kind of makes sense too - a 'professional' individual improves regardless of what he's given to work with; if he's not playing, he's likely doing extra drills in his free time instead.
I think you can't use US vs England youth as an example for several reasons. More generally I want to make the point that you shouldn't assume no domestic matches = poor growth. Obviously club facilities make a difference to CA and CA-PA gap to begin with, but supposing you identify two clubs that are the same, there is actually a hidden factor that makes at least newgen PA significantly different between nations (even when all visible factors are identical). Furthermore, matches only become a significant factor in development once they reach 18-21, and as mentioned professionalism can actually make up for having few matches. Coincidentally and anecdotally, I've noticed a lot of high professionalism newgens come from the US in the game. I previously believed personality allocation was now entirely random after nation attribute templates got scrapped a few years ago, but it turns out this is not the case.
I ve looked at old saves in FMRTE and most of my young players on an upward trajectory had a lower RCA than their CA. Pretty sure EBFM mentioned that young players can over grow their CA and adjust back down and that RCA only updates monthly. (It’s been a while) I’ve also seen older players close to their PA get an expensive attribute like acc/pad and then have cheaper ones adjust down the next month. You also have to remember that attributes aren’t really 1-20 it’s 1-200 (or 100 can’t remember.) the naming scheme is dumb imo.
I picked MLS specifically because they are relatively rich and have good facilities in addition to not playing games. (With the cap they have nothing else to spend it on.) I know there is difference in youth ratings which is why I said to look at 130-140 PA players which are still common in the U.S.. You would only be able to test this with hidden attributes visible. Ie Look at like LAFC / NYCFC 16 year olds with 130 PA and look at like Sheffield Wednesday level clubs with similar pa. 3 years later the English players that get a lot of PT on the u-19s and u-21s will lap their American peers:
I’m only in year 3 of my MLS save but the regens on my reserve team playing friendlies are way ahead their peers (I don’t have hiddens visible though. Even in older saves players that sit the bench at 15/16 grow more when they start playing.
Not necessarily, not all CA is created equal. A 120 CA player with 20/20 ACC/PAC is better than a 160 with 12/12 ACC/PAC.
I just used practice /quickness/attacking + recoveries with double intensity in Germany . If I were playing somewhere with weaker regens I’d just go full attacking direct+quickness. Though I noticed lower pa regens generally hit the big physical numbers early. Doing an MLS save and will see if I end up switching.
I think individual focus + double intensity is doing most of the heavy lifting. You get big gains to what ever you change it to. (I’ve tested with dribbling.)? But since ACC/PAC are the two best attributes and on the same individual training with no filler it’s by far the most efficient and best one to use.
If you are in the Wonderkid hoarding portion of a save, what you are really looking for are players with high pa, high professionalism and a good secondary attribute that sucks to train like dribbling/jumping reach and the cheese their acc/pac up to 16/17. Once your midfield and CD are all 16+ acc/pac you basically just face roll the game. The above training strategy ups their mentals good enough.
I actually like the technical regens best now because you can eventually get their acc/PAC super high. I have a midfielder intake that started at 7/7 and is up to 16/15 at 19. In a way these schedules make ACC/PAC less important for player acquisition because you can make almost anyone fast.
To be true, it's somehow strange to hit 200 PA anywhere. And accidentaly just before cam. I really dont know what kind of edition was made besides locking PA on 200 (or what 200 PA means in attributes).
On the other hand Australia has in FM24 same reputation like Romania or Turkey and better then Serbia.
It’s largely minutes played and professionalism. A 20 professionalism/200 pa player will hit it 100% of the time if they play 30 games of minutes per year from the time they generate to age 27.
A player with only 10 will likely never hit their PA.
The only explanation is smaller countries don’t have enough games in a season to fully develop.
I think how this works is:
+0.8 pace happens for that week first, this increases CA to 171 second, but PA is 170, so you get slight down arrows on almost all attributes (third) as they are reduced by the minimum change (0.2 points) to compensate for the PA cap. So 171 CA +0.8 pace becomes say 170 CA +0.6 pace, -0.2 tackling, -0.2 marking, -0.2 crossing, etc.
Matches generating CA/attributes themselves is an intriguing idea, but thinking about it, I think it's not true, because young players improve with zero matches. If you haven't seen them, I recommend having a look through this video and EBFM's video, as they have all the measured data on what affects player development.
Seb Wassell has said that both low and high match ratings reduce attribute gains. I just learned this myself going through his posts recently.
Though I would caution that Seb Wassell has been mistaken or has lied about several game mechanics, and that could be the case here too. But I would say that most of what he says is accurate, even when it comes to specific under-the-hood things like this.
I've been doing some training testing and my impression is that what is going on with match practice is that it does well because it has high CA growth per module. Other high CA modules also seem to do well, although not quite as good due to the specific attribute distribution match practice has.
My hypothesis was that high CA modules work best because rest sessions have their own CA value (i.e. pace/acc growth) so you want to cram as much technical/mental CA into as few modules as possible while not being too few. But it appears to not be as simple as this, as I tried to perfect the meta training using this idea, and yet Quick + 2xAttack + Match Pract + Quick focus still won out. But it largely holds true as a general principle.
I'm currently testing full rest vs the more balanced meta stated above, and combinations thereof over 4 years. I'll have these results soon, but my impression so far is that the more balanced meta is definitely superior. Not only does it give better match fitness (and therefore match results), but it actually produces better players overall, even if you do say 2 years full rest, then 2 years balanced. What I've noticed here is that it's easier to lose the attributes than to regain them.
You see, you are correct in your assertion that CA-PA gap matters a lot. And I think you, HarvestGreen, and I, are sharing the same general hypothesis here that since full rest boosts pace/acc greatly with minimal CA gain, and large CA-PA gap increases growth, it would be best to train pace/acc through full rest first, then do a balanced regime to boost CA greatly with technicals/mentals only at the very end. But my testing so far seems to be showing that those technicals/mentals you lose through full rest, you can't regain later through balanced training, and overall balanced training produces significantly better players. I would say that maybe full rest is preferable in cases where your players have low CA-PA cap to begin with, then it makes more sense perhaps.
One thing I've realized from all this, is that maybe CA-PA gap should matter more than anything else when you buy players. Because if you think about it, we're trying to use full rest to squeeze out extra CA-PA gap. You could actually calculate this precisely, I think it's somewhere around ~20 CA (~15 CA balanced vs ~5 CA rest, if rest for 2 years then balanced 2 years). Since balanced is simply better, you would be better off finding a player with 20 extra CA-PA gap, even if their PA is lower.
I don’t see how attributes can change first when RCA often lags behind CA when players are getting better. RCA is the actual value of your attributes not CA. A young player growing can get a RCA higher than CA and recalibrate down. People use these values interchangeably, but they aren’t the same. CA is more like your temporary PA that your RCA chases. It’s also the way the game behaves when people use the editor to make players better than their CA. The theory that training allocates the attributes that develop when RCA increases to meet CA in the only one that makes sense.
Two things can be true . Minutes give CA and young players get free CA so the cpu doesn’t completely ruin generations of regens. The U.S. has zero youth games in FM24 so you can look at their CA to PA and compare them to England. Ie 130 pa 18 y/o in the U.S. will have significantly lower CAs than their English equivalents.
Not in your post, but the premium (expensive) ACC/PAC values are more valuable than their CA cost. If you don’t have the room the game will tell you and change the individual training to something less. ACC/PAC is just that busted. This has been proven a million different ways.
There is no cap based on league rep , I’ve seen videos of people locking 200 pa players in like Australia and them hitting it.
There’s no one “best” it depends on the PA of your players. If you have low pa players cheesing hard to just do physicals makes sense, if you have a bunch of 150+ pa players your leaving CA on the table doing that. Ie you can hit the premium 18+ acc/pac and have good technicals/mentals.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/14009-attribute-testing-football-manager-24
So I decided to create a calculator that just tells me which player/players to put on the field/buy.
What the calculator does:
It aggregates the points, goals, goals conceded into a single score, akin to the 5 star system the game provides. So the highest rated player in the table should always be the best player.
Most of the information you'll find in the getting started page here:
https://fmarenacalc.com/
Once you downloaded the views, you can use the print feature in FM24 to export a Web Print of the table. I recommend you name the exports as such to remember which one goes where, or the application might not be able to read the information correctly:
"squad_data.html"
"scouted_player_data.html"
"players_in_range_data.html"
Once it's uploaded, you can click on the player and get a pareto chart along with their attributes.
Perhaps it's best you play around a bit with it and let me know what works and what stinks, or if you find any bugs.
I did something similar with the old table's Goal Differential to create a "META" rating. But I just used a weighted average of PAC/ACC (27.5) + JUMP/DRI (15) + Ant/Bal/AGI/CNT (3.75) to get a rating out of 100.
I still use the positional ykyky and squirrel plays ratings just for shits and giggles as well though. Players that rank highly on these but have mediocre META scores are usually still good, but the reverse is also true.
2. CA is misleading, only like 6-7 attributes are impactful across the board. ACC/PAC is roughly 3x more impactful then the next best attributes (Jumping Reach/Dribbling). Some guy on reddit built a roster of all 110 CA or less real players and finished 2nd in the EPL just by stacking ACC/PAC with default tactics and going on holiday. Generally the lower the level the more over powered fast players are.
3. Yes just look the zealand video about the over powered corner routine.
Also do you recommend loaning out prospects for game time at the cost of not having control over training?
Depends on the save and how much you need/want to optimize PA into physicals. The bottleneck is first team minutes to reach PA so realistically you’ll need to loan guys out to consistently hit it. Even if you have reserves there is limited minutes there too.
In my experience managing in Germany, players who seem to have a decent amount of PA/professionalism hit at least 15+ acc/pac just doing V7 by 18-20 and usually get to at least 17s before maxing out. The 30 ca gain is not realistic in a real save unless you have a ton of first team minutes to give and someone with really high professionalism but the acc/pac usually gets priority.
I would only bother with no training if I was trying to do something that actually required like 90 PA players with 20/20 pac/acc. Which is intake only saves, winning ACL with like an Indian team, club WC with a MLS team (salary capped), etc Basically in any European save, you eventually get rich enough to buy/keep high PA regens because of UCL money.
I also think you would get the same results just blanking setting acc/pac/jr to 20.
Seems to support the hypothesis that some of the attributes are good when on a limited number of players and/or role specific. Back half he starts editing attributes.
Doesn’t really change the fact that signing Fast players is best but I did find it interesting.
Having high amount of attributes like Decisions across the board makes a teams perform worse but having high on certain positions is an increase in team performance. They think this is due players being more likely to take an action if certain attributes are high and it becomes counterproductive. (Decisions is good on DCs but not good when it’s high everywhere.)
The 2nd point:
Higher Player performance Ratings also don’t necessarily lead to more wins. Increasing attributes will increase the individual player rating but team performance will go down. I think the example given is passing on AMC made his rating go up but the gd went down and the ratings were in Chinese.
The meta attributes are ones that don’t cause players to counter act each other and are additive.
TBH, I’m fairly convinced we are just slowly recreating the AI weightings from a couple years ago.
If I'm going to object to something about the game it's how quickly athleticism falls off for players over 31 and how nothing in the game (hidden attribute, trait, natural fitness) exists to counteract that.
It's pretty unrealistic imo, I think IRL that the actual physical speed of players is a lot closer together across professional leagues than what's represented in game. The biggest difference is how fast the best players can process information and react while keeping their technique. I always assumed SI juiced the physical stats of top players so they would be clearly better in the engine.
Maybe I've just watched a lot of bad super athletic soccer players following US Men's teams and MLS. It cracks me up that the best stragegy in FM is to just recreate US Soccer's strategy in the 90s-2000s.
My example is Stuttgart II (indivual team is professional) that plays in the Regionalliga. It's not viewable/loadable. There are no standings/individual games, but you can see your players season stats. You can also manipulate who starts by moving them up to the first team.
It may be classified as a Semi-Pro league, I think IRL there are Pro- Semi and Amateur that play in those leagues.
How much value do the u18 and u21 games have in comparison to first team football, in terms of generating player growth? I seem to remember first team football being more valuable. Am i wrong?
In my experience it's a lot more. I'm surprised the league rep didn't matter in HG's testing.
B teams not in loadable leagues(like German Regional) usually do not develop much after 18 even if you micro manage the roster to make sure guys get phantom games. This may be CA dependent because the especially bad players that I move to the 2nd team to prevent them taking time from better prospects in the youth team tend get up arrows for a year or so before stopping.
Getting consistent 20-30 minutes of game time in blowouts for the first team gets more development than youth teams.
This may be selection bias since I'm more likely to force game time for high PA players.
In lower leagues where you can reasonably get a 2+ ACC/PAC across the board against the entire league. Just put trigger press all the way up /run a high press/high line then put your fastest players in their natural position in a semi-coherent formation.
1. Head of Youth Development 20-20 Judging Potential, Working with youngsters
2. HoYD very strong personality with high Professionalism, Ambition & determination (Model Citizen/Perfectionist)
3. "Exceptional youth recruitment"
4. Feeder clubs with Exceptional youth recruitment and "may send academy players to train at..."
(FWIW, I have all these with my current Brighton Save and I've only had 1 "A" rated youth in 4 seasons)
Anything else I've missed or overlooked?
Also what would be the ideal strategy, send them on loan ASAP to increase their overall development or keep them in this specific training structure until they're 19 and then send them out on loan? I suppose it would depend if they max Pace/Acc before they're 19?
I don't think 1 matters. Just #2, #3 + maxed Junior Coaching and Facilities and maybe feeder clubs. For #4, Has it been proven that this doesn't just change the nationality of your own intake?
EDIT: I forgot to mention the schedule. Im using this one
[Quickness]+[Attacking Shadow Play]+[Recovery]x7+[Addtional Focus Quickness]
would need more information. Like are your players 26+, do they have medicore personalities, etc. Are your players that are playing actually training or are they resting on training days? You can't have sessions the day after a game because the guys that played won't do pitch/gym work. The test results are basically best case scenario, I'd just do the match practice/attacking/quickness + recovery sessions for the first team.
My strikers never scores on set pieces. But they score maaaaany goals in open play.
I doubt it. They still float low % crosses with that setting which is why I experimented with a high JR but slower than i normally use striker. I found that IFs and offset AMCs with abnormally high JR got on the end of those more. If the other team has low JR central defenders it's probably just as affective. It's all about difference matchups imo.
He still scored a lot of goals, but nearly all the heading ones were on corners or ones where he wasn't marked.
If my thinking is off here, let me know.
Anecdotally for me at least, Strikers with high JR get the majority of their goals from set pieces and not the run of play so you are really just cannibalizing goals from your DC that need to have it anyway. So if you have a high JR CB there is not a huge net gain in team goals from having high JR on your striker.
AMLR (IFS) with big JR get more heading goals in the run of play in my experience due to the mismatches against DRLs.
So I suspect JR effectiveness is mostly matchup dependent and these tests basically show what happens if you win nearly every header.