Can you please do player preferred moves (PPMs) next? Create exact same players with different PPMs or without any and see how their performance changes over a few thousand games?
I long suspect PPMs don't amount to anything or at least don't amount to much. Would it be possible to run tests on PPMs, see which ones actually lead to better results (points, goals scored/conceded). Since you have the platform ready, if you guys aren't busy with anything else, that'd be really great to find the PPM meta.
Player's value is more complicated than that. His current contract value has a big impact. Player values in low reputation leagues are also low even if their CA/PA and attributes are crazy high.
I have a quick question. It's something I remembered from the old days of FM that I am not sure still applies to training in FM24.
Does it cost more CA to go from (for example) Acceleration 19->20 than it costs to go from Acceleration 9->10? And if it does, what's the ratio? If that was true, there'd be a point where it breaks even, when it's no longer good to keep pushing the physical attributes into 20s (when they are most expensive) and is more prudent to switch focus to something else, where you can buy multiple points of attributes for the same CA? So in my example, rather than going Acc 19->20, you could instead go for Dribbling 8->12 and gain a much better, more rounded up player?
I think the meta right now is Quickness + 2x Match Practice + Attacking + 7x Recovery. You can arrange the sessions any way you want during the week, schedule them around your games. You can also add Routines and/or Team Bonding into free slots, if you think it's needed.
All these start with Quickness focus. What would happen if we switched away from Quickness to General->Physical, wouldn't that make players overall slower, but stronger in other attributes, especially give them more stamina and work rate to better survive high intensity tactics and more jumping reach to win more headers? Let's say could we test a version of I8, but change from Quickness to Physical? See how much Pace/Acc we sacrifice to get other physical attributes higher?
So this means to hit all the meta goalkeeper attributes, we need to train players as Sweeper Keeper (any) as their position focus (covers Vision and other things standard Goalkeeper focus doesn't cover). And then pick an additional focus that covers one of physical attributes that aren't covered yet by Sweeper Keeper. So we either target their Jumping/Aerial Reach, Pace or Agility, whichever is lowest. This will focus on the growth of as many of the meta attributes as possible within the game interface.
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player.
1. All my young talents are in the senior team, set to be available for 90 minutes with B team or U18 team so they catch some playing time there. But they train with the seniors. U18s need much less playing time, so U18s only play their silly little U18 league. B team is set to arrange a friendly every week for ample playing time. I try to give them chances in the first squad too, if I can. If there's a big game that I can afford to lose, like in the new champions league table, why not let the kids play it, they sure can use the time against Bayern? They all have set broad roles to train for (box to box midfielder, libero defend, inside forward, complete forward, wing back support, ball playing defender defend and such) and also a focus on the physical stats they need/lack the most (mostly Quickness these days, or Strength/Jumping, I don't make the meta, don't blame me). I generally don't loan them out until their personality is satisfactory (usually Resolute).
2. After loans/transfers are done for the season, I create one massive mentoring group and add essentially my entire squad to it.
3. Then I start cutting people, remove them from the big group according to those principles: - Young players who have light/none set as impact from mentoring. Won't learn. - Old players who have light/none impact on their mentees. Won't teach. - Young players who are already Resolute or Model Citizen. No need to mentor them further. - Old players with bad mentoring personalities (which is everything that isn't "model", "resolute", "driven", "perfectionist" or at least mentions the word "professional", depending on how advanced I am, in 20-30 seasons nearly everybody is at least Resolute). - Depending on the amount of mentors, you can keep mentoring guys with "medium/good" personalities like Driven, Perfectionist, Model Professional, or let them be. If you have 9 Model Citizens at work, you can mentor these some more. If you don't have that many mentors yet, let them be.
4. When I'm done cutting bad teachers and bad students, there's a big group left with people who are good teachers and people who are good students.
5. I then delete the teachers from the big group and set up a separate group for each of them.
6. Then I delete good students from the big group and put them with the teachers, those with worse personalities assigned to best teachers preferably (for example a Fickle 190 pot 15-year old as a priority gets assigned to "Team Leader Model Citizen Significant impact on the group" to straighten him out). No more than 2-3 guys per teacher, depending on the amount of teachers.
7. I also actively try to purge my team by selling off players who have bad personalities. It has impact on the students and you get messages that team spirit or whatever lowered their professionalism if you're not addressing this. Which is often ignored in those mass-data tests. No Martials, no Pogbas, no Sanchos, no Lingards. Low determination, low professionalism -> enjoy your time at Chelsea dude.
8. At the same time, I am on the lookout for older players with great personalities. I intentionally keep players who are Model/Resolute and I look to add more to the squad if it's possible. If you can bring Eriksen in at the start of the game, he can mould dozens of kids in his image before he retires.
So yes, mentoring's impact isn't as crazy as it used to be and you will fail to make a difference for a lot of kids. But it does help a little to adjust their professionalism and especially determination and that's worth those five minutes each season to set up the groups, because you'll definitely get a better end product than someone who ignored the feature completely.
Do different attributes have a different cost in CA?
Does CA cost of each attribute depend on player's position (natural position?)?
Does it cost more CA to go from (for example) Acceleration 19->20 than it costs to go from Acceleration 9->10? And if it does, what's the ratio?
If that was true, there'd be a point where it breaks even, when it's no longer good to keep pushing the physical attributes into 20s (when they are most expensive) and is more prudent to switch focus to something else, where you can buy multiple points of attributes for the same CA? So in my example, rather than going Acc 19->20, you could instead go for Dribbling 8->12 and gain a much better, more rounded up player?
So this means to hit all the meta goalkeeper attributes, we need to train players as Sweeper Keeper (any) as their position focus (covers Vision and other things standard Goalkeeper focus doesn't cover). And then pick an additional focus that covers one of physical attributes that aren't covered yet by Sweeper Keeper. So we either target their Jumping/Aerial Reach, Pace or Agility, whichever is lowest. This will focus on the growth of as many of the meta attributes as possible within the game interface.
Teamwork is how well player follows your tactical instructions. Your test doesn't quite cover that in a way that'd allow to call it useless. It's useful in tactics with a lot of instructions for that specific player and isn't in tactics with very basic sets of instructions. If you used a different (more complicated) tactic for testing, you'd get a different result here. For example a tactic that'd ask the test low teamwork guy to overlap with another low teamwork player.
1. All my young talents are in the senior team, set to be available for 90 minutes with B team or U18 team so they catch some playing time there. But they train with the seniors. U18s need much less playing time, so U18s only play their silly little U18 league. B team is set to arrange a friendly every week for ample playing time. I try to give them chances in the first squad too, if I can. If there's a big game that I can afford to lose, like in the new champions league table, why not let the kids play it, they sure can use the time against Bayern?
They all have set broad roles to train for (box to box midfielder, libero defend, inside forward, complete forward, wing back support, ball playing defender defend and such) and also a focus on the physical stats they need/lack the most (mostly Quickness these days, or Strength/Jumping, I don't make the meta, don't blame me). I generally don't loan them out until their personality is satisfactory (usually Resolute).
2. After loans/transfers are done for the season, I create one massive mentoring group and add essentially my entire squad to it.
3. Then I start cutting people, remove them from the big group according to those principles:
- Young players who have light/none set as impact from mentoring. Won't learn.
- Old players who have light/none impact on their mentees. Won't teach.
- Young players who are already Resolute or Model Citizen. No need to mentor them further.
- Old players with bad mentoring personalities (which is everything that isn't "model", "resolute", "driven", "perfectionist" or at least mentions the word "professional", depending on how advanced I am, in 20-30 seasons nearly everybody is at least Resolute).
- Depending on the amount of mentors, you can keep mentoring guys with "medium/good" personalities like Driven, Perfectionist, Model Professional, or let them be. If you have 9 Model Citizens at work, you can mentor these some more. If you don't have that many mentors yet, let them be.
4. When I'm done cutting bad teachers and bad students, there's a big group left with people who are good teachers and people who are good students.
5. I then delete the teachers from the big group and set up a separate group for each of them.
6. Then I delete good students from the big group and put them with the teachers, those with worse personalities assigned to best teachers preferably (for example a Fickle 190 pot 15-year old as a priority gets assigned to "Team Leader Model Citizen Significant impact on the group" to straighten him out). No more than 2-3 guys per teacher, depending on the amount of teachers.
7. I also actively try to purge my team by selling off players who have bad personalities. It has impact on the students and you get messages that team spirit or whatever lowered their professionalism if you're not addressing this. Which is often ignored in those mass-data tests. No Martials, no Pogbas, no Sanchos, no Lingards. Low determination, low professionalism -> enjoy your time at Chelsea dude.
8. At the same time, I am on the lookout for older players with great personalities. I intentionally keep players who are Model/Resolute and I look to add more to the squad if it's possible. If you can bring Eriksen in at the start of the game, he can mould dozens of kids in his image before he retires.
So yes, mentoring's impact isn't as crazy as it used to be and you will fail to make a difference for a lot of kids. But it does help a little to adjust their professionalism and especially determination and that's worth those five minutes each season to set up the groups, because you'll definitely get a better end product than someone who ignored the feature completely.