I wonder if that chart implies that a 15 proficiency striker is 94.7% (126/133) the performance of a 20 proficiency striker
And come to think of it, position proficiency probably doesn't affect pace/acc. Perhaps that would mean you could game it by playing 20/20 pace/acc players completely out of position, and that using such a player as a sub for any position bar GK is more viable than we think
I have some free time again so I was doing my own analysis of the spreadsheets
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA 284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA 306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA 276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
Pun said: Thanks George for this amazing post! I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious. Expand Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze? Expand If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
1 - You mention two training methods: a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed? Expand
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save. The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them, “97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them, “99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests). Expand
Very nice
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus) -8.3% Reflexes (-0.2) +25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3 play from the back 6.23 attacking 6.16 aerial defense 6.15 one on ones 6.09 chance creation 6.04 transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576 play from the back 6.475 attacking 6.407 aerial defense 6.31 one on ones 6.243 chance creation 6.24 transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009 aerial defense 6.675 (haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense defending from the front chance creation defending wide ground defense attacking overlap match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.
em421 said: I've been following your test for a month now. I even registered an account just to follow your test and look forward to the final selection criteria. I also want to confirm if FM26 is as effective? Finally, I wish you a Happy New Year! I'm from Macau. Expand I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor.
lucailvotto said: In FM24, what do you think about this training routine that’s being described as an exploit on various Chinese websites?
Also, as of today, can you tell me what the real training setup is that “breaks” FM24? Sorry, but I don’t have time to re-read everything… Thanks!!! Expand Did an EBFM test of that schedule just now, negligible difference to Quickness + 2xAttacking + Match Practice + Quickness (Agility for GK) focus, which I would go for given the lower intensity.
The main difference I noticed was that dribbling was a bit less on most positions, but lower decisions and slight boosts in other areas probably offset this
lucailvotto said: There’s one thing I still can’t understand: rest. To get the most out of speed training, you need to set double intensity. But where? On the general rest screen and then set each player’s individual training to automatic, or do you have to manually give each player the instruction to train at double intensity? Thanks. Expand Go to training > rest, set the two green hearts to double intensity
Apart from the overarching "meta" attributes that are important fro everyone is their any specific "meta" attributes per positions? Expand
Concentration for DC and DL/DR is the most notable case I found for this
You've happened to also ask for a concentration-focused module. I've been trying to do this, and I would advise you that it's not so simple as picking and adding in modules with high concentration, but you can see this data in HarvestGreen's excel sheets. You'll find high concentration growth often goes hand-in-hand with high decisions growth, which is bad, but there are certain ones that don't have high decisions growth.
There are other attributes that are position specific/favored, but it would be difficult to list them off the top of my head. I have it all written down, it just needs to be collated properly. My templates and 1 CA premier league winning players will give you a good idea. But here's some more precise specifics I can tell you based off memory, because the picture is more true and clear in my head than in those templates:
HarvestGreen found having just 1 high decisions player is probably beneficial, and I believe he tested each position. I think DC was the best position to have high decisions on, but GK and DM are probably also good choices, and regardless, the overall advantage was still relatively small.
Aggression seems pretty good in all positions, but you will need low dirtiness to go with it. High dirtiness is worse than injury proneness when you do the math on it, in my opinion, that's how bad it is.
Positioning on forwards/attackers seems beneficial in a similar way to how concentration is on defenders, but I would say this is only about 80% clear, whereas I proved concentration definitively.
Anticipation seemed more important on forwards than defenders to me. And something I noted down was that I've read from an official source that when running with ball (dribbling), anticipation makes up for lack of speed. This is obviously not 100% true, but I suspect it's partially true.
Off the ball seems favorable for DL/DR in particular. This is possibly for the knap tactic specifically. But I'm 50/50 on whether off the ball matters to a mild extent or hardly at all.
Based on what I've read, I've surmised:
off the ball (attacking) <> positioning (defensive) balance (defensive) <> strength (attacking)
And so the performance data suggests that positions should take on their inverse roles, i.e. forwards become defenders, defenders become forwards. My hypothesis is that the benefit here is twofold - the game isn't expecting certain things out of certain positions so it fails to balance them, and it has lower CA cost as well.
So you may be able to apply this principle more generally, but there are limitations to this. A DC with 20 finishing & composure is still only going to score you 2 goals/season. Basically I think the player needs to be in the right position at the right time with the right set of skills, in that order of importance. A player with high pace/acc will always get to the right position, even if they don't have the right preparatory timing or the skillset to capitalize. A player with high anticipation, positioning or off the ball will be there at the right time insofar as his pace/acc allows him to be. A player with high finishing or tackling will capitalize on the moment only if he had the physical and mental ability to get himself into where the ball will be. Attributes such as concentration, determination and work rate would be where the player has the innate ability to get involved successfully, but may simply lack the motivation to do it. The game mechanics may in fact be more simplistic or have workarounds and therefore also some apparent contradictions, but I reckon they must be designed to try and emulate this narrative and it's probably works in line with this theory most of the time (even ~80% might have constituted 'good enough' for them).
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Mark said: If you look at the training detail and split. Here are Aerial Defence, Chance Completion and GK Handling breakups:
There main focus is 60% with the secondary and tertiary 40% and all individual focus. Expand
I initially thought that, but there were far more than 6 training modules with those aspects, so I thought that can't be what you're referring to.
So that doesn't progress my understanding, though I suppose it is worthwhile to bring back into consideration again what the in-game words and figures are actually attempting to describe.
Mark said: I noticed in FM24 that there were 6 training routines that used 40% individual training, which I think would remove the need for using physical routines given all the outfield players have Quickness as their individual focus. 2 are GK being Shot Stopping and Handling, 2 defence being Aerial Defence and Ground Defence and 2 are attacking being Chance Creation and Chance Conversion (although these are under Technical). They all also focus on the key attributes for each position.
I am wondering whether one of each of the following would be best and it would certainly lower injuries - Attacking, Defending (given EBFM results), Shot Stopping, Handling, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation and Chance Conversion. I would run the GK ones on Monday, Attacking and Defending on Tuesday or Wednesday (as it wouldnt hurt to lose these some weeks) depending when your second game usually happens and the other 4 spread across Thursday and Friday. I have started running with this but am just about to finish season one so wont know for a while. Just a theory based on what I have read and some discussion back in FM22 or 23. Expand
This sounds really interesting to me, particularly as after thinking about it, I thought perhaps 'additional focus' (quickness) is what's interacting with professionalism to cause the pace discrepancy. I decided in the end to remove it from my post, because it still doesn't explain why the meta training overcomes it, but it sounded sensible to me that poor professionalism would result in players being unwilling to put in the extra work on top of their existing team training.
But I don't get what you mean by 'used 40% individual training', what do you mean by this and where is this shown?
I can comment a few things on the different training modules/combos. From memory, EBFM found that more of the same module has diminishing returns. I've generally stuck by this, but as the meta which has 2x attack shows, it's no longer necessarily the case in FM24. In fact, a lot of the training module effects have drastically changed since EBFM done it. I initially tried designing training schedules based on EBFM's data. It didn't really work, so I tried doing it HarvestGreen22's FM24 data, and that did work. And the changes are so drastic that 'defending from the front' would have been one of the worst in EBFM's results for my purposes, but supposedly it's one of the best in FM24, and my results off the bat seem to have proved that. There are a bunch of different combos that come close to the meta, but the problem is usually that they boost garbage attributes too much and also usually cause more injuries to boot.
Here are some relevant key points to know:
One early theory I had was that more training modules means less rest, which means less physical growth, in exchange for (usually meagre) technical/physical growth. This explains why 1 module/week doesn't do enough, and 4 modules/week (meta) is optimal. I realized it must be the optimal schedule crams as much useful CA into those ~3-5 modules. But testing showed this wasn't quite the picture. In hindsight now, it could be right, it's just that I was using EBFM's data which is not suitable for FM24.
Even if it's just a data issue, if you look closely at HarvestGreen22's data, you will see that strange things happen when you combine modules. If one module does +1 drib and another does -1 drib, you'd expect them to cancel each other out, or at least some kind of multiplicative process would occur. But it is nonsensical, or at least too complicated to easily work out.
So my thought then was, given rest loses technicals/mentals significantly to gain pace/acc, anything that gains pace/acc near equally even if does 0.00 growth for technicals/mentals is a win, and I would just try different combinations of these promising modules.
rest = 4.8 pace/acc match practice 15.6 CA, 4.2 pace/acc attacking direct 16.3, 4.5 chance conversion 13.6, 4.2 defending from the front 14.7, 4.6 one on ones 12.6, 4.2 attacking wings 13.9, 4.0 defending 14.4, 3.6 attacking 13.2, 4.1 goalkeeping 13.4, 4.4
So you can see here why defending is disfavored, although I have tried it before. In EBFM's data, defending was actually very good from memory. And you can see that surprisingly match practice isn't actually that essential, especially when you consider its intensity impact.
Intensity impact is another thing where I think something is going on. It's more of a case that the proof is in the pudding at the moment, but my theory is that intensity can add up to 100% per week and anymore gets squished down to match 100% while retaining proportions. If it's less than 100%, it stays less than 100%. This would explain why 1-3 modules produces poor results, and it so happens that the meta is 105%. And in fact it's actually quite difficult to make an exactly 100% training schedule, and for all positional units (GK, defending, attacking). But this is what my successful regime does, with the exception of GK which is 105%. Maybe it's actually just coincidence, but it does do significantly better than the meta training.
I tried to experiment without a session of Quickness. Unfortunately I just couldn't get it to work, the pace/acc would suffer significantly. This includes trying such things as 2x endurance replacing it.
I added match practice to my training regime, but left professionalism as default (realistic luton test).
Result was ST - acc 2.06, pace 2.56
That means match practice can be ruled out as the relevant factor
I also had a look at the players individually and found that the general pattern, while not that consistent, was that it scaled roughly linearly with professionalism, i.e. 15 pro was 77-100% of 20 pro, 10 pro was 40-77% of 20 pro.
I suppose then that [Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus] should be used only if you have a squad that is ~16+ professionalism
harvestgreen22 said: I haven't continued with the test for the time being. Right now, my mind is a bit confused and I'm not sure if you can understand this explanation:
1. First of all, I haven't tried to see what the outcome would be if I combined different training schedules within a single season. Then,
It is obvious that the testing conditions were under the most ideal circumstances, being even better than normal conditions.
However, this is necessary because we need to highlight the differences in the training results of various types of training programs. Otherwise, the degree of distinction would be insufficient.
And the players need to be designed to "grow rapidly", so that the effects of different training programs can be distinguished.
2. So, in the test, the "professional level" of the players was set to be high. The difference between potential (PA) and current ability (CA) is significant (this has a very significant impact on the actual growth rate). The training facilities are the best. The initial ability won't be that high (if set too high, each level-up will require more effort).
3. In this way, after the test, the training program derived from it is a roughly optimal solution.
Then, for the "actual" players, it is obvious that they usually grow more slowly than player in test league (because the PA-CA value is usually small) and are more affected by randomness.
In this situation, my idea is to create better conditions for their subsequent growth.
The main point is toensure that the "difference between PA and CA" remains sufficiently large for a certain period of time. in this way can Acceleration and Pace maintain the fastest growth.
4. The advantage brought by this "difference between PA and CA" is that it can to some extent make up for the deficiencies in "professional attributes", training facilities, and other aspects.
The disadvantage is that there is definitely a risk of not being able to fully achieve the PA target.
I think I can accept this risk. and , those lost technicals/mentals was worth it .
those lost technicals/mentals was worth it , Because the attributes of these losses actually do not contribute as much to the winning rate as the attributes of the gains do.
5.
That above is for players at the middle and lower levels. This effectively ensures that everyone can reach the value of 19/20 Acceleration and Pace as soon as possible.
I don't fully agree with the view that 18/18 is sufficient and balance . I think it's still worthwhile to further improve to 20/20.
Of course, this is just my personal opinion. And I might be wrong. My practical experience is also not sufficient.
For high-level/high-potential players, I don't have any well-developed ideas either. they have a lot of PA. If we consider the long term, high-level players may not necessarily need "total rest". However, if short-term performance is required, I think it is worth taking the risk to use "total rest". Expand
I decided to do more tests before responding immediately.
I agree with everything you have said, excepting the following:
20/20 pace/acc has measurable performance difference over 18/18 pace/acc, it is true. However it seems unrealistic to achieve unless you either buy fairly elite (16+?) pace/acc players to begin with, or employ full rest.
It is also true that pace/acc are necessary attributes unlike almost all the others. The 1 CA 20/20 pace/acc player will beat the 100 CA 14/14 pace/acc player. However I found in testing 1 CA players that 20 pace/acc alone was not enough to win the league, nor even 20 pace/acc/jump/drib.. but it was possible if you boosted certain other technicals/mentals in addition such as concentration on defenders, while decreasing pace/acc to ~18/18 to fit in 1 CA. I found that ~17/17 pace/acc seems about the minimum you need to edge a win of the premier league.
If you do full rest, it can give you 20/20 pace/acc players, but they will be technically/mentally deficient, with overall losses of ~2 per technical/mental attribute in realistic testing even when doing 2 years full rest and then 2 years meta.
I didn't test the performance effect in a realistic test, but I noticed in my EBFM test league that the full rest teams ended up finishing last all the time, while meta training or my own regime finished 1st.
And that could be not just because of the technicals/mentals attribute losses themselves, but the poorer match fitness that results from full rest, and we know that match fitness has a big impact on performance.
Even with just 5 weeks of full rest per season with the rest meta, there was significant technical/mental losses that were not recovered. This means that it's better to gain all attributes through meta or similar, than to attempt some combo of full rest and meta, even where the gameplan is lower CA with full rest first to maximize CA-PA gap so that technicals/mentals can be pumped in rapidly at the last minute. But I found that meta alone wasn't sufficient, there needs to be some full rest or equivalent to get that ~18/18 threshold.
You've laid a lot of the necessary groundwork, I'm just building on top of that now. And it's probably true that in lower leagues full rest is more viable or perhaps even preferable.
There is one thing I would like to ask of you, and that is do you have the positional breakdown of the training session attribute effects? This would really help with fine-tuning the training regime
Setting professionalism to 20 (and injury proneness to 1) did solve the anomaly.
I'll post more detailed results sometime later, but basically in EBFM test league using the following schedule I found was roughly ~10% better than meta:
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility & Balance for GK)
You'll note the lack of match practice. I didn't just select different combos to test randomly. This combo is based on HarvestGreen22's training result data. Initially I had used EBFM's data, which I thought would be better to use because it was broken down by position precisely and every training option was listed, but I've found that it can't be applied to FM24.
I found in training meta vs full rest, that the technical/mental losses are difficult to recover, so really you just want to grow everything as much as possible, ideally while limiting the worst useless CA growth such as 'decisions'.
If you look at the different options for pace/acc boosts, whether it's the physical modules or simply using rest, they give a lot of -1 to technicals/mentals. So I figure pace/acc boost should be the priority in assessing the various other training modules. Basically between a module that gives +13 CA and +4.9 pace/acc, and one that gives +8 CA and +5.1 pace/acc, I'm going to choose the latter one.
For reasons I'm yet to understand, 'quickness' and 'attacking' remain an essential part of the recipe, and so they've been kept in after failing without them. Yes, even if you have quickness individual focus, it doesn't work.
If you look at HarvestGreen22's data you'll see things modules don't simply add or multiply together in the way one would intuit, so I just worked off what we do know (thankfully HarvestGreen actually tested several actual combos not just individual modules, this turned out to be crucial information) and tried a few theoretically promising combinations.
So I thought I had come up with the winning combination, but when I tested this in my realistic Luton save, I got unexpectedly poor results compared to meta.
It seemed to me it must probably be because of the lower professionalism, and surprisingly that turned out to be true. It is surprising because although one would expect somewhat lower professionalism might slow progress generally, it shouldn't stunt progress entirely or haphazardly. One strange thing about it was that acc was better than meta, but pace was a lot worse, whereas in the EBFM league test both acc & pace were better. Even stranger, meta results were not hampered for some unknown reason.
But the data indeed says lower professionalism is the underlying cause (probably in concert with certain other factors no doubt):
Meta (Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus) test:
Agility & balance focus is used for goalkeepers, not quickness.
I suspected maybe low CA-PA gap was the problem rather than low professionalism, but I checked and there's typically about 20-30 CA-PA gap left after the 4 years, so it's not that. And when I checked low professionalism players individually, it seemed to line up with professionalism being the problem - the low professionalism players were the ones with the largest differences such as 16 vs 20 pace.
I haven't measured attributes on the finer scale of 1-100, and there I may have even skipped over a player or two. Some variables were also not properly controlled. Margin of error is probably around -/+ 0.2 for each attribute. Overall it's definitely good enough in my opinion, and the reality is that there is a random element in player progress anyway - the player might get injured for example.
An advantage of my training regime isn't just the increased pace/acc, but the lower decisions growth. In my view, you should count this as equal to pace/acc in the inverse, because it occupies a lot of CA but is useless. I found quite a few combos that matched meta, except that they had significantly higher decisions growth, which made me discount them. Also some regimes had poor GK growth, a lesser consideration, whereas in this regime GK growth is excellent and slightly better than meta.
Because I can only demonstrate it works with 20 professionalism players so far, I recommend sticking with the meta for now unless you just buy very high professionalism players (which isn't a bad idea anyway). I think it won't take long to solve this though. I'm not sure what the reason is that meta works with lower professionalism players, the only idea I have right now is that maybe match practice is treated like a match rather than a training session and that you don't need professionalism for match gains but you need it for training module gains.
tam1236 said: They were north korean BUT played in Algerian league which is not bad, so could get much better CA than in FC Pyongjang . These north korean players with PA 170 are strange - don't You think?
And it's not a hypothesis. I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
This game is like driving a tramway Expand
I was curious so I did a test
I took an existing Gibraltarian player at a Gilbraltarian club, made him age 16 and 200 PA. Increased club training facilities to 20 and trained him using mostly meta training.
Starting CA was 72:
After 4 years was 155 CA:
Gibraltar started rank 202, ended 152.
By end of year 2, was at 123 CA and Gibraltar rank was 182.
Perhaps it was the type of training you were doing in your save
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min AML/AMR - Same as ST ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
PS: on ST - Decision 12max?
Thank you Expand Yes, use the last ratings file I uploaded with FM Genie Scout
Shortlist filters need an update, but that will do fine
Decisions should be 12 or less because it takes up a lot of CA but does hardly anything
BulldozerJokic said: Yeah, it's been known for a few years, but I don't remember if it was thoroughly tested Expand I was afraid it would turn out I wasn't the first to notice I had only seen the recovery glitch pointed out
Robbo84FM said: Sorry i not looked through here in long time could someone remind me what the best "meta" attributes was again i think i remember Pace, Acceleration, Jumping Reach, Dribbling, Work Rate and maybe Concentration? Expand I would say you've got it correct. Concentration for the defenders only in my view.
And come to think of it, position proficiency probably doesn't affect pace/acc. Perhaps that would mean you could game it by playing 20/20 pace/acc players completely out of position, and that using such a player as a sub for any position bar GK is more viable than we think
Also, necro thread
>2021
It is on row 280 of the table.
I mean the positional breakdown of 243
I remove AMC and one DM from the calculations as I use a certain Knap tactic, and use the following weightings (basically from my Genie Scout Ratings file):
Acceleration 0.97
Pace 1.0
Dribbling (DC/DL/DR/AML/AMR) 0.28
Concentration (DC/DL/DR) 0.22
Anticipation 0.13
Composure 0.1
Decisions -0.3
I've selected the promising ones to examine, though I couldn't find the corresponding spreadsheet for some and I haven't looked through it all exhaustively.
Results:
113: 3.17675 + 3.1 + 0.27 + 0.627 + 0.28275 + 0.2075 - 0.645 = 7.019 | 90-90-100
284: 3.17675 + 3.375 + 0.056 + 0.385 + 0.156 + 0.115 - 0.39 = 6.874 | 5-15-5
282: 3.32225 + 3.325 + 0.056 + 0.22 + 0.04875 + 0.015 - 0.12 = 6.867 | 15-15-15
306: 3.0555 + 3.425 + 0.048 + 0.396 + 0.1495 + 0.125 - 0.36 = 6.839 | 5-5-15
276: 3.019125 + 3.175 + 0.238 + 0.473 + 0.17225 + 0.1625 - 0.45 = 6.79 | 20-15-15
150: 2.91 + 3.0625 + 0.443 + 0.605 + 0.39 + 0.275 - 0.9 = 6.7855 | 90-90-90
260: 3.0009 + 2.875 + 0.42 + 0.605 + 0.365625 + 0.23125 - 0.759375 = 6.7384 | 105-105-105
90: 2.829 + 3.0625 + 0.466 + 0.568 + 0.349 + 0.266 - 0.81 = 6.7305 | 45-45-45
97: 2.813 + 3.125 + 0.373 + 0.583 + 0.3055 + 0.24 - 0.7125 = 6.727 | 105-100-100 (what I previously suggested)
129: 2.78875 + 2.925 + 0.52266 + 0.682 + 0.39975 + 0.245 - 0.87 = 6.693 | 100-80-80
331: 2.8009 + 3.025 + 0.39666 + 0.704 + 0.391625 + 0.23 - 0.855 = 6.693 | 105-105-105
123: 2.86958 + 3.1 + 0.24266 + 0.561 + 0.289 + 0.20333 - 0.64125 = 6.624 | 65-75-75
121: 2.93425 + 3.125 + 0.084 + 0.5005 + 0.099 + 0.07375 - 0.25125 = 6.565 | 85-95-85
99: 2.9827 + 3.1 + 0.12 + 0.418 + 0.1495 + 0.105 - 0.3675 = 6.5077 | 10-10-20
328: 2.7645 + 3.05 + 0.20533 + 0.396 + 0.221 + 0.1675 - 0.465 = 6.33933
188: 2.776625 + 2.925 + 0.252 + 0.396 + 0.212875 + 0.18375 - 0.54 = 6.206 | 90-90-100
The last figure is the total % intensity for GK-Defending-Attacking groups.
Raw performance Top 5:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874
282: [Defending Wide][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.867
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79
High Dribbling:
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019, 0.27 dribbling
150: [Attackingx6][Quickness focus] - 6.7855, 0.443 dribbling
90: [Attackingx3][Quickness focus] - 6.7305, 0.466 dribbling
129: [Handling][Shot Stopping][Attacking][Defending][Aerial Defence][Ground Defence][Chance Creation][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 6.693, 0.523 dribbling
Best overall (subjective):
113: [Quickness][Match Practice][Chance Conversion][Quickness focus] - 7.019 | 90-90-100 | 34.4 CA
284: [Aerial Defence][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.874 | 5-15-5 | 23.52 CA
306: [Chance Creation][Quickness focus][All players in defend group] - 6.839 | 5-5-15 | 23.66 CA
276: [Attacking Wings][Quickness focus][All players in attack group] - 6.79 | 20-15-15 | 29.17 CA
It's a very close contest after those, but it would be a moot point to work out, because in the above 113 is a clear winner for high PA or low match load scenarios, 284 or 306 for low PA or giving players rest, and 276 for something closer to in-between.
@harvestgreen22 Could you post or direct me to the detailed data for 243 - [速度][攻击]x2[练习赛] - [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2? I was unable to find it
I got a couple questions.
1. I noticed you said that dirtiness is much worse than injury proneness, however in the genie scout rating file injury proneness's value is -47 while dirtiness is only -14. Why is that?
2. Where did you find the data for how much hidden attributes like pressure and professionalism affect performance so much? for pressure to be as important as 37% of pace seems really high to me so I was curious.
Astute observations, but yes these are deliberate rather than mistakes
Pressure is easier to explain, I refer you this post I made on it. Additionally, inadequate 'pressure' is more common than inadequate 'professionalism', which more explains why professionalism is given a fairly low value.
Unfortunately I do not remember why I set injury proneness so high relative to dirtiness, but I do remember it was intentional.
I generally start with considering how much pace/acc I would be willing to sacrifice for it. '-47' implies the following: 15.2 pace/15.2 acc/1 injprone = 20 pace/20 acc/20 injprone.
There is some simple bias towards having a low injury team factored into that, but as to why dirtiness is relatively so lowly valued it could be that similar to professionalism vs. pressure, high injury proneness is common while high dirtiness is rare.
I suppose another contributing factor could have been that I re-evaluated injury proneness in light of the fact that match sharpness actually matters quite a lot. And yet another would be that high dirtiness tends to matter only insofar as the player has high aggression I believe, so that cuts it to ~50% straight away, while injury proneness acts alone. But honestly, I just can't recall the reasoning I had at the time.
Bombardiro said: Hi, i downloaded your ratings for FM26, but i see a huge difference among "best current position", "best pa position" and the single role like "Ball playing Goalkeeper", as in the first 2 one of the best keepers is rated 67/68 and in the role is like 78 now and 85 potential, other keepers that are like 64/65 in the position are like 89/92 in the role, which should i priorityze?
If I'm thinking about this correctly, you should only judge based on the position (i.e. ST) rating rather than role (i.e. Pressing Forward) rating. This is because role rating would only take into account certain attributes, rather than the full set of attributes that have been actually tested to matter. For instance, the game says mezzala role doesn't need pace, but testing showed pace matters a lot even for mezzala role player.
As a side note, I would caution anyone not to put say values for your ST target man in the AMC section of the ratings file, as FM Genie Scout from memory takes into account positional proficiency. So you would end up with inferior STs with 18+ AMC proficiency at the top of your ST target man list. You could use 'sweeper' position for the purpose, because no player has sweeper proficiency.
Luckily I've finished and tied up everything I've set out to achieve, and so it's the right time for me to sit back for a while anyway.
Eddie said: I have two questions.
1 - You mention two training methods:
a) Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
b) Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility for GK) + Rest for all remaining periods
Is the difference between them huge? Especially since it's difficult to have a professional level above 16 across the entire squad. So in FM 26, can I go with the first option?
2 - Is individual speed training worthwhile for players over 24? This is because, from experience, we see that speed or agility attributes only increase after that age, even with additional focus. Furthermore, the coach and the player themselves always complain and say it no longer has any effect. Is there any alternative to this, or is there a way to maintain speed?
The difference is minor, there's a bunch of training combos now that are all roughly similar that are really just a few % better at most. I recommend going with (a) because that is proven to work and it's still up there with the best.
I don't know how well pace/acc can be maintained after age 24, but I do know and have seen that young age is very important for gains in pace/acc. If training up a player, I would be looking towards 18 year olds and below, and while players ~19-21 are still viable, I think you'd have to temper your expectations about how high you could grow their pace/acc.
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
This new Excel file might be helpful to you.
The data in this table is presented more intuitively. I conducted this test under different conditions (There are notes in excel). If necessary, I can also upload the test save.
The test data is included in the Excel file. I haven't finished this test completely yet, but I think it's okay to have a general look at it.
among them,
“97” is "[Chance Creation][Attacking][Aerial Defense][Handling][Defending from the Front][Quickness]" (As you mentioned)
among them,
“99” is the "3 Def + 2 Att + 3 Phy + 2 MP + 1 GD" from "Evidence Based Football Manager"
The table is divided into "non-goalkeeper" and "goalkeeper", and they are respectively located on pages 1 and 2 (I had ignored the goalkeeper in the previous tests).
Very nice
To start with, it's pleasing to me to see a verification of my own schedule idea, and with more precision
Compared to Quickness + Attacking + Match Practice + Recoveryx7 + Quickness focus, mine is:
+9.14% CA (+3.16)
+4.5% Anticipation (+0.1)
+20.7% Concentration (+0.46)
+26.8% Dribbling (+0.3)
+1.7% Decisions (+0.04)
+0.7% Acceleration (+0.02)
+0.7% Pace (+0.02)
And for GK:
+40% Agility (+0.8) (I assume this was without agility focus)
-8.3% Reflexes (-0.2)
+25% Aerial Reach (+0.2)
Attackingx3 + Quickness focus is interesting. Although it has higher decisions & technique, and set pieces will decline, it does seem like it would be both more higher performing and more efficient overall. And it implies a Quickness module isn't necessary.
I tested Attackingx3 + Quickness focus and compared it to my own schedule, and found my own to be significantly superior, though we are talking the difference between A and A+ here.
Based on my genie scout ratings file, I've assumed that 1 ant = 0.58 con = 0.45 drib = 0.12 pace/acc, and looking at the positional results in detail for concentration and dribbling, I figure the following:
Dribbling only:
match practice 6.3
play from the back 6.23
attacking 6.16
aerial defense 6.15
one on ones 6.09
chance creation 6.04
transition press 5.95
Dribbling + Anticipation:
match practice 6.576
play from the back 6.475
attacking 6.407
aerial defense 6.31
one on ones 6.243
chance creation 6.24
transition press 6.2
Dribbling + Anticipation + Concentration:
match practice 7.009
aerial defense 6.675
(haven't calculated precisely yet for the others, but generally those others would still feature)
Best for GK (roughly, and unordered):
aerial defense
defending from the front
chance creation
defending wide
ground defense
attacking overlap
match practice
The numbers represent what's relevant (i.e. pace + acc + drib) expressed as just pace/acc.
You can't take it as the gospel truth, for even just adding quickness focus probably changes things up a bit, but the idea here is to find out what modules are worth considering. Those are 7 that stood out to me, but there's a few more worth considering. For instance Defending Shadow Play is very high in anticipation and vision, high in concentration, but doesn't quite make the cut because of dribbling/pace/acc.
I tried one combo based on this, it was slightly inferior to my existing best, so not worth mentioning.
I think 'defending from the front' needs to go from my schedule, and 'Handling' doesn't seem that great either.
There's further additions/improvements to be made to it, but this will do for now.
I uploaded a genie scout ratings file for FM26 on page 3 of the thread, which won't be as precise as I've just adjusted it roughly according to HarvestGreen22's FM26 data. But in general, while there are some differences, they're relatively minor.
Also, as of today, can you tell me what the real training setup is that “breaks” FM24? Sorry, but I don’t have time to re-read everything… Thanks!!!
Did an EBFM test of that schedule just now, negligible difference to Quickness + 2xAttacking + Match Practice + Quickness (Agility for GK) focus, which I would go for given the lower intensity.
The main difference I noticed was that dribbling was a bit less on most positions, but lower decisions and slight boosts in other areas probably offset this
lucailvotto said: There’s one thing I still can’t understand: rest. To get the most out of speed training, you need to set double intensity. But where? On the general rest screen and then set each player’s individual training to automatic, or do you have to manually give each player the instruction to train at double intensity? Thanks.
Go to training > rest, set the two green hearts to double intensity
This is for FM24 though
Apart from the overarching "meta" attributes that are important fro everyone is their any specific "meta" attributes per positions?
Concentration for DC and DL/DR is the most notable case I found for this
You've happened to also ask for a concentration-focused module. I've been trying to do this, and I would advise you that it's not so simple as picking and adding in modules with high concentration, but you can see this data in HarvestGreen's excel sheets. You'll find high concentration growth often goes hand-in-hand with high decisions growth, which is bad, but there are certain ones that don't have high decisions growth.
There are other attributes that are position specific/favored, but it would be difficult to list them off the top of my head. I have it all written down, it just needs to be collated properly. My templates and 1 CA premier league winning players will give you a good idea. But here's some more precise specifics I can tell you based off memory, because the picture is more true and clear in my head than in those templates:
HarvestGreen found having just 1 high decisions player is probably beneficial, and I believe he tested each position. I think DC was the best position to have high decisions on, but GK and DM are probably also good choices, and regardless, the overall advantage was still relatively small.
Aggression seems pretty good in all positions, but you will need low dirtiness to go with it. High dirtiness is worse than injury proneness when you do the math on it, in my opinion, that's how bad it is.
Positioning on forwards/attackers seems beneficial in a similar way to how concentration is on defenders, but I would say this is only about 80% clear, whereas I proved concentration definitively.
Anticipation seemed more important on forwards than defenders to me. And something I noted down was that I've read from an official source that when running with ball (dribbling), anticipation makes up for lack of speed. This is obviously not 100% true, but I suspect it's partially true.
Off the ball seems favorable for DL/DR in particular. This is possibly for the knap tactic specifically. But I'm 50/50 on whether off the ball matters to a mild extent or hardly at all.
Based on what I've read, I've surmised:
off the ball (attacking) <> positioning (defensive)
balance (defensive) <> strength (attacking)
And so the performance data suggests that positions should take on their inverse roles, i.e. forwards become defenders, defenders become forwards. My hypothesis is that the benefit here is twofold - the game isn't expecting certain things out of certain positions so it fails to balance them, and it has lower CA cost as well.
So you may be able to apply this principle more generally, but there are limitations to this. A DC with 20 finishing & composure is still only going to score you 2 goals/season. Basically I think the player needs to be in the right position at the right time with the right set of skills, in that order of importance. A player with high pace/acc will always get to the right position, even if they don't have the right preparatory timing or the skillset to capitalize. A player with high anticipation, positioning or off the ball will be there at the right time insofar as his pace/acc allows him to be. A player with high finishing or tackling will capitalize on the moment only if he had the physical and mental ability to get himself into where the ball will be. Attributes such as concentration, determination and work rate would be where the player has the innate ability to get involved successfully, but may simply lack the motivation to do it. The game mechanics may in fact be more simplistic or have workarounds and therefore also some apparent contradictions, but I reckon they must be designed to try and emulate this narrative and it's probably works in line with this theory most of the time (even ~80% might have constituted 'good enough' for them).
They're quite different
Not double-checking everything I'm about to say right now, but I would surmise it as two main differences:
1. Orion's data is based on correlations with in-game ratings, whereas I'm focused on actual performance (win rate and goal difference). There appears to be a discrepancy between these two things because ratings overvalue technicals/mentals and devalue physicals, even where the physical players win the games - I haven't derived this from my own testing, it's from a youtuber who did an experiment showing this. I already knew there was something of a mismatch, this would explain why.
2. I weight all attributes, not just a few of them, and try to be as precise as possible taking into account all considerations. This wouldn't matter a huge deal, except that actually certain attributes such as the personality attribute 'pressure' do in fact matter a lot - this comes from Orion's own findings, that the difference between pressure 1 and 10 is something like a 40% performance difference, which is huge.
Danipinus said: Thank you, will try that
Will you update later the filters?
Thank you and Happy New Year 2026
Yes I'll be updating the main post at some stage. I'm quite busy with life right now
In my testing I found that agility is most important, acceleration doesn't seem to matter at all, and pace matters only a little bit.
The key three for GKs are agility, aerial reach, reflexes, with agility I'd say being a little more important than the other two.
There main focus is 60% with the secondary and tertiary 40% and all individual focus.
I initially thought that, but there were far more than 6 training modules with those aspects, so I thought that can't be what you're referring to.
So that doesn't progress my understanding, though I suppose it is worthwhile to bring back into consideration again what the in-game words and figures are actually attempting to describe.
I am wondering whether one of each of the following would be best and it would certainly lower injuries - Attacking, Defending (given EBFM results), Shot Stopping, Handling, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence, Chance Creation and Chance Conversion. I would run the GK ones on Monday, Attacking and Defending on Tuesday or Wednesday (as it wouldnt hurt to lose these some weeks) depending when your second game usually happens and the other 4 spread across Thursday and Friday. I have started running with this but am just about to finish season one so wont know for a while. Just a theory based on what I have read and some discussion back in FM22 or 23.
This sounds really interesting to me, particularly as after thinking about it, I thought perhaps 'additional focus' (quickness) is what's interacting with professionalism to cause the pace discrepancy. I decided in the end to remove it from my post, because it still doesn't explain why the meta training overcomes it, but it sounded sensible to me that poor professionalism would result in players being unwilling to put in the extra work on top of their existing team training.
But I don't get what you mean by 'used 40% individual training', what do you mean by this and where is this shown?
I can comment a few things on the different training modules/combos. From memory, EBFM found that more of the same module has diminishing returns. I've generally stuck by this, but as the meta which has 2x attack shows, it's no longer necessarily the case in FM24. In fact, a lot of the training module effects have drastically changed since EBFM done it. I initially tried designing training schedules based on EBFM's data. It didn't really work, so I tried doing it HarvestGreen22's FM24 data, and that did work. And the changes are so drastic that 'defending from the front' would have been one of the worst in EBFM's results for my purposes, but supposedly it's one of the best in FM24, and my results off the bat seem to have proved that. There are a bunch of different combos that come close to the meta, but the problem is usually that they boost garbage attributes too much and also usually cause more injuries to boot.
Here are some relevant key points to know:
One early theory I had was that more training modules means less rest, which means less physical growth, in exchange for (usually meagre) technical/physical growth. This explains why 1 module/week doesn't do enough, and 4 modules/week (meta) is optimal. I realized it must be the optimal schedule crams as much useful CA into those ~3-5 modules. But testing showed this wasn't quite the picture. In hindsight now, it could be right, it's just that I was using EBFM's data which is not suitable for FM24.
Even if it's just a data issue, if you look closely at HarvestGreen22's data, you will see that strange things happen when you combine modules. If one module does +1 drib and another does -1 drib, you'd expect them to cancel each other out, or at least some kind of multiplicative process would occur. But it is nonsensical, or at least too complicated to easily work out.
So my thought then was, given rest loses technicals/mentals significantly to gain pace/acc, anything that gains pace/acc near equally even if does 0.00 growth for technicals/mentals is a win, and I would just try different combinations of these promising modules.
rest = 4.8 pace/acc
match practice 15.6 CA, 4.2 pace/acc
attacking direct 16.3, 4.5
chance conversion 13.6, 4.2
defending from the front 14.7, 4.6
one on ones 12.6, 4.2
attacking wings 13.9, 4.0
defending 14.4, 3.6
attacking 13.2, 4.1
goalkeeping 13.4, 4.4
So you can see here why defending is disfavored, although I have tried it before. In EBFM's data, defending was actually very good from memory. And you can see that surprisingly match practice isn't actually that essential, especially when you consider its intensity impact.
Intensity impact is another thing where I think something is going on. It's more of a case that the proof is in the pudding at the moment, but my theory is that intensity can add up to 100% per week and anymore gets squished down to match 100% while retaining proportions. If it's less than 100%, it stays less than 100%. This would explain why 1-3 modules produces poor results, and it so happens that the meta is 105%. And in fact it's actually quite difficult to make an exactly 100% training schedule, and for all positional units (GK, defending, attacking). But this is what my successful regime does, with the exception of GK which is 105%. Maybe it's actually just coincidence, but it does do significantly better than the meta training.
I tried to experiment without a session of Quickness. Unfortunately I just couldn't get it to work, the pace/acc would suffer significantly. This includes trying such things as 2x endurance replacing it.
Result was ST - acc 2.06, pace 2.56
That means match practice can be ruled out as the relevant factor
I also had a look at the players individually and found that the general pattern, while not that consistent, was that it scaled roughly linearly with professionalism, i.e. 15 pro was 77-100% of 20 pro, 10 pro was 40-77% of 20 pro.
I suppose then that [Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus] should be used only if you have a squad that is ~16+ professionalism
1.
First of all, I haven't tried to see what the outcome would be if I combined different training schedules within a single season. Then,
It is obvious that the testing conditions were under the most ideal circumstances, being even better than normal conditions.
However, this is necessary because we need to highlight the differences in the training results of various types of training programs.
Otherwise, the degree of distinction would be insufficient.
And the players need to be designed to "grow rapidly", so that the effects of different training programs can be distinguished.
2.
So, in the test, the "professional level" of the players was set to be high.
The difference between potential (PA) and current ability (CA) is significant (this has a very significant impact on the actual growth rate).
The training facilities are the best.
The initial ability won't be that high (if set too high, each level-up will require more effort).
3.
In this way, after the test, the training program derived from it is a roughly optimal solution.
Then, for the "actual" players, it is obvious that they usually grow more slowly than player in test league (because the PA-CA value is usually small) and are more affected by randomness.
In this situation, my idea is to create better conditions for their subsequent growth.
The main point is toensure that the "difference between PA and CA" remains sufficiently large for a certain period of time. in this way can Acceleration and Pace maintain the fastest growth.
4.
The advantage brought by this "difference between PA and CA" is that it can to some extent make up for the deficiencies in "professional attributes", training facilities, and other aspects.
The disadvantage is that there is definitely a risk of not being able to fully achieve the PA target.
I think I can accept this risk. and , those lost technicals/mentals was worth it .
those lost technicals/mentals was worth it , Because the attributes of these losses actually do not contribute as much to the winning rate as the attributes of the gains do.
5.
That above is for players at the middle and lower levels. This effectively ensures that everyone can reach the value of 19/20 Acceleration and Pace as soon as possible.
I don't fully agree with the view that 18/18 is sufficient and balance . I think it's still worthwhile to further improve to 20/20.
Of course, this is just my personal opinion. And I might be wrong. My practical experience is also not sufficient.
For high-level/high-potential players,
I don't have any well-developed ideas either.
they have a lot of PA. If we consider the long term, high-level players may not necessarily need "total rest". However, if short-term performance is required, I think it is worth taking the risk to use "total rest".
I decided to do more tests before responding immediately.
I agree with everything you have said, excepting the following:
20/20 pace/acc has measurable performance difference over 18/18 pace/acc, it is true. However it seems unrealistic to achieve unless you either buy fairly elite (16+?) pace/acc players to begin with, or employ full rest.
It is also true that pace/acc are necessary attributes unlike almost all the others. The 1 CA 20/20 pace/acc player will beat the 100 CA 14/14 pace/acc player. However I found in testing 1 CA players that 20 pace/acc alone was not enough to win the league, nor even 20 pace/acc/jump/drib.. but it was possible if you boosted certain other technicals/mentals in addition such as concentration on defenders, while decreasing pace/acc to ~18/18 to fit in 1 CA. I found that ~17/17 pace/acc seems about the minimum you need to edge a win of the premier league.
If you do full rest, it can give you 20/20 pace/acc players, but they will be technically/mentally deficient, with overall losses of ~2 per technical/mental attribute in realistic testing even when doing 2 years full rest and then 2 years meta.
I didn't test the performance effect in a realistic test, but I noticed in my EBFM test league that the full rest teams ended up finishing last all the time, while meta training or my own regime finished 1st.
And that could be not just because of the technicals/mentals attribute losses themselves, but the poorer match fitness that results from full rest, and we know that match fitness has a big impact on performance.
Even with just 5 weeks of full rest per season with the rest meta, there was significant technical/mental losses that were not recovered. This means that it's better to gain all attributes through meta or similar, than to attempt some combo of full rest and meta, even where the gameplan is lower CA with full rest first to maximize CA-PA gap so that technicals/mentals can be pumped in rapidly at the last minute. But I found that meta alone wasn't sufficient, there needs to be some full rest or equivalent to get that ~18/18 threshold.
You've laid a lot of the necessary groundwork, I'm just building on top of that now. And it's probably true that in lower leagues full rest is more viable or perhaps even preferable.
There is one thing I would like to ask of you, and that is do you have the positional breakdown of the training session attribute effects? This would really help with fine-tuning the training regime
I'll post more detailed results sometime later, but basically in EBFM test league using the following schedule I found was roughly ~10% better than meta:
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (Agility & Balance for GK)
You'll note the lack of match practice. I didn't just select different combos to test randomly. This combo is based on HarvestGreen22's training result data. Initially I had used EBFM's data, which I thought would be better to use because it was broken down by position precisely and every training option was listed, but I've found that it can't be applied to FM24.
I found in training meta vs full rest, that the technical/mental losses are difficult to recover, so really you just want to grow everything as much as possible, ideally while limiting the worst useless CA growth such as 'decisions'.
If you look at the different options for pace/acc boosts, whether it's the physical modules or simply using rest, they give a lot of -1 to technicals/mentals. So I figure pace/acc boost should be the priority in assessing the various other training modules. Basically between a module that gives +13 CA and +4.9 pace/acc, and one that gives +8 CA and +5.1 pace/acc, I'm going to choose the latter one.
For reasons I'm yet to understand, 'quickness' and 'attacking' remain an essential part of the recipe, and so they've been kept in after failing without them. Yes, even if you have quickness individual focus, it doesn't work.
If you look at HarvestGreen22's data you'll see things modules don't simply add or multiply together in the way one would intuit, so I just worked off what we do know (thankfully HarvestGreen actually tested several actual combos not just individual modules, this turned out to be crucial information) and tried a few theoretically promising combinations.
So I thought I had come up with the winning combination, but when I tested this in my realistic Luton save, I got unexpectedly poor results compared to meta.
It seemed to me it must probably be because of the lower professionalism, and surprisingly that turned out to be true. It is surprising because although one would expect somewhat lower professionalism might slow progress generally, it shouldn't stunt progress entirely or haphazardly. One strange thing about it was that acc was better than meta, but pace was a lot worse, whereas in the EBFM league test both acc & pace were better. Even stranger, meta results were not hampered for some unknown reason.
But the data indeed says lower professionalism is the underlying cause (probably in concert with certain other factors no doubt):
Meta (Quickness + 2 x Attacking + Match Practice + Quickness focus) test:
ST:
acc - 1, 0, 1, 2, 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4 = 1.58
pace - 2, 2, 2, 4, 4, 2, 5, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4 = 3.25
DL/DR:
drib - 0, -2, 4, 0, 2, 0, 0, -2, 1, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = 0.07
GK:
agil - 3, 5, 5, 6 = 4.75
aer - 0, 1, 2, 2 = 1.25
ref - 0, 0, 0, -1 = -0.25
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus:
ST:
acc - -1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 3, 3, 1, 3 = 1.87
pace - 0, 2, 1, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 2, 3, 3, 1, 3, 3 = 2.2
Meta 20 pro + 1 injury prone (4 years):
ST:
acc - 1, 1, 0, 3, 0, 2, 4, 2, 3, 1, 3, 3, 3, 3, 1 = 2
pace - 1, 4, 1, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5 = 3.27
dec - 5, 1, -1, -1, -1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 1, -1, 0, -1 = 0.267
DL/DR:
drib - 2, -1, 2, 1, 1, -1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, -1, 2, 1, 1, 2 = 1
GK:
agil - 7, 5, 7, 5, 4 = 5.6
aer - 3, 2, 0, 1, 1 = 1.4
ref - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0
8 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (20 pro, 1 injury prone, 4 years):
ST:
acc - 3, 0, 3, 0, 3, 2, 3, 1, 2, 0, 3, 5, 4, 4, 3 = 2.4
pace - 4, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 3, 5, 3, 6, 7, 4, 6, 6 = 3.93
dec - 0, 0, 1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -2, 0, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = -0.333
DL/DR:
drib - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, -1, 1, 0, -1, 1, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2 = 0.529
GK:
agil - 7, 6, 5, 5, 4 = 5.4
aer - 5, 2, 1, 1, 1 = 2
ref - 1, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0.2
15 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Chance creation + Attacking + Aerial Defense + Handling + Defending from the front + Quickness + Quickness focus (20 pro, 1 injury prone, 3 years):
ST:
acc - 3, 1, 3, 0, 2, 2, 3, 1, 2, 0, 4, 4, 4, 3, 3 = 2.33
pace - 4, 1, 3, 1, 5, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 6, 6, 3, 5, 5 = 3.47
dec - 0, 0, 1, -1, -1, 0, 0, -1, 0, -1, 1, 0, -1, 0, -1 = -0.267
DL/DR:
drib - 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 0, 2, 1, 2 = 0.6875
GK:
agil - 7, 4, 5, 4, 4 = 4.8
aer - 5, 1, 2, 1, 1 = 2
ref - 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 = 0
11 players with 18/18 or equivalent
Extra notes:
Agility & balance focus is used for goalkeepers, not quickness.
I suspected maybe low CA-PA gap was the problem rather than low professionalism, but I checked and there's typically about 20-30 CA-PA gap left after the 4 years, so it's not that. And when I checked low professionalism players individually, it seemed to line up with professionalism being the problem - the low professionalism players were the ones with the largest differences such as 16 vs 20 pace.
I haven't measured attributes on the finer scale of 1-100, and there I may have even skipped over a player or two. Some variables were also not properly controlled. Margin of error is probably around -/+ 0.2 for each attribute. Overall it's definitely good enough in my opinion, and the reality is that there is a random element in player progress anyway - the player might get injured for example.
An advantage of my training regime isn't just the increased pace/acc, but the lower decisions growth. In my view, you should count this as equal to pace/acc in the inverse, because it occupies a lot of CA but is useless. I found quite a few combos that matched meta, except that they had significantly higher decisions growth, which made me discount them. Also some regimes had poor GK growth, a lesser consideration, whereas in this regime GK growth is excellent and slightly better than meta.
Because I can only demonstrate it works with 20 professionalism players so far, I recommend sticking with the meta for now unless you just buy very high professionalism players (which isn't a bad idea anyway). I think it won't take long to solve this though. I'm not sure what the reason is that meta works with lower professionalism players, the only idea I have right now is that maybe match practice is treated like a match rather than a training session and that you don't need professionalism for match gains but you need it for training module gains.
And it's not a hypothesis.
I played with FC Vaduz, had very good training utilities, saw PA of youngsters (up to 140, with sufficient prof and determination) and saw their CA after years of training : all <82 . What's more I bought Liechtensteiner 18 y.o. youngster who was newgen in a swiss elite club (PA 130, prof 18, ambition 18, determination 19) with CA 97 after two years of training in Switzerland and it was much more than every young player in Vaduz (though some of mine were regular players of the first team of top level league!! and he of course was not) . After one year in my club he was still 97 , and in that time I had best training utilities and coaches in swiss superleague.
This game is like driving a tramway
I was curious so I did a test
I took an existing Gibraltarian player at a Gilbraltarian club, made him age 16 and 200 PA. Increased club training facilities to 20 and trained him using mostly meta training.
Starting CA was 72:
After 4 years was 155 CA:
Gibraltar started rank 202, ended 152.
By end of year 2, was at 123 CA and Gibraltar rank was 182.
Perhaps it was the type of training you were doing in your save
Just to clarify, uploaded the last rating file on fmscout, and use the filters on main post. I get it right?
Using this on fmscout?
Shortlist filter:
GK - Age 31 max, Agility/Leadership 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Pace/Vision/Technique/Determination/Reflexes/Aerial Reach/Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Jumping Reach 8 min, Work Rate 6 min, Acceleration/Decisions/Handling/Rushing Out 15 max, Injury Proneness 10 max
DL/DR - Same as ST except Agility/Stamina 8 min, no Dribbling 8 min
DC - Same as ST except Jumping Reach 12 min, no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
DM - Same as ST except no Decisions 12 max, no Dribbling 8 min
AML/AMR - Same as ST
ST - Age 22 max, 100 PA min, Acceleration/Pace 12 min, Professionalism 10 min, Anticipation/Concentration/Consistency/Dribbling 8 min, Determination/Work Rate 6 min, Decisions/Injury Proneness 12 max
PS: on ST - Decision 12max?
Thank you
Yes, use the last ratings file I uploaded with FM Genie Scout
Shortlist filters need an update, but that will do fine
Decisions should be 12 or less because it takes up a lot of CA but does hardly anything
I was afraid it would turn out I wasn't the first to notice
I had only seen the recovery glitch pointed out
Robbo84FM said: Sorry i not looked through here in long time could someone remind me what the best "meta" attributes was again i think i remember Pace, Acceleration, Jumping Reach, Dribbling, Work Rate and maybe Concentration?
I would say you've got it correct. Concentration for the defenders only in my view.