ta2199 said: Hi, can we have a download link for the training schedule since I can't import fm 23 training to fm 24. Thanks a lto Expand
This isn't a training schedule. Just an analysis of Physical training sessions. If I ever felt confident enough to create one, I would need to do more analysis on the other attributes first.
Weight Changes for the top 24.2.0 tactic GK/DC/ST/AMC were unchanged.
W used AMC's weights as the AMR - IF(A) I felt like functioned similarly to the AMC in the tactic looking their similar XA and XG numbers on my team. These weights could be changed as the AMR is more dribbly and AMC is more passy, however I felt that the weights weren't far off for both roles.
The FBs were changed as they perform the role of FB and winger not an IWB from Zaz's tactic
DMs were changed as they are a lot more active in the tactic. Same amount of distance covered per 90, same amount of sprints per 90, and same amount of pressures attempted as the AMC and AMR with some of possession recycling as normal. Gave them similar physical weights to the AMC.
Looking through the EBFM Training Session Gains Spreadsheet, I was wondering if tried to change some of the value of the results if that would change any of the results of best training sessions. Even though the results are from FM23, it's the best data we have and should be close to FM24. In my thread here, I outlined some of the problems I saw with the results of EBFM's conclusions. So, I used his data and changed some of the scoring numbers to see if anything changes.
Scoring(very rudimentary)
I used this post of attributes to create scores for training gain. The 1st score used any score above 45 and was added to the calculations multiplied by its weight times .01 in the spreadsheet. I calculated a 2nd score by dividing the 1st score by it's CA attribute weight for each attribute used for the position. I will refer to them as non-CA weighted and CA weighted. I started with Physical training as its less trainings to go through and less attributes to go through. I also changed some of the weights for some of the positions to fit the tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table, Box Levante x Pirate 2.
For more details on how I changed the weights below under the post.
Results
There were only 4 trainings I looked at and the scores only look at Physical weights + Work Rate. Physical, the general training, Resistance, Quickness, and Endurance.
Quickness and Endurance had Non-CA weight scores of 3.05 and 2.33 respectively and CA Weighted scores of .6 and .55 which were the lowest by far. Quickness didn't work on Strength and Stamina enough and Endurance didn't work on Pace and Acceleration enough.
Physical and Resistance had the 2 best scores of 4.02 and 3.93 for non-CA weighted scores respectively and 0.92 and 0.91 for CA-Weighted scores respectively.
But it wasn't all lopsided towards Physical training, FB, DM, and ST all had better scores when doing resistance training. In the tactic, that is actually a majority of the team.
TL;DR All in all, I believe that for physical training, using both Physical, the general training, and Resistance training due to their all around physical growth could be a way to boost your team's physical growth.
Link to my very much unpresentable spreadsheet here
I was watching EBFM's Training schedule tests from last year and although he has a lot of great data to look through, I was curious if using the metric of number of attributes that have grew .5 is the best way to decide the best training sessions and CA for training schedule. This led me to 3 thoughts
1. Some Attributes aren't as equally desired as others but are given equal weight in the excel findings
For example in this machine learning post. Long shots aren't desirable unless you're a DM lurking outside the box or a ST who sometimes takes 1v1 shots from those locations. None of these weightings are above 50 in the machine learning post.
Some other examples are Leadership, Flair, and Natural Fitness are where you don't really need them for them to play well on the squad but they are since Match Practice gives them a .5 boost they are counted towards best training session.
For the measure of CA, in this chart Decisions are very highly weighted but in both machine learning and fm-arena tests, they are very overweighted compared to the important attributes. Attacking, Defending, and Match Practice trainings are very good for decisions, so when they are combined together they could grow decisions to a point where it's really good for CA, but the CA is being used inefficiently.
2. Some attributes you want more of compared to others
Obviously Pace and Acceleration are king as well as for some Balance, Stamina, and Jumping Reach. Even though the Physical Training overall is the best for all Physical growth, Quickness trains Pace and Acceleration quicker and Endurance grows Work Rate, Stamina and Strength quicker. He doesn't fill in all the slots in his training regime so maybe with a more rigorous regime you add these more specialized trainings.
3. Training Units: Can they be optimized for better efficiency? If you go into Training >> Units, you'll see that your squad is split into 3 different units. Does putting some Defensive players into the Attacking Unit for a session help them progress attacking attributes like Crossing and Dribbling? In his spreadsheet, Trainings like Attacking Direct and Chance Conversion are extremely high in technical attribute growth up but are under things like Attacking training, however while the Attacking training is equal in progress for all players, those in the defensive unit get 20% focus vs the attacking sides' 60%. If attacking players such as the DM and FB were moved to the attacking unit before the testing started, would the results be better for those respective training sessions?
TL;DR The general point is that, I believe the training schedule and sessions that focus on the growth of the important attributes that fm-arena/chinese machine learning experts have found should be aim of the testing. Maybe using more specialized trainings or optimizing rest days or training units would help bring our players to their peaks better than before.
Was wondering if my thought process is correct and if there are ways to really juice training up?
Saw chou's corners do well on the tests and Zim's everything else do well so I combined them at @Mark's Request. Maybe premature at this stage, but I do wonder if frankensteining set pieces is the way to go.
EDIT: Removed 2nd attacking set piece that was from Zim. Should be good now!
Hmm so looking at the numbers so far which is also supported by an fmscout comment on the set piece tactic itself all of Zim's set pieces are top class EXCEPT his attacking corners! Using Delicious' or Chou's Corners and the rest of Zim's stuff if they can be used together would be the best way to setup your set pieces.
Wow quite the result, however, needs to have same sample size as the others to truely gauge it's performance. Nuts Attacking was up here not too long ago before the sample size knocked it down. I do hope a new leader emmerges!
Due to it being an extremely important attribute, it would be nice to see some positions get the buff and some don't to see how important it is for each position. For example, do the wingers getting the buff have a higher score than just the strikers.
Lapidus said: Obviously, the tactical familiarity matters but I bet no one can say how much it matters because I don't how anyone can test it, as far as I know there's no way to "freeze" the tactical familiarity at some level to test it. Expand
I think if you were to set up a league that is similar to international play you could in theory make something that is similar.
Like one team is that professional with lower CA with max familiarity Vs like 25 Semi Pro High CA teams that don't train at all using the common AI formations and only play at the frequency of an international squad. Which in theory would put their tactical familiarity around a typical international squad.
So in Football Manager, I know that international squads do have tactical familiarity due to not training much. I have some questions that I have related to that.
1. How much does tactical familiarity matter in FM? 2. What is worst international team with full familiarity that could reliably win against a top international team with no familiarity whatsoever? 3. If I were to take a domestic team of nationals and call them up to the national team and use the same tactics for both teams, would the domestic team players still retain the familiarity when I call them up? 4. My main question is what is worst domestic league/international squad that you could take over, and win both the world cup and the respective Champions League?
I'm currently enjoying my journeyman save. Have been at Cacereño(Tier 4 Spain now Tier 2) for 3 years are a joy to play because of no domestic player minimum and no loan max. This means I could loan in all of my players and it really helps with player quality and my bottomline.
This isn't a training schedule. Just an analysis of Physical training sessions. If I ever felt confident enough to create one, I would need to do more analysis on the other attributes first.
GK/DC/ST/AMC were unchanged.
W used AMC's weights as the AMR - IF(A) I felt like functioned similarly to the AMC in the tactic looking their similar XA and XG numbers on my team. These weights could be changed as the AMR is more dribbly and AMC is more passy, however I felt that the weights weren't far off for both roles.
The FBs were changed as they perform the role of FB and winger not an IWB from Zaz's tactic
DMs were changed as they are a lot more active in the tactic. Same amount of distance covered per 90, same amount of sprints per 90, and same amount of pressures attempted as the AMC and AMR with some of possession recycling as normal. Gave them similar physical weights to the AMC.
Scoring(very rudimentary)
I used this post of attributes to create scores for training gain. The 1st score used any score above 45 and was added to the calculations multiplied by its weight times .01 in the spreadsheet. I calculated a 2nd score by dividing the 1st score by it's CA attribute weight for each attribute used for the position. I will refer to them as non-CA weighted and CA weighted. I started with Physical training as its less trainings to go through and less attributes to go through. I also changed some of the weights for some of the positions to fit the tactic in the Patch 24.2.0 (v2.0) - Tactic Testing Table, Box Levante x Pirate 2.
For more details on how I changed the weights below under the post.
Results
There were only 4 trainings I looked at and the scores only look at Physical weights + Work Rate. Physical, the general training, Resistance, Quickness, and Endurance.
Quickness and Endurance had Non-CA weight scores of 3.05 and 2.33 respectively and CA Weighted scores of .6 and .55 which were the lowest by far. Quickness didn't work on Strength and Stamina enough and Endurance didn't work on Pace and Acceleration enough.
Physical and Resistance had the 2 best scores of 4.02 and 3.93 for non-CA weighted scores respectively and 0.92 and 0.91 for CA-Weighted scores respectively.
But it wasn't all lopsided towards Physical training, FB, DM, and ST all had better scores when doing resistance training. In the tactic, that is actually a majority of the team.
TL;DR All in all, I believe that for physical training, using both Physical, the general training, and Resistance training due to their all around physical growth could be a way to boost your team's physical growth.
Link to my very much unpresentable spreadsheet here
I was watching EBFM's Training schedule tests from last year and although he has a lot of great data to look through, I was curious if using the metric of number of attributes that have grew .5 is the best way to decide the best training sessions and CA for training schedule. This led me to 3 thoughts
1. Some Attributes aren't as equally desired as others but are given equal weight in the excel findings
For example in this machine learning post.
Long shots aren't desirable unless you're a DM lurking outside the box or a ST who sometimes takes 1v1 shots from those locations. None of these weightings are above 50 in the machine learning post.
Some other examples are Leadership, Flair, and Natural Fitness are where you don't really need them for them to play well on the squad but they are since Match Practice gives them a .5 boost they are counted towards best training session.
For the measure of CA, in this chart Decisions are very highly weighted but in both machine learning and fm-arena tests, they are very overweighted compared to the important attributes. Attacking, Defending, and Match Practice trainings are very good for decisions, so when they are combined together they could grow decisions to a point where it's really good for CA, but the CA is being used inefficiently.
2. Some attributes you want more of compared to others
Obviously Pace and Acceleration are king as well as for some Balance, Stamina, and Jumping Reach.
Even though the Physical Training overall is the best for all Physical growth, Quickness trains Pace and Acceleration quicker and Endurance grows Work Rate, Stamina and Strength quicker. He doesn't fill in all the slots in his training regime so maybe with a more rigorous regime you add these more specialized trainings.
3. Training Units: Can they be optimized for better efficiency?
If you go into Training >> Units, you'll see that your squad is split into 3 different units. Does putting some Defensive players into the Attacking Unit for a session help them progress attacking attributes like Crossing and Dribbling? In his spreadsheet, Trainings like Attacking Direct and Chance Conversion are extremely high in technical attribute growth up but are under things like Attacking training, however while the Attacking training is equal in progress for all players, those in the defensive unit get 20% focus vs the attacking sides' 60%. If attacking players such as the DM and FB were moved to the attacking unit before the testing started, would the results be better for those respective training sessions?
TL;DR The general point is that, I believe the training schedule and sessions that focus on the growth of the important attributes that fm-arena/chinese machine learning experts have found should be aim of the testing. Maybe using more specialized trainings or optimizing rest days or training units would help bring our players to their peaks better than before.
Was wondering if my thought process is correct and if there are ways to really juice training up?
According to the tests, he has the best Attacking corner results. Everything else the results favor or are close enough to Zim's
Updated, should be good now. Nice catch!
EDIT: Removed 2nd attacking set piece that was from Zim. Should be good now!
EDIT: Removed 2nd attacking set piece
I mean so it doesn't matter the order of the better/worse striker?
I think if you were to set up a league that is similar to international play you could in theory make something that is similar.
Like one team is that professional with lower CA with max familiarity
Vs like 25 Semi Pro High CA teams that don't train at all using the common AI formations and only play at the frequency of an international squad. Which in theory would put their tactical familiarity around a typical international squad.
1. How much does tactical familiarity matter in FM?
2. What is worst international team with full familiarity that could reliably win against a top international team with no familiarity whatsoever?
3. If I were to take a domestic team of nationals and call them up to the national team and use the same tactics for both teams, would the domestic team players still retain the familiarity when I call them up?
4. My main question is what is worst domestic league/international squad that you could take over, and win both the world cup and the respective Champions League?