We know it has always has some value, because high CA-PA gap = faster training = higher pace/acc faster.
Therefore a zero CA cost attribute such as 'pressure' that has a significant effect on win rate, is even more valuable than an equivalent attribute that costs CA, say dribbling. But by how much exactly? 2 points of pace and acceleration each perhaps? I prefer to go on the safe side and guesstimate 1-2 points of just pace say (I think about what gets 'sacrificed' to stay within PA limit at the end of ~4 years of training).
But then you have positions such as DM where you can easily max out pace/acc to 20 without hitting the PA cap, at least if you're in a good division (which I think most players are in, or plan to end up in).
So I figure the bonus for DM should be reduced, and conversely the bonus for a CA-tight position such as AML should be increased.
But this leads to the peculiar consequence that positions that benefit most from high pace/acc, such as AML, value them least. Not to mention the fact that lowering the immediate gains (from high pace/acc) for expected future gains that may never even eventuate. And then there are also inherent variables whose expected ranges exceed the capacity of this predictive method. For instance, even assuming everyone uses meta training, one player might go from 15>17 pace, another will go from 14>20.
So in the end what I decided is, I will have a set of values for youth/optimization, a set of values for age26+/team selection/pure performance (which will be very closely aligned with HarvestGreen's findings), and then a blend of the two - which will be the file I recommend to use as switching between files is tedious. Is a 50/50 blend the best? Probably not, but it's the best I can do so far. I have checked in genie scout the actual results of these new values, and it seems to be working as it should - the best players are those from Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. as you'd expect. I've looked for outliers that have changed positions the most, and overall I'd say the margin of error could be something like -/+3% genie scout rating, which I think is satisfactory.
Here's an example to give you an idea about things:
Default Genie Scout - Kane 91.47%, Haaland 90.95%, Mbappe 88.30% Orion's Coefficients (not my file) - Haaland 88.01%, Mbappe 86.31%, Kane 81.63% My existing file - Mbappe 77.59%, Haaland 77.25%, Kane 67.35% New file (youth/optimization) - Mbappe 79.73%, Haaland 75.69%, Kane 65.64% New file (age26+/pure performance) - Haaland 95.34%, Mbappe 93.59%, Kane 82.21% New file (blended) - Mbappe 85.33%, Haaland 83.74%, Kane 72.46%
Ignore the numbers themselves, it's about how relative they are to each other Expand
Hey there mate. First of all, great initiative. Any chance you could add value to the list of attributes shown alongside the rating? Would allow for better filtering
harvestgreen22 said: ——So which schedule would you recommend, if i just want boost the physical attributes the first season and then the most (overall) in second season and onwards.
first season （Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
second season and onwards [Quickness]+[Match Practice]x2+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
——would it be possible only to take a specific group of players and have them boost physicals?
the only way is to put them to U20/U18/U21/U23 team , (This is ok, but you need additional operations, and it is more cumbersome to operate) Then, on the duties page, Then, on the duties page, Change U20/U18 training to be controlled by you It's the only way I know Expand
What's the reason for no training in the first season?
CSTG KANE said: Here's a summary of my seasonal stats, the numbers at the markers include corners and set pieces, but of course I use more than just the 4231 formation in a season @pixar Expand
Lapidus said: Any top club like PSG, Man City, Liverpool and so on.. they all have extremely fast players in any line and that's what ensures their domination in the game. Expand
What about lower level clubs with players like that?
We know it has always has some value, because high CA-PA gap = faster training = higher pace/acc faster.
Therefore a zero CA cost attribute such as 'pressure' that has a significant effect on win rate, is even more valuable than an equivalent attribute that costs CA, say dribbling. But by how much exactly? 2 points of pace and acceleration each perhaps? I prefer to go on the safe side and guesstimate 1-2 points of just pace say (I think about what gets 'sacrificed' to stay within PA limit at the end of ~4 years of training).
But then you have positions such as DM where you can easily max out pace/acc to 20 without hitting the PA cap, at least if you're in a good division (which I think most players are in, or plan to end up in).
So I figure the bonus for DM should be reduced, and conversely the bonus for a CA-tight position such as AML should be increased.
But this leads to the peculiar consequence that positions that benefit most from high pace/acc, such as AML, value them least. Not to mention the fact that lowering the immediate gains (from high pace/acc) for expected future gains that may never even eventuate. And then there are also inherent variables whose expected ranges exceed the capacity of this predictive method. For instance, even assuming everyone uses meta training, one player might go from 15>17 pace, another will go from 14>20.
So in the end what I decided is, I will have a set of values for youth/optimization, a set of values for age26+/team selection/pure performance (which will be very closely aligned with HarvestGreen's findings), and then a blend of the two - which will be the file I recommend to use as switching between files is tedious. Is a 50/50 blend the best? Probably not, but it's the best I can do so far. I have checked in genie scout the actual results of these new values, and it seems to be working as it should - the best players are those from Man City, Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc. as you'd expect. I've looked for outliers that have changed positions the most, and overall I'd say the margin of error could be something like -/+3% genie scout rating, which I think is satisfactory.
Here's an example to give you an idea about things:
Default Genie Scout - Kane 91.47%, Haaland 90.95%, Mbappe 88.30%
Orion's Coefficients (not my file) - Haaland 88.01%, Mbappe 86.31%, Kane 81.63%
My existing file - Mbappe 77.59%, Haaland 77.25%, Kane 67.35%
New file (youth/optimization) - Mbappe 79.73%, Haaland 75.69%, Kane 65.64%
New file (age26+/pure performance) - Haaland 95.34%, Mbappe 93.59%, Kane 82.21%
New file (blended) - Mbappe 85.33%, Haaland 83.74%, Kane 72.46%
Ignore the numbers themselves, it's about how relative they are to each other
Where are these files?
https://imgur.com/uNVlZgk
https://imgur.com/uNVlZgk
https://imgur.com/uNVlZgk
first season
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
second season and onwards
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]x2+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
——would it be possible only to take a specific group of players and have them boost physicals?
the only way is to put them to U20/U18/U21/U23 team , (This is ok, but you need additional operations, and it is more cumbersome to operate)
Then, on the duties page, Then, on the duties page, Change U20/U18 training to be controlled by you
It's the only way I know
What's the reason for no training in the first season?
Most likely, on defenders you don't really need anything more the pace/JR/acc...
GK is there for the Yolo as well, just liked the aerial Reach
How did you recruit Esposito then?
Are you going after Pace, Acc, Jumping Reach and Driblling? Since season 1?
@pixar
What trainning schedule are you using?
What about lower level clubs with players like that?