lasko911 said: Has anyone tried this with semi-professional teams? They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example. Expand
You can't do anything fancy in Semi pro, I just do 2x Match Practice + Quickness. Only 1x Quickness for 2 match week. Get a lot of growth without that much decay in Dribbling.
Don't play with CA/PA visible, if players aren't growing - it could be multitude of factors, determination too low, not getting enough minutes, injuries, age etc.
I have had 14/12 player to a 15/16 in 2.5 seasons. There is a bit of RNG involving the growth of each stat. Some have no growth then exploded after they turn 21.
Semi Pro, I would treat player development as a bonus and just pick up the best player possible to promote every season unless they are young and ready to play.
Tip: Don't select individual role training, have found those without role training assigned grow alot faster from my own anecdotal experience.
https://imgur.com/a/YZRx9Iv Compare M10 and Z10, To my great surprise Test conditions, Change From age 20, to age 17,
CA increased from 20s to 30s per season, Physical attributes, no proportional increase, And this part of the increase in CA is basically technical and mental. Expand
Can you please reupload the imgur link since it's dead.
The result from age change shouldn't be too surprising since developers have always said younger players develop faster.
So beside the obvious 4 (strength, quickness, shot stopping, Possession Technical) Should we assign coaches to Defending tatical (concentration) and/or Possession Tactical (Anticipation)
Han106 said: I just thought of this what if you setup up your coaches where they are 5 stars in Quickness/Strength and Possession Technical and 1 star everywhere else, can you handicap the growth in the bad attributes? @harvestgreen22 Expand
What if you just don't assign coaches in those categories?
bigloser said: At this point it would be more interesting to test position rating systems to see if it can consistently produce winners against a + 2 or + 4 acc/pac team with the secondary meta attributes + stamina/wr set to 10 & the rest of the worthless attributes set to 1. ie A team with of 14 acc/pac with anything goes vs 16/16 acc/pac or 18 acc/pac team.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling. Expand
from experience, 17/17 player is still better. How often are there a 15/15 with 15JR + 15 DRB? its usually like a super Dribbly 15/15/15 or a 15/15/8 with 16 JR.
Not that it matters that much because hidden attributes is just as important, so a good looking player might just be a dude if pressure, injury proness or dirtiness is bad.
RFC said: Apologies in advance as there is a lot of big brain thinking that's going over my head.
If I'm following, the training is based on what we currently think the best attributes are right?
Most of them make sense to me - priority in getting to the ball through pace and acceleration when it's on the deck and jumping reach when it's in the air.
Even Goalkeepers follow a similar logic, Agility to move in the right direction, Reflexes to get there and Arial Ability to be able to reach.
The other physicals like balance and agility factor in essentially to turn/change momentum and the mental like anticipation to start moving in the right direction before it's time to apply the physicals.
If my understanding here is right, and I get that's a big if, the one that's throwing me is Work Rate.
That should help all the physical and mental in so far as it's how often the player attempts to move towards the ball
The revelation that anything after 10 on Work Rate has diminished returns makes me wonder if this is explicitly tied to Stamina.
Like if a players Stamina can't keep up with their Work Rate as suggested by the in-game prompts, does too high a Work Rate turn out to be a bad thing?
Is there a way to re-test Work Rate where Stamina is increased at the same rate to see if that has any impact on the importance of Work Rate? Expand
The problem is you are applying real life logic to just strings of codes made to give the impression of real life mechanics.
The game can just be broken, it is what it is. The game engine and mechanics had barely been updated the past decade beside the graphics of the match shown.
The game could easily just be take all the attributes + hidden attributes of each team combine them to determine an outcome. The match being shown in game is just picking events to suit the result simulated afterwards.
Work rate below 10? It could just be a string of code that the developer added in to impose a penalty on low work rate players. Since determination and work rate are the fastest growing attributes as long as you play and fine the player consistently. Hence it's not really a real attribute.
I did the "G9-H9-I9-J9" test Changed the Duty of 4 groups of players
And unfortunately, it had a negative effect,
Each different Duty, it does add growth in the "green highlighted" part , But this comes at the cost of "blue highlighting" growth , This is something I didn't expect.
I checked a few players. They show up : Green Highlight ↑, Blue Highlight ↓ , Compare to "No duty" (G7-X8-S8-V7).
So maybe duty shouldn't be chosen , we should leave it Default Expand
Hmm in that case you would leave blank the role that don't highlight ACC/Pace in green + Dribbling or JR. So only train winger (support) and Wingback (attack), The rest leave blank.
You get better Acc + Pace, better dribbling, better CA growth
It must work in this way:
Baseline CA growth (or decline) depending on age Matches give potential CA growth You then need to assign Training sessions to take up that potential, each session unlocks it's own amount (you see some grant more or less CA growth compared to others in the test) The exact training sessions you select decide where attributes go (again some are stronger than others)
I imagine that the first instance of each training session a week is much better than the 2nd, so if you want max CA growth for fewest sessions per week you'd choose all different ones
I have no idea why recovery is giving better returns than rest though, that's puzzling. Expand
Yes but that theory falls apart when you account for E8 and S8, since more sessions of MP actually lead to more growth in the case of S8 while an extra MP session (E8 vs V7) lead to lower growth
Monday - Quickness, Attacking, Recovery Tues - 3 x Rest (Super rest) Wed - Match Practice, Routines, Recovery Thurs - 3 x Recovery Fri - Recovery, Rest, Match Focus Sat - Rest, Match, Rest Sun - Rest, Match Review, Recovery
Has the 7 recoveries, 1 x Match Practice, 1 x Quickness, 1 x Attacking. I just put a 'routines' in so that my routines go full green bar. Every 2nd week i swap routines for team bonding.
Should this work?
PS thanks to Harvestgreen22 and ZaZ for sharing all their work! Expand
in my mind 7x recovery = replace all rest session with recovery. brain fart. I wouldn't do team bonding since it actually does distribute stats to teamwork.
I like S8 and V7. However I'm not convinced with Attacking yet since it's not as focused on Dribbling as other trainings.
Also for individual training, I usually like training player in position they would play. If you play + train them in the role you used - you would get max familiarity. If you train them in position but not role you used, you would get competent at least.
Best role for training I found so far:
CB - Nononsense CB (cover) DR/L - Complete WB (support) Winger - Winger (support) MC - Roaming Playmaker DM - Probably just HB or SVG volante (I like HB more since its less attributes trained and JR) Striker - Advance Forward AMC - SS
Not sure double dipping on Acc+Pace is better or focusing on less attributes trained is better. Im inclined to lean toward the former.
ZaZ said: Just be mindful when training players in different positions, as that will increase their attribute weighting for defining CA. In some cases, that will cause players to peak with much lower attributes. Expand
yeah, wouldn't do that. Just put defensive players outside of CBs into attacking unit and do those attacking/technical session at their intended positions. Doubt you get to hit peak of players that often until many seasons into a save.
I have a theory of subbing overall out for attacking wings or chance conversion which according to the EBFM table, they have the best dribbling to decision growth ratio.
We don’t really care that much about overall CA growth when dribbling is a much better stats than almost everything else so we want that max alongside the physicals. Decisions eat up PA while not offering any significant match over-performance. If it’s not optimal, should still be better than play out from the back in theory.
@ZaZ The schedule you showed is H6 but with 2xPhysical instead of 1x Quickness. It's probably slightly better in term of overall attribute gains since it does train a significant attribute - balance which quickness doesn't cover.
Big 2 is Acc/Pace. A tier below - JR, Dribbling, AGI (defenders), Balance (attackers). The non tier S attributes (Acc/Pace) does significant reduce the performance of the players if they are too far below the league based on experience.
There's probably some balance to be found that's optimal once more and more people start trying this method. Since more training session per week probably lead to more injuries in theory, All we know is - you need double intensity, 2x match practice, Quickness x 1 (2x physical might be better, unsure). Then It's either 1x overall or 1xattack+defend or blank.
I will leave this https://www.playgm.cc/thread-970401-1-1.html for those who can read Chinese, Harvestgreen posted a bunch of test results on there. I think I tend to lean on just 1x Quickness per week.
After testing it a bit and based on the testing so far by Harvestgreen22, Most efficient ones that not just maximize physical attributes but delaying decay appeared to be K5 (3 training per week), L5 (4 training per week), I6 (4 Training per week), H6 (5 Training per week).
Imo L5 seems like the best since it has slight better growth than I6, Keeping in mind more training sessions = more chance of injuries. Whether L5 is worth it over K5 would be up to your personal preference.
I would do this training schedule and combine with the glitch of "super rest" and sprinkle in some match focus. To me, it would produce the best players ability wise in accordance to Acc/Pace/JR over performance even it doesn't produce the most well rounded players. You would look at more 18/16/10 instead of 16/16/14 guys in terms of Acc/pace/dribbling.
The only issue with this schedule is there's no significant increase between 2x physical training and 7 x physical training per week shown in multiple test ran in other posts in this forum.
Looks like the only way to speed up physical attribute growth is intensity. Then it's either max CA growth schedule on half intensity or the Chinese forum method that prioritize physical while trying to delay as much decay of non physical attributes.
I think this training method is probably best at growing physical attributes in the shortest amount of time because its double intensity with a lower risk of injury due to less training schedules.
There's probably a schedule where its double intensity: Quick+match practisex2+ 1xattack+defense + maybe something else per week. Attacking and defending training max out efficiency at 4 but it's not really focused, you can just run 1 per week to stop the attribute decay.
The biggest problem I see with the data collected on CA/PA growth is:
1. Its simply counting CA growth per season but doesn't correctly discount how much decision cost in CA which inflate a players CA without meaningfully improve a players ability (I could be wrong since I didn't see the weighting, same thing with aggression which is a negative stat)
2. A lot of the technical training/attacking/defending training yeilded 0 growth for attacking unit or defensive unit. Is it because the tester have not moved players into the unit that's being focused trained? That skew the efficiency toward the training that train outfield players as a whole.
ZaZ said: If your goal is to create fast young players, why not add this just to youth teams instead, and bring them up to main team when they are fast enough? Then they can have a normal training schedule to boost other attributes on main team.
Other than that, it is absurd to assume you will have a bunch of 200 PA players with high professionalism, even for people that play with hidden attributes visible. If it took two years with players like that, it will take double of that in a realistic setting. Expand
Yeah I thought about it, It's probably more efficient to do the full rest or even some form of the 2x match practice double intensity practice for youth/reserve players to get them to a speed that's usable in the first team.
In the first team, you probably just do the half intensity super rest 4x4x2x2x optimal growth schedule.
This discovery is pretty big for people who play alot of lower league assuming that the non assigned training schedule are coded as unmodified rest so in the 6 training slots, you wouldn't assign any non physical training weighting? lower league - Based on experience player that's 16/16 7 Drib feels a lot better than a 15/15 11 assuming hidden attributes are the same.
harvestgreen22 said: i did't test [ball Distribution] as the Description has no "dribbling" , the Description said "First touch ,anticipation ..." I'll test it on the weekend to see if it makes a difference (all in Attacking team). Expand
Oh Im not on FM24 so disregard that, maybe they changed it. same with match preparation stuff, they used to have light training that's just for match preparation in older version of FMs.
They have limited training so the only logical regime to choose for them is something like R5, to rest and focus on quickness.
I've tried it with Vanarama North team and at the end of the season there was almost no CA or Pace/Acceleration progress, even with young players with CA/PA of 30/110, for example.
You can't do anything fancy in Semi pro, I just do 2x Match Practice + Quickness. Only 1x Quickness for 2 match week. Get a lot of growth without that much decay in Dribbling.
Don't play with CA/PA visible, if players aren't growing - it could be multitude of factors, determination too low, not getting enough minutes, injuries, age etc.
I have had 14/12 player to a 15/16 in 2.5 seasons. There is a bit of RNG involving the growth of each stat. Some have no growth then exploded after they turn 21.
Semi Pro, I would treat player development as a bonus and just pick up the best player possible to promote every season unless they are young and ready to play.
Tip: Don't select individual role training, have found those without role training assigned grow alot faster from my own anecdotal experience.
harvestgreen22 said: don't assign coaches in those categories = Y10
https://imgur.com/a/YZRx9Iv
Compare M10 and Z10,
To my great surprise
Test conditions,
Change From age 20, to age 17,
CA increased from 20s to 30s per season,
Physical attributes, no proportional increase,
And this part of the increase in CA is basically technical and mental.
Can you please reupload the imgur link since it's dead.
The result from age change shouldn't be too surprising since developers have always said younger players develop faster.
So beside the obvious 4 (strength, quickness, shot stopping, Possession Technical) Should we assign coaches to Defending tatical (concentration) and/or Possession Tactical (Anticipation)
What if you just don't assign coaches in those categories?
bigloser said: At this point it would be more interesting to test position rating systems to see if it can consistently produce winners against a + 2 or + 4 acc/pac team with the secondary meta attributes + stamina/wr set to 10 & the rest of the worthless attributes set to 1. ie A team with of 14 acc/pac with anything goes vs 16/16 acc/pac or 18 acc/pac team.
Like often times you are picking between a 15/15 AMRL that has 16 dribbling or 15 jumping reach, and a 17/17 player that has 3 jumping reach & 10 dribbling.
from experience, 17/17 player is still better. How often are there a 15/15 with 15JR + 15 DRB? its usually like a super Dribbly 15/15/15 or a 15/15/8 with 16 JR.
Not that it matters that much because hidden attributes is just as important, so a good looking player might just be a dude if pressure, injury proness or dirtiness is bad.
If I'm following, the training is based on what we currently think the best attributes are right?
Most of them make sense to me - priority in getting to the ball through pace and acceleration when it's on the deck and jumping reach when it's in the air.
Even Goalkeepers follow a similar logic, Agility to move in the right direction, Reflexes to get there and Arial Ability to be able to reach.
The other physicals like balance and agility factor in essentially to turn/change momentum and the mental like anticipation to start moving in the right direction before it's time to apply the physicals.
If my understanding here is right, and I get that's a big if, the one that's throwing me is Work Rate.
That should help all the physical and mental in so far as it's how often the player attempts to move towards the ball
The revelation that anything after 10 on Work Rate has diminished returns makes me wonder if this is explicitly tied to Stamina.
Like if a players Stamina can't keep up with their Work Rate as suggested by the in-game prompts, does too high a Work Rate turn out to be a bad thing?
Is there a way to re-test Work Rate where Stamina is increased at the same rate to see if that has any impact on the importance of Work Rate?
The problem is you are applying real life logic to just strings of codes made to give the impression of real life mechanics.
The game can just be broken, it is what it is. The game engine and mechanics had barely been updated the past decade beside the graphics of the match shown.
The game could easily just be take all the attributes + hidden attributes of each team combine them to determine an outcome. The match being shown in game is just picking events to suit the result simulated afterwards.
Work rate below 10? It could just be a string of code that the developer added in to impose a penalty on low work rate players. Since determination and work rate are the fastest growing attributes as long as you play and fine the player consistently. Hence it's not really a real attribute.
The player has probably already hit the limit of his PA.
Your 100 PA ain't going to turn into a world beater.
I did the "G9-H9-I9-J9" test
Changed the Duty of 4 groups of players
And unfortunately, it had a negative effect,
Each different Duty, it does add growth in the "green highlighted" part , But this comes at the cost of "blue highlighting" growth , This is something I didn't expect.
I checked a few players. They show up : Green Highlight ↑, Blue Highlight ↓ , Compare to "No duty" (G7-X8-S8-V7).
So maybe duty shouldn't be chosen , we should leave it Default
Hmm in that case you would leave blank the role that don't highlight ACC/Pace in green + Dribbling or JR. So only train winger (support) and Wingback (attack), The rest leave blank.
Quick + MPx2 + Recx7 vs Quick + MP + Attacking + Recx7
You get better Acc + Pace, better dribbling, better CA growth
It must work in this way:
Baseline CA growth (or decline) depending on age
Matches give potential CA growth
You then need to assign Training sessions to take up that potential, each session unlocks it's own amount (you see some grant more or less CA growth compared to others in the test)
The exact training sessions you select decide where attributes go (again some are stronger than others)
I imagine that the first instance of each training session a week is much better than the 2nd, so if you want max CA growth for fewest sessions per week you'd choose all different ones
I have no idea why recovery is giving better returns than rest though, that's puzzling.
Yes but that theory falls apart when you account for E8 and S8, since more sessions of MP actually lead to more growth in the case of S8 while an extra MP session (E8 vs V7) lead to lower growth
Monday - Quickness, Attacking, Recovery
Tues - 3 x Rest (Super rest)
Wed - Match Practice, Routines, Recovery
Thurs - 3 x Recovery
Fri - Recovery, Rest, Match Focus
Sat - Rest, Match, Rest
Sun - Rest, Match Review, Recovery
Has the 7 recoveries, 1 x Match Practice, 1 x Quickness, 1 x Attacking. I just put a 'routines' in so that my routines go full green bar. Every 2nd week i swap routines for team bonding.
Should this work?
PS thanks to Harvestgreen22 and ZaZ for sharing all their work!
in my mind 7x recovery = replace all rest session with recovery. brain fart. I wouldn't do team bonding since it actually does distribute stats to teamwork.
I like S8 and V7. However I'm not convinced with Attacking yet since it's not as focused on Dribbling as other trainings.
Also for individual training, I usually like training player in position they would play. If you play + train them in the role you used - you would get max familiarity. If you train them in position but not role you used, you would get competent at least.
Best role for training I found so far:
CB - Nononsense CB (cover)
DR/L - Complete WB (support)
Winger - Winger (support)
MC - Roaming Playmaker
DM - Probably just HB or SVG volante (I like HB more since its less attributes trained and JR)
Striker - Advance Forward
AMC - SS
Not sure double dipping on Acc+Pace is better or focusing on less attributes trained is better. Im inclined to lean toward the former.
yeah, wouldn't do that. Just put defensive players outside of CBs into attacking unit and do those attacking/technical session at their intended positions. Doubt you get to hit peak of players that often until many seasons into a save.
We don’t really care that much about overall CA growth when dribbling is a much better stats than almost everything else so we want that max alongside the physicals. Decisions eat up PA while not offering any significant match over-performance. If it’s not optimal, should still be better than play out from the back in theory.
Big 2 is Acc/Pace. A tier below - JR, Dribbling, AGI (defenders), Balance (attackers). The non tier S attributes (Acc/Pace) does significant reduce the performance of the players if they are too far below the league based on experience.
There's probably some balance to be found that's optimal once more and more people start trying this method. Since more training session per week probably lead to more injuries in theory, All we know is - you need double intensity, 2x match practice, Quickness x 1 (2x physical might be better, unsure). Then It's either 1x overall or 1xattack+defend or blank.
I will leave this https://www.playgm.cc/thread-970401-1-1.html for those who can read Chinese, Harvestgreen posted a bunch of test results on there. I think I tend to lean on just 1x Quickness per week.
Imo L5 seems like the best since it has slight better growth than I6, Keeping in mind more training sessions = more chance of injuries. Whether L5 is worth it over K5 would be up to your personal preference.
I would do this training schedule and combine with the glitch of "super rest" and sprinkle in some match focus. To me, it would produce the best players ability wise in accordance to Acc/Pace/JR over performance even it doesn't produce the most well rounded players. You would look at more 18/16/10 instead of 16/16/14 guys in terms of Acc/pace/dribbling.
Looks like the only way to speed up physical attribute growth is intensity. Then it's either max CA growth schedule on half intensity or the Chinese forum method that prioritize physical while trying to delay as much decay of non physical attributes.
There's probably a schedule where its double intensity: Quick+match practisex2+ 1xattack+defense + maybe something else per week. Attacking and defending training max out efficiency at 4 but it's not really focused, you can just run 1 per week to stop the attribute decay.
The biggest problem I see with the data collected on CA/PA growth is:
1. Its simply counting CA growth per season but doesn't correctly discount how much decision cost in CA which inflate a players CA without meaningfully improve a players ability (I could be wrong since I didn't see the weighting, same thing with aggression which is a negative stat)
2. A lot of the technical training/attacking/defending training yeilded 0 growth for attacking unit or defensive unit. Is it because the tester have not moved players into the unit that's being focused trained? That skew the efficiency toward the training that train outfield players as a whole.
Other than that, it is absurd to assume you will have a bunch of 200 PA players with high professionalism, even for people that play with hidden attributes visible. If it took two years with players like that, it will take double of that in a realistic setting.
Yeah I thought about it, It's probably more efficient to do the full rest or even some form of the 2x match practice double intensity practice for youth/reserve players to get them to a speed that's usable in the first team.
In the first team, you probably just do the half intensity super rest 4x4x2x2x optimal growth schedule.
This discovery is pretty big for people who play alot of lower league assuming that the non assigned training schedule are coded as unmodified rest so in the 6 training slots, you wouldn't assign any non physical training weighting? lower league - Based on experience player that's 16/16 7 Drib feels a lot better than a 15/15 11 assuming hidden attributes are the same.
I'll test it on the weekend to see if it makes a difference (all in Attacking team).
Oh Im not on FM24 so disregard that, maybe they changed it. same with match preparation stuff, they used to have light training that's just for match preparation in older version of FMs.