GabBau said: Hi. So you just alternate these three workouts? 1-2-3-1-2-3? Thanks. Expand
Something like that. I am actually using 1-2-1-2-1-2 now, but results are barely the same. Keep in mind that assumes double intensity at high condition, and focus on quickness. Also, should remove recovery sessions. The idea is "1x endurance", then "6x attacking", with full rest after matches.
Note: Check their table if you want to customize your training for some specific goal.
Mark said: I think I am getting closer to the best balance with your tests so thank you so much. Here is the next iteration:
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks Expand
Try combining different routines to get what you want. For example, 79 (Endurance x1) gives a good boost in Pace and Acceleration, with very low Decisions gain, for very little CA. If you mix both equally, results might average to values you want.
I made some quick tests alternating three different routines (79, 150 and 159) with quickness focus and double intensity, and results were pretty good. First is Rebalance (Endurance x1), then Growth (Attacking x6), then Focus (Physical + Resistance + Quickness + Transition - Restrict), alternating them so they get equal time during the season. I think I will settle for that since it allows me to max speed of initially fast players, while getting a good CA for transfers and using those players.
P.S.: Made some extra tests with just Rebalance + Growth, and results were very similar, so I will keep just those two for simplicity.
Testing some asymmetry. BCB protects the back of CHM, which supports the movements of IF by the left. In the right side, OCB and IW support the infiltration of AM.
harvestgreen22 said: Some updates . This week is my very busy working day week, I'll sort out the previous Excel file and send it out, then I'll go to sleep. and didn't have time to reply the new thing.
Thank you for testing my routine, now I have a better idea of what I will be testing based on the table. My plan is to try 79 [Endurance] for pre-season (during something between three and six months), followed by either 138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical], 159 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Transition Restrict] or 150 [Attacking]x6 in the remaining season. The goal is to use 79 to rebalance attributes, followed by another routine to achieve a focused CA growth to reach top speed with high CA.
Snsnnsjsjs said: is this the best fm tactic rn?, also does this works for every team Expand
You can find a table in the top of the page. The best tactic is probably the one in the top. Keep in mind that, due to statistical noise, any tactic with 90+ points can be the best.
vmtvmtvmt said: Trying to maximize clean sheets and being defensive solid. (any suggestions appreciated)
Did the double with league and cup. Expand
IWs usually allow you to concede less than IFs, at the cost of less scored goals. GD is often the same, so it is fair to use one defensively, and another in offense.
Play with this tactic most season, mainly half season until the end, with SLBenfica in 1st season (25/26) and won all 5 titles. Champions League final won against Arsenal 5-3.
To be fair, there is no statistical difference between most tactics at the top, even those separated by 1 or 2 points, and any of them could very well come on top with a lucky run. At least it was a good try.
harvestgreen22 said: The "arrow" indicates whether there is an increase or decrease, but the decimal part cannot be seen (so specific testing leagues need to be used for testing).
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct. Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1. The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups? This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]" In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic. For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot". for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones". If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones", Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team. Expand
Defenders take shots often after corners or other set pieces, so when they shoot, they are often in a good position to score.
harvestgreen22 said: OK, I'll take note of it. Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution I'll try when I'm free.
I think it's fine. You can do it this way.
My thought: Currently, we actually don't know for sure whether "Recovery" will truly have the effect of "reducing injuries" (I haven't conducted any tests, and it seems no one has either for FM24/26)
However, compared to "rest", "Recovery" can slow down the decline in "Match Sharpness".And more "Match Sharpness" has been shown through tests conducted by another player previously to be effective in reducing injuries. That's all right then.
Regarding "Recovery" itself, it only makes very minor adjustments to the distribution of attributes. Therefore, the aspect of attribute distribution can be disregarded.
roles trained —— Are you referring to choosing a new position to train on the player's personal page? I think if there is a need to train on a new position, then choosing it is fine.
Once it is selected, there will be a slight adjustment to the distribution of attributes (I think this is a bad thing because he will definitely waste some attributes on relatively "useless" ones), this is not good. At the same time, it can also improve the proficiency in the new position, this is useful. There are both good and bad
" - 2x Physical + Match Practice " Excel 3 , sequence 110 , It should be fine. You can take a look at the others and compare them. " - 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces " I haven't tested this yet. I'll give it a try later.
Then, I have never tried to mix different training schedules (in the tests, the same one is always used), but based on speculation, it might be the weighted average of the two.
" add set pieces because I believe (and that might be just my fantasy) that players score more from set pieces when they train that session " ————I'm not sure about this either. I haven't tried it, and it's also difficult to quantify (we haven't found the statistical item "goals scored from free kicks". I think it might be impossible to test it forever.
" I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine " ————-- If it's just "1 season", then you can find the corresponding page in my Excel file, for example, - 2x Physical + Match Practice His serial number in excel is 110. You should be able to find a "110" sub-page in "Excel 2".
Inside, at the top are the initial attributes and CA. The middle section , contains All attributes and CA of all 11 players after each test. At the bottom, the average values of these players are calculated.
These data should be sufficient, but if they are to be recorded in the form of pictures, it would be very troublesome.
Then you can see that the initial conditions of this test were deliberately set in a certain way. It was set up with a high growth rate condition to highlight the differences between the training sessions: the players were 18 years old, very young, the training facilities and coaches were excellent, Professionalism had 12 points above the average, and the difference between CA and PA was quite significant. All of this will widen the differences in the effects.
" having a player with 19 in pace and acceleration and good values in other attributes can be better than a speedster with 20 pace and acceleration and 1 in the rest "
Your idea is fine. Here's how my idea of solve :
1. Open Excel 3, look at "Number 117", "Number 171, 172, 173,... 176". These are different "Additional Focus" items. By choosing different "Additional Focus", it significantly boosts the growth of the corresponding options. This "Additional Focus" is a mandatory attribute allocator. Therefore, it is possible to selectively supplement a player's weaknesses at certain stages, or strengthen his Advantageous (other than pace/acceleration).
2. look at "Number 176" - "Number 177, 178, 179, 180" "Number 186" - "Number 191, 192, 193, 194" This thing is suitable for different ages. You will see that when players are younger, their total growth is greater. As one gets older, the number of negative items increases.
3. "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184" If there is no "Additional Focus", this portion of the allocation will be distributed to all attributes.
My idea is, 4. If you play in the high-level league and have good enough players available for training without the urgency to sell, then choose a training program that will allow all attributes to increase slightly.
For example, "No. 186", his Decision is low, Technique is low, First touch is low, and he doesn't waste too much CA. Meanwhile, attributes such as Dribbling, Finishing, Concentration, and Jumping reach are all increasing at a decent rate.
As the players' age increases, the aforementioned growth will gradually decrease as shown in the " "sequence number 176" - sequence number 177, 178, 179, 180"" of the table. And this remaining margin is sufficient to ensure that these attributes of the players do not fall below zero (decrease) or continue to rise slightly.
When the "Additional Focus" of this player has reached an adequate level, for example, if you think a pace of 18 is sufficient, then change to a different "Additional Focus". After that, the growth rate of the pace will significantly decrease but it will still continue to grow.
This way, it aligns with what you said. While the player gains considerable Advantageous, they can also make up for their weaknesses. Then, throughout the entire career of the player, the allocation of "No. 186" has sufficient room for the player to maintain their attributes without being too wasteful of them.
When you believe that a player's situation makes it appropriate not to use "Additional Focus", you can choose to remove "Additional Focus" as in "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184", and allow the distribution to be evenly distributed.
I think the effect of this method should be the same as the one you require. The drawback might be that from time to time you need to check what "Additional Focus" the players should use. Expand
Something like that. I am actually using 1-2-1-2-1-2 now, but results are barely the same. Keep in mind that assumes double intensity at high condition, and focus on quickness. Also, should remove recovery sessions. The idea is "1x endurance", then "6x attacking", with full rest after matches.
Note: Check their table if you want to customize your training for some specific goal.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Physical x 2, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and One on Ones
Once again reducing the Decisions component and increasing the Acc and Pace
If you could test this when you get a chance i would very much appreciate it
Thanks
Try combining different routines to get what you want. For example, 79 (Endurance x1) gives a good boost in Pace and Acceleration, with very low Decisions gain, for very little CA. If you mix both equally, results might average to values you want.
P.S.: Made some extra tests with just Rebalance + Growth, and results were very similar, so I will keep just those two for simplicity.
excel(part 1 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/4UUUDKgC#NuyR8RDaNap2_e44yi9SS2cjTkGgo2dpTL33obiUWQE
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcRwnxi8
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, old)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
excel(part 4, old)
https://mega.nz/file/dENF1KSK#gY0GO3Od_fALZ51UW_2dxLnAMnmlt0hkt01FVh9ZP50
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/ihxzDL9p
excel(part 5, the newest )
https://mega.nz/file/dAMBTTAD#qJSvz7gwU0o-Yo3ecffCsMEBLiOesQe_7bwiCR_DGXw
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/pcYTkHrZ
excel 5:
211 Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
212 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
243 [Quickness] + [Match Practice] + [Attacking] x2
Thank you for testing my routine, now I have a better idea of what I will be testing based on the table. My plan is to try 79 [Endurance] for pre-season (during something between three and six months), followed by either 138 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Tactical], 159 [Physical][Quickness][Resistance][Transition Restrict] or 150 [Attacking]x6 in the remaining season. The goal is to use 79 to rebalance attributes, followed by another routine to achieve a focused CA growth to reach top speed with high CA.
You can find a table in the top of the page. The best tactic is probably the one in the top. Keep in mind that, due to statistical noise, any tactic with 90+ points can be the best.
Did the double with league and cup.
IWs usually allow you to concede less than IFs, at the cost of less scored goals. GD is often the same, so it is fair to use one defensively, and another in offense.
Excelent tactic...
Play with this tactic most season, mainly half season until the end, with SLBenfica in 1st season (25/26) and won all 5 titles.
Champions League final won against Arsenal 5-3.
Congrats @ZaZ
Cheers
Gratz, and thanks for testing the tactic!
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/47235/
To be fair, there is no statistical difference between most tactics at the top, even those separated by 1 or 2 points, and any of them could very well come on top with a lucky run. At least it was a good try.
This is the average value. If you look at the tables of those sub-branch numbers further down, they are the data sources.
For example, "dribbling increased by 1.06", this is the average value of 100 non-goalkeeper players under the same testing conditions.
" Ariel defence mostly focuses on the defensive unit so it would make sense defenders would see a boost in Concentration/Positioning but attacking players wouldn't?"
You are correct.
Take "[Aerial Defence]" as an example. You can take a look at page 62 of Excel 1.
The players of the defense team did indeed receive more in "Concentration, Positioning, Technique, Marking, Heading".
And because I calculated the average value, this means that inevitably some players will actually receive attributes that are different from this value.
Why didn't I separate each position and separate the results of the two groups?
This is mainly because
1. If each tactic needs to display multiple positions//values of multiple groups, the Excel page would become very chaotic and large
2. Usually, a training schedule does not only have one separate training schedule, for example, "Sequence Number 187", "[Physical][Quickness][Chance Conversion][Attacking]"
In this case, the attack group and defense group of [Chance Conversion] are different. However, this training schedule includes not only it but also three other items, so the difference has been significantly reduced.
3. As I discovered in another post, the way attributes work in the game is not like normal logic.
For instance, according to "normal real-world logic", I would think that only forwards need "Finishing, Longshot".
for a defender, according to "normal real-world logic", there is almost no chance for him to take a shot. At the end of the season, his shot statistics are extremely low.
however:in game , The "Finishing, Longshot" of the defenders also contributed to the team's goal-scoring.
So I think we should first measure the overall training effectiveness based on an average of people, and then select out the "good ones".
If one wants to "choose the better from the better ones",
Then, within this "good group", make the distinction between the attack team and the defense team.
Defenders take shots often after corners or other set pieces, so when they shoot, they are often in a good position to score.
Handling, Shot Stopping, Attacking, Physical, Chance Conversion, Aerial Defence, Ground Defence and Distribution
I'll try when I'm free.
I think it's fine. You can do it this way.
My thought:
Currently, we actually don't know for sure whether "Recovery" will truly have the effect of "reducing injuries" (I haven't conducted any tests, and it seems no one has either for FM24/26)
However, compared to "rest", "Recovery" can slow down the decline in "Match Sharpness".And more "Match Sharpness" has been shown through tests conducted by another player previously to be effective in reducing injuries. That's all right then.
Regarding "Recovery" itself, it only makes very minor adjustments to the distribution of attributes. Therefore, the aspect of attribute distribution can be disregarded.
roles trained
—— Are you referring to choosing a new position to train on the player's personal page?
I think if there is a need to train on a new position, then choosing it is fine.
Once it is selected, there will be a slight adjustment to the distribution of attributes (I think this is a bad thing because he will definitely waste some attributes on relatively "useless" ones), this is not good.
At the same time, it can also improve the proficiency in the new position, this is useful.
There are both good and bad
"
- 2x Physical + Match Practice
"
Excel 3 , sequence 110 , It should be fine. You can take a look at the others and compare them.
"
- 2x Physical + 2x Match Practice + Attack + Defend + Set Pieces
"
I haven't tested this yet. I'll give it a try later.
Then, I have never tried to mix different training schedules (in the tests, the same one is always used),
but based on speculation, it might be the weighted average of the two.
"
add set pieces because I believe (and that might be just my fantasy) that players score more from set pieces when they train that session
"
————I'm not sure about this either. I haven't tried it, and it's also difficult to quantify
(we haven't found the statistical item "goals scored from free kicks"
I think it might be impossible to test it forever.
"
I would also like to suggest, if possible, to post pictures of the expected resulting player with each routine
"
————-- If it's just "1 season", then you can find the corresponding page in my Excel file,
for example, - 2x Physical + Match Practice
His serial number in excel is 110.
You should be able to find a "110" sub-page in "Excel 2".
excel(part 2 , old)
https://mega.nz/file/QZNVgQzK#xOTiw1heWmVtIDRDDPiUZqzbBnqYAbVi14RYX0W3CoQ
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/NzTu56KH
excel(part 3, the newest , update a lot)
https://mega.nz/file/8JlW2LKb#NZyQ-gdnlcXu3Iun8-l5I-_c7wRmikgAvjOZjEsTvCg
or
https://pixeldrain.com/u/oa8Y2Z4U
Inside, at the top are the initial attributes and CA.
The middle section , contains All attributes and CA of all 11 players after each test.
At the bottom, the average values of these players are calculated.
These data should be sufficient,
but if they are to be recorded in the form of pictures, it would be very troublesome.
Then you can see that the initial conditions of this test were deliberately set in a certain way.
It was set up with a high growth rate condition to highlight the differences between the training sessions:
the players were 18 years old, very young, the training facilities and coaches were excellent, Professionalism had 12 points above the average, and the difference between CA and PA was quite significant.
All of this will widen the differences in the effects.
And, if you mean to observe the continuous effect over "multiple seasons", this requires replacing with other test leagues.
I had done it in another earlier test:
https://fm-arena.com/thread/14015-under-preset-conditions-training-for-4-years-with-a-specified-growth-strategy-and-then-watching-the-player-s-attributes-and-ca-growth/
I haven't gotten any good ideas from this test yet
"
having a player with 19 in pace and acceleration and good values in other attributes can be better than a speedster with 20 pace and acceleration and 1 in the rest
"
Your idea is fine. Here's how my idea of solve :
1.
Open Excel 3,
look at "Number 117", "Number 171, 172, 173,... 176".
These are different "Additional Focus" items.
By choosing different "Additional Focus", it significantly boosts the growth of the corresponding options.
This "Additional Focus" is a mandatory attribute allocator.
Therefore, it is possible to selectively supplement a player's weaknesses at certain stages, or strengthen his Advantageous (other than pace/acceleration).
2.
look at "Number 176" - "Number 177, 178, 179, 180"
"Number 186" - "Number 191, 192, 193, 194"
This thing is suitable for different ages.
You will see that when players are younger, their total growth is greater.
As one gets older, the number of negative items increases.
3.
"Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184"
If there is no "Additional Focus", this portion of the allocation will be distributed to all attributes.
My idea is,
4.
If you play in the high-level league and have good enough players available for training without the urgency to sell,
then choose a training program that will allow all attributes to increase slightly.
For example, "No. 186",
his Decision is low, Technique is low, First touch is low, and he doesn't waste too much CA.
Meanwhile, attributes such as Dribbling, Finishing, Concentration, and Jumping reach are all increasing at a decent rate.
As the players' age increases, the aforementioned growth will gradually decrease as shown in the " "sequence number 176" - sequence number 177, 178, 179, 180"" of the table.
And this remaining margin is sufficient to ensure that these attributes of the players do not fall below zero (decrease) or continue to rise slightly.
When the "Additional Focus" of this player has reached an adequate level, for example, if you think a pace of 18 is sufficient, then change to a different "Additional Focus". After that, the growth rate of the pace will significantly decrease but it will still continue to grow.
This way, it aligns with what you said. While the player gains considerable Advantageous, they can also make up for their weaknesses.
Then, throughout the entire career of the player, the allocation of "No. 186" has sufficient room for the player to maintain their attributes without being too wasteful of them.
When you believe that a player's situation makes it appropriate not to use "Additional Focus", you can choose to remove "Additional Focus" as in "Number 176" - "Number 181, 182, 183, 184", and allow the distribution to be evenly distributed.
I think the effect of this method should be the same as the one you require. The drawback might be that from time to time you need to check what "Additional Focus" the players should use.
Thank you!