Just doing a path relinking between Autumn and Barbie. At this point, I start to think some instructions have just the same performance, and difference in results are just caused by statistical noise.
Just doing a path relinking between Autumn and Barbie. At this point, I start to think some instructions have just the same performance, and difference in results are just caused by statistical noise.
juliius said: When the first season came in with 16 i really wanted it to continue, because it's teh kind of thing i would want training to actually impact Expand
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
juliius said: So i ran 3 season with each of the training schedules below. The one with set pieces had 16, 11 and 9 corner goals in the prem for the season, the one without had 11, 11, 13. Obviously not a big enough sample size to say anything specifically, however nothing that eye catching either.
Expand
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
juliius said: Think i will run a couple holiday seasons, know it's not conclusive, but want to see if any massive differences comes from it. Is one of the things i hope makes an impact, because it would just make sense. Expand
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is: - Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces) - Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness) - Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA) - Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
max 737 said: Just want to confirm that we train the players only in their playing roles and not IP or OOP also what do you train the GK's for? Expand
There are people more qualified than me to talk about training in this forum, but personally I am training players in the same role and position they play (IP and OOP), because I don't think it has any effect in the growth of my training schedules.
I didn't do much testing on that, but it really seems to have a correlation between training set pieces and scoring from set pieces. In my most recent games, I was not scoring from set pieces at all in the first season, then I added 1x Set Pieces every month (training #78), and suddenly my players started scoring like crazy (using my set piece routine). Therefore, I will have to include it in my rotation, maybe in place of #79, or as an extra session.
Inspired by https://fm-arena.com/thread/17034-ice-cold-v1/, this tactic aims to counter Autumn, Argus, and other tactics with similar formation. I have not yet investigated how they clash against each other, but my theory is that this tactic can exploit the single BCB from Autumn in counter attacks, while providing a more solid backline to defend against the opponent's counter attacks.
Piratellava said: If someone uses this tactic (or a similar one) in an online save, is there actually a way of countering it or atleast have a slight edge? Or is mirroring the only chance you have? Expand
This is a very balanced tactic. Three defenders make it hard to infiltrate through the middle and to complete crosses. In defense, it parks the bus with a line of five. The attacking patterns happen equally through the middle and flanks, so it is hard to find the best way to play against it.
That being said, the weak point of this tactic is the fact that OCBs move high up in the field, leaving just a single defender (BCB) to cover against counter attacks. So, the natural counter will be a similar gegenpress, not necessarily a mirror.
The fact that it uses two BCBs (which stay back during attack) mean the tactic has better protection against counter attacks, and the DM contributes to that even further. The wingbacks also advance less than AWBs in Autumn, keeping a solid backline that will be hard to exploit. Other than that, the tactic works just like Autumn (or other similar tactics), so it will put pressure on that single BCB to score on counter attacks.
P.S.: If you try it against other people, then please let me know how it performed. Also, I will try to work on that concept to make a counter to Autumn, and test how they fare against each other.
@harvestgreen22, is it possible to verify if training roles (like IP/OOP training) always affect training weights, or if it only affects in sessions with attribute "individual roles" (eg. Match Practice)? I ask that because I like to train my flank players to play in the opposite side of the field, for flexibility, but I am scared that might hurt the balance of attribute gain.
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this: Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ...... "358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling: It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects. Expand
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
SonikoZe said: hey wich focus are you using ? allways quickness ? Expand
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.
Around 15-20.
P.S.: I usually play with underdogs. Can probably score much more with top teams.
There is some "set piece familiarity" thing that only increases with set pieces training. I don't know how much influence it has, though.
Reflexes or Agility, whichever is lower.
Thank you for testing. I suppose I might be biased for getting that 16 in my runs.
I made some slight change to cover some physical attributes. What I am doing right now is:
- Week 1: 1x Set Piece Delivery (because I believe it improves the performance from set pieces)
- Week 2: 1x Resistance (to grow Jumping Reach, Agility, Stamina and Natural Fitness)
- Week 3 and 4: 6x Attack (to grow CA)
- Repeat from Week 1.
That means Week 1 and 2 are to focus growth on Pace and Acceleration, and Week 3 and 4 are to grow CA.
There are people more qualified than me to talk about training in this forum, but personally I am training players in the same role and position they play (IP and OOP), because I don't think it has any effect in the growth of my training schedules.
Thanks!
treiblebe said: Might not be the post for it, but why Endurance training instead of quickness?
Based on results found by other people.
https://fm-arena.com/thread/13508-training-is-fake-it-just-assigns-attributes-not-grows-attributes-results-based-on-a-large-number-of-tests/
This is a very balanced tactic. Three defenders make it hard to infiltrate through the middle and to complete crosses. In defense, it parks the bus with a line of five. The attacking patterns happen equally through the middle and flanks, so it is hard to find the best way to play against it.
That being said, the weak point of this tactic is the fact that OCBs move high up in the field, leaving just a single defender (BCB) to cover against counter attacks. So, the natural counter will be a similar gegenpress, not necessarily a mirror.
I might be completely wrong, but I believe this tactic might do well against Autumn: https://fm-arena.com/thread/17034-ice-cold-v1/
The fact that it uses two BCBs (which stay back during attack) mean the tactic has better protection against counter attacks, and the DM contributes to that even further. The wingbacks also advance less than AWBs in Autumn, keeping a solid backline that will be hard to exploit. Other than that, the tactic works just like Autumn (or other similar tactics), so it will put pressure on that single BCB to score on counter attacks.
P.S.: If you try it against other people, then please let me know how it performed. Also, I will try to work on that concept to make a counter to Autumn, and test how they fare against each other.
rotate with [Endurance] And [Attacking]x6.xlsx
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1QV8Ph2a
or
https://mega.nz/file/YZMSDQzB#VU2H8rBQkSLo04xNRmdN4oZnE5WyH1GJhbnLMoZoLcM
The effect is indeed a mixture of the two , like :
Endurance , Marking +0.17
Attacking x6 , Marking +2.45
rotate with Endurance and Attacking x6 , Marking +1.2 ( ≈{(2.45+0.17)/2} , )
Then, if it is a combination of 3 trainings, it is presumed to be a mixture of the individual effects of the 3 trainings.
I haven't tested it in this environment yet. I'll give it a try next week. I think there shouldn't be a significant difference. It should just add a little more physical attributes and reduce some technical attributes.
No problem.
I don't have any good ideas at the moment. For now, I'm measuring the scores like this:
Using attributes with a win rate difference ranging from 6 to 18
For example, if the passing rate is 2.3%, then let the passing growth of this training schedule x 2.3 , and add it to the total score.
"358" total score = 2.3 x 0.68(Passing) + 0.1 x 0.6(Crossing) + 1.7 x 1.2(Marking) + ......
"358" Quality = "358" total score / "358" CA growth
Dribbling:
It is one of the most important attributes. Moreover, since it becomes more difficult to increase or decrease when the winning rate is too high or too low, it is actually more significant. Therefore, I added an additional reward coefficient to it. The original measurement was 17.4%. Finally, 17.4% x 1.25 = 21.8%
Acceleration ，Jumping reach , Pace , on the same treatment, x1.25
Some attributes, such as "Natural Fitness", I haven't assigned any scores to, because I don't know how to measure its indirect effects.
Thank you for testing. My goal is to get a schedule like 150, which improves good attributes, and offset the CA gain with some more efficient routine. I used 79, but it could also work well with 45, 77, 82, 85, 86, or 282. I picked 79 because of Natural Fitness and Stamina, but it could have been any other of those. I will test other variations like 150 + 79 + 85, to see if it tilts even more to what I want.
Its possible to give a example with wed-sat calendar?
As long as you use each for half the season, it is fine. You can use one month each, or alternate every week. You can see an example below.
Always quickness, but GK goes for Agility or Reflexes, depending on their stats. Keep in mind the author of this thread has much more authority to talk about training than me, so I advise to take their word instead of mine for anything related to training.