Has anyone tested what is the ideal setup for mentoring a player? It is necessary to have a mentor that has high reputation/hierarchy to affect younger players? Or just having high ambition/professionalism is enough?
If you pick players into a mentoring group, the game provides you with a classification of whether the players will be influencing others or be influenced, which in both cases can be significant, average, low, or none. Generally, players with higher influence in your team hierarchy (which tend to be older players) have higher influence as mentors and younger players tend to be more influenceable.
EBFM has a video testing mentoring where he finds that in mentoring groups with 1 mentor and 10 mentees, mentoring has almost no effect. He interprets this to mean that large mentoring groups don’t work. I don’t think this is fully accurate. I generally use just one large mentoring group in my first team, and the mental attributes of mentees progress. But my big mentoring group includes several older mentors and several younger mentees, close to a one to one ratio.
I initially assumed that the game calculated an average of the mental attributes across the players with influence and move the mentees mental attributes smoothly in that direction… but that does not seem to be how it works, as i recently had a player in a mentoring group lose determination due to mentoring although all high influence playera in the group had higher determination than him. My new theory is that, every so often, the game randomly picks one of the players in the mentoring group to influence another player, where players with higher influence have higher odds of being picked (but even players with low influence can sometimes influence another player despite there being more influent players in the group).
In picking who to include as a player that influences others, i mostly focus on determination and professionalism (which can be gathered from some personality types). If i have a young player already with a good personality, i do not put him in the mentoring group as he could have more to lose than to gain from mentoring.
Hope my observations help you think about a mentoring strategy.
mmigueis said: If you pick players into a mentoring group, the game provides you with a classification of whether the players will be influencing others or be influenced, which in both cases can be significant, average, low, or none. Generally, players with higher influence in your team hierarchy (which tend to be older players) have higher influence as mentors and younger players tend to be more influenceable.
EBFM has a video testing mentoring where he finds that in mentoring groups with 1 mentor and 10 mentees, mentoring has almost no effect. He interprets this to mean that large mentoring groups don’t work. I don’t think this is fully accurate. I generally use just one large mentoring group in my first team, and the mental attributes of mentees progress. But my big mentoring group includes several older mentors and several younger mentees, close to a one to one ratio.
I initially assumed that the game calculated an average of the mental attributes across the players with influence and move the mentees mental attributes smoothly in that direction… but that does not seem to be how it works, as i recently had a player in a mentoring group lose determination due to mentoring although all high influence playera in the group had higher determination than him. My new theory is that, every so often, the game randomly picks one of the players in the mentoring group to influence another player, where players with higher influence have higher odds of being picked (but even players with low influence can sometimes influence another player despite there being more influent players in the group).
In picking who to include as a player that influences others, i mostly focus on determination and professionalism (which can be gathered from some personality types). If i have a young player already with a good personality, i do not put him in the mentoring group as he could have more to lose than to gain from mentoring.
Hope my observations help you think about a mentoring strategy. Expand
Thank you for your feedback, I actually have hard time increasing the influence of older players because I don't play them, any tips on how to improve the influence of older player without playing him in matches? Does reputation play a role in this? or just playing time matters to climb up in hierarchy?
1. All my young talents are in the senior team, set to be available for 90 minutes with B team or U18 team so they catch some playing time there. But they train with the seniors. U18s need much less playing time, so U18s only play their silly little U18 league. B team is set to arrange a friendly every week for ample playing time. I try to give them chances in the first squad too, if I can. If there's a big game that I can afford to lose, like in the new champions league table, why not let the kids play it, they sure can use the time against Bayern? They all have set broad roles to train for (box to box midfielder, libero defend, inside forward, complete forward, wing back support, ball playing defender defend and such) and also a focus on the physical stats they need/lack the most (mostly Quickness these days, or Strength/Jumping, I don't make the meta, don't blame me). I generally don't loan them out until their personality is satisfactory (usually Resolute).
2. After loans/transfers are done for the season, I create one massive mentoring group and add essentially my entire squad to it.
3. Then I start cutting people, remove them from the big group according to those principles: - Young players who have light/none set as impact from mentoring. Won't learn. - Old players who have light/none impact on their mentees. Won't teach. - Young players who are already Resolute or Model Citizen. No need to mentor them further. - Old players with bad mentoring personalities (which is everything that isn't "model", "resolute", "driven", "perfectionist" or at least mentions the word "professional", depending on how advanced I am, in 20-30 seasons nearly everybody is at least Resolute). - Depending on the amount of mentors, you can keep mentoring guys with "medium/good" personalities like Driven, Perfectionist, Model Professional, or let them be. If you have 9 Model Citizens at work, you can mentor these some more. If you don't have that many mentors yet, let them be.
4. When I'm done cutting bad teachers and bad students, there's a big group left with people who are good teachers and people who are good students.
5. I then delete the teachers from the big group and set up a separate group for each of them.
6. Then I delete good students from the big group and put them with the teachers, those with worse personalities assigned to best teachers preferably (for example a Fickle 190 pot 15-year old as a priority gets assigned to "Team Leader Model Citizen Significant impact on the group" to straighten him out). No more than 2-3 guys per teacher, depending on the amount of teachers.
7. I also actively try to purge my team by selling off players who have bad personalities. It has impact on the students and you get messages that team spirit or whatever lowered their professionalism if you're not addressing this. Which is often ignored in those mass-data tests. No Martials, no Pogbas, no Sanchos, no Lingards. Low determination, low professionalism -> enjoy your time at Chelsea dude.
8. At the same time, I am on the lookout for older players with great personalities. I intentionally keep players who are Model/Resolute and I look to add more to the squad if it's possible. If you can bring Eriksen in at the start of the game, he can mould dozens of kids in his image before he retires.
So yes, mentoring's impact isn't as crazy as it used to be and you will fail to make a difference for a lot of kids. But it does help a little to adjust their professionalism and especially determination and that's worth those five minutes each season to set up the groups, because you'll definitely get a better end product than someone who ignored the feature completely.
Ultimately the major thing that matters from a developmental point of view is professionalism. Everything else is of secondary importance.
1. We know that the ideal numerical setup is one mentor to two mentees. 2. We know (roughly) the factors that make someone have more or less influence in the group. 3. We know which personalities have professionalism thresholds.
As such, this is a game of pairing up comparatively high professionalism established (playtime and age wise) players, with comparatively lower professionalism young players.
Because of the random nature of what goes up and down and the many attributes that can go up or down (or favoured moves gained or lost), depending on the differences between the mentor and the two mentees, mentoring shouldn't really be used for anything else, on the risks of backfiring and making the youngsters worse.
Has anyone tested what is the ideal setup for mentoring a player?
It is necessary to have a mentor that has high reputation/hierarchy to affect younger players?
Or just having high ambition/professionalism is enough?
If you pick players into a mentoring group, the game provides you with a classification of whether the players will be influencing others or be influenced, which in both cases can be significant, average, low, or none. Generally, players with higher influence in your team hierarchy (which tend to be older players) have higher influence as mentors and younger players tend to be more influenceable.
EBFM has a video testing mentoring where he finds that in mentoring groups with 1 mentor and 10 mentees, mentoring has almost no effect. He interprets this to mean that large mentoring groups don’t work. I don’t think this is fully accurate. I generally use just one large mentoring group in my first team, and the mental attributes of mentees progress. But my big mentoring group includes several older mentors and several younger mentees, close to a one to one ratio.
I initially assumed that the game calculated an average of the mental attributes across the players with influence and move the mentees mental attributes smoothly in that direction… but that does not seem to be how it works, as i recently had a player in a mentoring group lose determination due to mentoring although all high influence playera in the group had higher determination than him. My new theory is that, every so often, the game randomly picks one of the players in the mentoring group to influence another player, where players with higher influence have higher odds of being picked (but even players with low influence can sometimes influence another player despite there being more influent players in the group).
In picking who to include as a player that influences others, i mostly focus on determination and professionalism (which can be gathered from some personality types). If i have a young player already with a good personality, i do not put him in the mentoring group as he could have more to lose than to gain from mentoring.
Hope my observations help you think about a mentoring strategy.
mmigueis said: If you pick players into a mentoring group, the game provides you with a classification of whether the players will be influencing others or be influenced, which in both cases can be significant, average, low, or none. Generally, players with higher influence in your team hierarchy (which tend to be older players) have higher influence as mentors and younger players tend to be more influenceable.
EBFM has a video testing mentoring where he finds that in mentoring groups with 1 mentor and 10 mentees, mentoring has almost no effect. He interprets this to mean that large mentoring groups don’t work. I don’t think this is fully accurate. I generally use just one large mentoring group in my first team, and the mental attributes of mentees progress. But my big mentoring group includes several older mentors and several younger mentees, close to a one to one ratio.
I initially assumed that the game calculated an average of the mental attributes across the players with influence and move the mentees mental attributes smoothly in that direction… but that does not seem to be how it works, as i recently had a player in a mentoring group lose determination due to mentoring although all high influence playera in the group had higher determination than him. My new theory is that, every so often, the game randomly picks one of the players in the mentoring group to influence another player, where players with higher influence have higher odds of being picked (but even players with low influence can sometimes influence another player despite there being more influent players in the group).
In picking who to include as a player that influences others, i mostly focus on determination and professionalism (which can be gathered from some personality types). If i have a young player already with a good personality, i do not put him in the mentoring group as he could have more to lose than to gain from mentoring.
Hope my observations help you think about a mentoring strategy.
Thank you for your feedback, I actually have hard time increasing the influence of older players because I don't play them, any tips on how to improve the influence of older player without playing him in matches? Does reputation play a role in this? or just playing time matters to climb up in hierarchy?
The way I do it:
1. All my young talents are in the senior team, set to be available for 90 minutes with B team or U18 team so they catch some playing time there. But they train with the seniors. U18s need much less playing time, so U18s only play their silly little U18 league. B team is set to arrange a friendly every week for ample playing time. I try to give them chances in the first squad too, if I can. If there's a big game that I can afford to lose, like in the new champions league table, why not let the kids play it, they sure can use the time against Bayern?
They all have set broad roles to train for (box to box midfielder, libero defend, inside forward, complete forward, wing back support, ball playing defender defend and such) and also a focus on the physical stats they need/lack the most (mostly Quickness these days, or Strength/Jumping, I don't make the meta, don't blame me). I generally don't loan them out until their personality is satisfactory (usually Resolute).
2. After loans/transfers are done for the season, I create one massive mentoring group and add essentially my entire squad to it.
3. Then I start cutting people, remove them from the big group according to those principles:
- Young players who have light/none set as impact from mentoring. Won't learn.
- Old players who have light/none impact on their mentees. Won't teach.
- Young players who are already Resolute or Model Citizen. No need to mentor them further.
- Old players with bad mentoring personalities (which is everything that isn't "model", "resolute", "driven", "perfectionist" or at least mentions the word "professional", depending on how advanced I am, in 20-30 seasons nearly everybody is at least Resolute).
- Depending on the amount of mentors, you can keep mentoring guys with "medium/good" personalities like Driven, Perfectionist, Model Professional, or let them be. If you have 9 Model Citizens at work, you can mentor these some more. If you don't have that many mentors yet, let them be.
4. When I'm done cutting bad teachers and bad students, there's a big group left with people who are good teachers and people who are good students.
5. I then delete the teachers from the big group and set up a separate group for each of them.
6. Then I delete good students from the big group and put them with the teachers, those with worse personalities assigned to best teachers preferably (for example a Fickle 190 pot 15-year old as a priority gets assigned to "Team Leader Model Citizen Significant impact on the group" to straighten him out). No more than 2-3 guys per teacher, depending on the amount of teachers.
7. I also actively try to purge my team by selling off players who have bad personalities. It has impact on the students and you get messages that team spirit or whatever lowered their professionalism if you're not addressing this. Which is often ignored in those mass-data tests. No Martials, no Pogbas, no Sanchos, no Lingards. Low determination, low professionalism -> enjoy your time at Chelsea dude.
8. At the same time, I am on the lookout for older players with great personalities. I intentionally keep players who are Model/Resolute and I look to add more to the squad if it's possible. If you can bring Eriksen in at the start of the game, he can mould dozens of kids in his image before he retires.
So yes, mentoring's impact isn't as crazy as it used to be and you will fail to make a difference for a lot of kids. But it does help a little to adjust their professionalism and especially determination and that's worth those five minutes each season to set up the groups, because you'll definitely get a better end product than someone who ignored the feature completely.
Ultimately the major thing that matters from a developmental point of view is professionalism. Everything else is of secondary importance.
1. We know that the ideal numerical setup is one mentor to two mentees.
2. We know (roughly) the factors that make someone have more or less influence in the group.
3. We know which personalities have professionalism thresholds.
As such, this is a game of pairing up comparatively high professionalism established (playtime and age wise) players, with comparatively lower professionalism young players.
Because of the random nature of what goes up and down and the many attributes that can go up or down (or favoured moves gained or lost), depending on the differences between the mentor and the two mentees, mentoring shouldn't really be used for anything else, on the risks of backfiring and making the youngsters worse.