The training schedule I use is [Quickness]+[Match Practice]x2+[Overall]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity], which is in the L5 group in the table.
In 28 sets of data of 28 man The 28 attacking midfielders (left/right) in Group A selected "Invert Winger (support)" in Position/Role/Duty The 28 attacking midfielders (left/right) in Group B selected "Wide Target Forward (support)" in Position/Role/Duty
"Invert Winger (support)" and "Wide Target Forward (support)" have the same and different highlighting properties. In my tests, I focused on their "unique" highlighting properties. For example, only "Invert Winger (support)" has "Passing" highlighted, while only "Wide Target Forward (support)" has "Heading" highlighted
result All "Invert Winger (support)" unique attributes, compare to "Wide Target Forward (support)" , Just (on average) 3% more on "unique" highlighting All "Wide Target Forward (support)" unique attributes, compare to "Invert Winger (support)" , Just (on average) 3% more on "unique" highlighting
In other words: Under this test condition, the use of Position/Role/Duty resulted in a 6% difference in attribute assignment
Since my test conditions used [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity], this has probably taken away some of the assigned weight, so I guess the original difference is probably > 6%
So: if you need a striker to have more pace and dribbling, don't pick a "Poacher" but a "Advanced forward". Image: Unable to upload due to unknow problem with my VPN
* Recently I have been very busy with my daily affairs. I didn't have time to read any replies or private messages. If you would like to have more test results under "different preconditions", you can try it yourself, if there are any new results please share
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.
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.
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.
The training schedule I use is [Quickness]+[Match Practice]x2+[Overall]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity],
which is in the L5 group in the table.
In 28 sets of data of 28 man
The 28 attacking midfielders (left/right) in Group A selected "Invert Winger (support)" in Position/Role/Duty
The 28 attacking midfielders (left/right) in Group B selected "Wide Target Forward (support)" in Position/Role/Duty
"Invert Winger (support)" and "Wide Target Forward (support)" have the same and different highlighting properties.
In my tests, I focused on their "unique" highlighting properties.
For example, only "Invert Winger (support)" has "Passing" highlighted,
while only "Wide Target Forward (support)" has "Heading" highlighted
result
All "Invert Winger (support)" unique attributes, compare to "Wide Target Forward (support)" ,
Just (on average) 3% more on "unique" highlighting
All "Wide Target Forward (support)" unique attributes, compare to "Invert Winger (support)" ,
Just (on average) 3% more on "unique" highlighting
In other words:
Under this test condition, the use of Position/Role/Duty resulted in a 6% difference in attribute assignment
Since my test conditions used [Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity], this has probably taken away some of the assigned weight, so I guess the original difference is probably > 6%
So:
if you need a striker to have more pace and dribbling, don't pick a "Poacher" but a "Advanced forward".
Image: Unable to upload due to unknow problem with my VPN
* Recently I have been very busy with my daily affairs. I didn't have time to read any replies or private messages.
If you would like to have more test results under "different preconditions", you can try it yourself, if there are any new results please share
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.
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.
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.
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.