Hi, first of all, thank you for all the testing you've done and the quality of it. I followed all the steps to create my own workout. I also added Quickness to the additional focus for everyone. However, I have a question: somes players have a negative opinion about their individual training. Most of them say that: "The individual training they were asked to follow won't produce any more results." So should I change the additional focus ((which is Quickenss for all) or leave it as is?
Thank you again for the work you've done. And thank you in advance for your response.
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in main team
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity] in U18 team Expand
Can I get a correction? Per the table, you were able to create more Pace+Acceleration growth with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7 than the super rest training schedule? O_o
I thought that it grew the fastest when you're doing nothing at all per the original discovery? Or is this on younger folks only? Meaning that if you did super rest for younger folks, you'll get more Pace+Acceleration as well? Please advise.
Edit: How well-rounded are the players running the best schedule? [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7? Like how defensively responsible are the defenders?
Also. Per EBFM's findings, [Endurance] additional focus increased more Pace than [Quickness] additional focus for 15 years old pure strikers and pure attacking midfield wingers.
In his findings for [Quickness], Acceleration and Pace went up for pure strikers by 0 and 0.2, respectively. And -0.1 and 0.4 for [Endurance]. As opposed to the average per position control group. Conversely, when his control and test groups were aged to 24, [Quickness] additional training had more effect to increase Pace and Acceleration as opposed to [Endurance] additional training.
EBFM's testing was exactly what the FM community needed, but he was just a one-man army catering to the masses.
What I wonder is if his tests stand mostly true for FM24, would each additional focus also have different effects per position and age? And if it does have different effects on each person by their position and age, what if they have different positions?!?
He also found that [Strength] additional focus is pretty much useless as of FM23. Which might stand true for FM24 as well. So, don't use it... ever... again...
And he also found that the [Match Review] training session has a net positive effect on Pace. Which I don't understand why... but I guess if you reviewed something and found yourself to be moving too slowly, you might want to be quicker and then, by the grace of God, you end up quicker because of it. LOL!
Great work here and backs up what I've felt for sometime that the game is flawed more than we knew. Has anyone experimented with this at the lowest level of English Football, Conference N/S or below?
I am currently in the Conference North and plan to sign 18 and unders, with 10-15 professionalism, facilities are basic, 4 star quickness coaching rest is 1 star. CA will most likely be 40-60 when they join and hoping for PA of 120-150 kids.
I assume the best option to develop is the rest/recovery + Quickness [double intensity] method due to the potentially slower growth and smaller room to grow? I intend on scheduling a Friendly every week we have just one league game so I can rotate two elevens and give everyone a game a week. Obviously we're part time so only get 4-6 training slots.
Thought process was a 17 year old with 8-10 PAC/ACC and 130 PA may reach 17+ PAC/ACC by the Championship aged 21-22 at which point my training may change for the talent I can attract to more rounded anyway and the U18's would become my PAC/ACC farm for younger talent. What has everyones experience been with less than ideal players like this, any screenshots?
When he has 8 PAC/ACC at 17 he is to slow for anything except selling, 17 is too late for starting, cause best progress is at 15-17 and I doubt in such a big progress after 17, especially with such poor facilities. By the way in that league You wont attract many youngsters with 120+ PA unless hard cheating with GenieScout
Well I have three 17 year olds who have grown by 2 on both PAC/ACC (started at 10) from age 17 not quite turned 18 yet, so I don't see why they can't reach 17+ when you consider various reports of others doing that with 100PA players with less than great facilities. I am aware of the prime ages for physical growth but they still continue to grow a fair bit until 21 and even then until 24 at a lesser rate.
(Genuine question) Have you read this whole thread or basing your opinion on what you perceive from your own experiences? I was hoping for answers with actual first hand experience of using these schedules for this type of purpose not what people assume, this thread has shown that what people have assumed for many years is bull. Its been stated opposition doesn't really matter nor the majority of your coaches so the only limiting factor I can see are the facilities but we don't yet have an accurate gauge on how that impacts the growth. Prior to age of 24 and especially 21 most of these external factors (opposition/coaches) make very little difference.
darrensmith360 said: Great work here and backs up what I've felt for sometime that the game is flawed more than we knew. Has anyone experimented with this at the lowest level of English Football, Conference N/S or below? Expand
Ew nice...would you mind confirming what level they started at for you league wise and if you had decent facilities etc? So you used the all round schedule as opposed to purely rest too?
darrensmith360 said: Ew nice...would you mind confirming what level they started at for you league wise and if you had decent facilities etc? So you used the all round schedule as opposed to purely rest too? Expand
I holidayed season 1 and then picked one of the teams promoted to VNN/S. I had my board update the facilities as often as possible, but that process took us all the way to PL, it was slow.
I used V7 schedule as pure rest ruins other attributes too much.
I read through the spreadsheet and found that resistance training, by itself, did more for the overall physical attributes than quickness. But that’s only true for spread 7. I’ve yet to review 10, but I’m assuming that it stands, mostly, true?
And I wonder… if it stands true, does it make the most sense to use resistance training as opposed to quickness training? I also noticed that Match Review doesn’t have any noticeable negative effects, so it’s worth noting that adding it into your schedule to up cohesion in the beginning of a season to help give your team a slight edge going into each match due to team cohesion. Match Tactics gives too much growth to Decisions, so I have to say it’s probably only good to open each half season (July and January) as you bring in new players. But only to help them catch up to your tactics.
I also see that Penalties and Set Routines shows a net negative. I recommend that more testing be done to a squad where you help manage set pieces more… ala adding more takers and more outfielders to head in the corners and what not. I suspect the net negative effect comes from the lack of takers being named. But from the onset of the default data as provided by the original poster, it suggests that set piece attributes are best raised by “Wonderkids” when they’re still considered “Wonderkids”. Which means your best bet is to specialize set piece takers young and only use them for the parts you need from him.
lasko911 said: I holidayed season 1 and then picked one of the teams promoted to VNN/S. I had my board update the facilities as often as possible, but that process took us all the way to PL, it was slow.
I used V7 schedule as pure rest ruins other attributes too much. Expand
Thank you for that. You got any other success stories still been used from the lower leagues (League 1 and 2 maybe?) Would be interested to see how they've grown.
I think its two fold, theres the possibilities for lower leagues making decent players with 13/13 ACC/PAC 16/16 or above quite quickly and also when hitting the top flight I get frustrated when finding a high PA, good personality player with great jumping, strength and every other stat but lacking in speed so now that can be easily fixed, previously I would just discard them as speed has always been the priority for me.
darrensmith360 said: (Genuine question) Have you read this whole thread Expand (Genuine answear) I did. And also noticed, what You didn't, that author wrote: he signs weak (because lack of other possibilities) but already quick youngsters to boost them to 18-20, as from slow it would take too much time or never. You mixed two orders: one by speed and the other by PA. I played some seasons in lower spanish leagues using rest-scheme for U-19 with really very poor trainers and weak facilities and from my observation if a player is naturally slow he rather won't progress very much, You won't get a hit from a shit, even with good deter+prof+ambit - and all my youngsters were at start 15 not 17. On the other site if he is just over average he will by at 21 good/very good (as for speed). If he is quick he will be 18-20. But as lasko said it ruins other attr. - they can be rebuild easier than lack of quickness at 22, but not so easy. So when pace= 14-15 or at the age of 18 player should be moved to other training group.
BTW I have not-even-18-year old left defense with pace/acc 18 (progress ~5), quite decent stamina, drib, conc and good workload and his CA is about 90 and PA <110 - it's the question of the appropriate balance (only jumping is hard to find for cheap prices). What's interesting his attributes weren't ruined so much in rest training (question of luck, I think)
I observed in the spreadsheets that set pieces decline -1.00 even when you have CA growth up to 15 with the blue 'general' training sessions. By contrast there is 0 decline when you use many of the other session types.
So I came up with some theories.
The first was that perhaps instead of set pieces & technicals in general being squeezed out by low CA, it was instead the 'general' sessions being usually 80-100% priority while the other sessions are 20-60% priority - perhaps the the remaining 40-80% was directed to a hidden pool of attribute growth, just like how 'rest' increases physicals by default. This hidden attribute growth would be significantly more overall growth, which makes sense, as in games focusing on specific attributes often carries an efficiency cost as a game balance.
Perhaps 'priority' can be stacked up to 100%, but anything more simply changes the proportions of that 100%, and each extra session is an extra session of hidden attribute growth. So for instance, 'attacking' (80%) + 'overall' (100%) = 2 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth, whereas 'goalkeeping' (20%) + 'penalties' (20%) + 'outfield' (60%) = 3 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth. This would make sense from what we know SI does, where they use misdirection to keep the true mechanics unknown - in this case, the best training regime would be what appears the least likely and simplistic.
But I did some rough tests, and can rule all of the above out. HarvestGreen22's Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus produced significantly better results with less injuries.
I thought I'd share some screenshots, as this shows what you can expect in reality as opposed to a perfect environment averaged 1000 times - one season, England Div 3, 3-4 star coaches, a generous amount of good but not amazing youngsters actually training at the club, just let the chips fall where they may in terms match experience, injuries and so forth (but I'm still selecting amongst the 'survivors' to show here).
Walters_quickattack = Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus. 40 injuries. Walters_mixed = My dense but optimized regime based on theories above. 80 injuries. Walters_extreme = Complete overload on physicals training + 2 x match practice & 'overall' to boost technicals/mentals. 207 injuries.
So in typical play is the HarvestGreen22 training significantly better? Yes, it gives 1-2 extra Pace/Acc in 1 season, halves the injury rate, and might even have an edge in mentals over a more 'balanced' regime
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I observed in the spreadsheets that set pieces decline -1.00 even when you have CA growth up to 15 with the blue 'general' training sessions. By contrast there is 0 decline when you use many of the other session types.
So I came up with some theories.
The first was that perhaps instead of set pieces & technicals in general being squeezed out by low CA, it was instead the 'general' sessions being usually 80-100% priority while the other sessions are 20-60% priority - perhaps the the remaining 40-80% was directed to a hidden pool of attribute growth, just like how 'rest' increases physicals by default. This hidden attribute growth would be significantly more overall growth, which makes sense, as in games focusing on specific attributes often carries an efficiency cost as a game balance.
Perhaps 'priority' can be stacked up to 100%, but anything more simply changes the proportions of that 100%, and each extra session is an extra session of hidden attribute growth. So for instance, 'attacking' (80%) + 'overall' (100%) = 2 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth, whereas 'goalkeeping' (20%) + 'penalties' (20%) + 'outfield' (60%) = 3 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth. This would make sense from what we know SI does, where they use misdirection to keep the true mechanics unknown - in this case, the best training regime would be what appears the least likely and simplistic.
But I did some rough tests, and can rule all of the above out. HarvestGreen22's Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus produced significantly better results with less injuries.
I thought I'd share some screenshots, as this shows what you can expect in reality as opposed to a perfect environment averaged 1000 times - one season, England Div 3, 3-4 star coaches, a generous amount of good but not amazing youngsters actually training at the club, just let the chips fall where they may in terms match experience, injuries and so forth (but I'm still selecting amongst the 'survivors' to show here).
Walters_quickattack = Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus. 40 injuries. Walters_mixed = My dense but optimized regime based on theories above. 80 injuries. Walters_extreme = Complete overload on physicals training + 2 x match practice & 'overall' to boost technicals/mentals. 207 injuries.
So in typical play is the HarvestGreen22 training significantly better? Yes, it gives 1-2 extra Pace/Acc in 1 season, halves the injury rate, and might even have an edge in mentals over a more 'balanced' regime Expand
What was the difference in his different Long Throws? Was that just a random attribute gain from load-up because Brian Walters' Long Throws has a "0" in the pre-editor? I am very interested in finding out how to best grow these set piece attributes on my own, reliably. You make a very good point. SI likes to tease us on how their system works, but it isn't a direct translation of how it actually works. If you do further testing for set pieces, please do help fill the rest of us in.
I started a new R. Madrid run. Currently in season 2. I'm going to implement Resistance this season instead of Quickness. And I'm going to add a bunch of takers into my set pieces and penalty... as much as possible to see if it affects my attribute growths for set piece and penalty "takers".
I can also confirm that, Quickness+Attack+Match Practice+7xRecovery is very effective and efficient (Carvajal didn't get injured very often due to training and he's almost-always injured due to training!). My younger guys like Arda and Camavinga grew a ton. Not so much Tchouameni and Bellingham. But that's probably due to the fact they had less room for growth anyway; Bellingham is already one of the highest rated players regarding CA in the game. And the fact I moved him to right wing to allow myself to make use of all the central midfielders that R. Madrid has probably took a huge drain on his CA, unfortunately.
( edited 15 hours, 55 min ago by GeorgeFloydOverdosed )
Share this post#315
Link to the post:
SaMaHaJoGu said: What was the difference in his different Long Throws? Expand Long throws must have increased from 1 lot of 'set piece routines' in my 'mixed' screenshot. Even 'match practice' doesn't seem to do it, as long throws is not a highlighted role attribute. Sessions do seem to train the attributes they say they do. My theory was that sessions with low priority for outfield players, like set pieces, have greater overall growth (which turned out to be wrong).
SaMaHaJoGu said: If you do further testing for set pieces, please do help fill the rest of us in. Expand I'm making another post here soon that will say my conclusion about set piece attributes (and surmising everything else), which is that they're pretty much useless and it doesn't matter even if your best takers have only say '6' attribute.
For example:
A season may have ~10 penalties. The difference between '6' and '16' penalty taking is perhaps ~30% success rate, so 3 goals total. Top teams probably give away less penalties due to better 'decisions', so realistically this may be just 1 key goal over the season - which may be 1 key game win. However this would no doubt be outweighed by the CA cost or rareness of the high 'penalty taking' player. Only ~30% of good striker options age 20 or under have 10 or higher penalty taking. Therefore it should be considered a luxury and a tie-breaker between 2 equal ~180+ PA players.
HarvestGreen22's data shows us that +6 pace = +40 goals. We can guess +10 penalty taking = +3 goals. So +10 penalty taking = +0.45 pace. So you're better off glancing at the pace/acc/dribbling stats and choosing the one that has 1 extra pace/acc/dribbling.
The Zippo data also suggestively shows corners and free kicks only giving +1 season goal each from +12 each.
Two other ways it can be expressed is 1 consistency = 1.25 set piece = 3 important matches, but this is just a fun piece of trivia not useful for deciding between players.
If you do want a good set piece taker for comfort, best to buy one instead of training up one.
Hi, first of all, thank you for all the testing you've done and the quality of it.
I followed all the steps to create my own workout.
I also added Quickness to the additional focus for everyone.
However, I have a question: somes players have a negative opinion about their individual training.
Most of them say that: "The individual training they were asked to follow won't produce any more results."
So should I change the additional focus ((which is Quickenss for all) or leave it as is?
Thank you again for the work you've done. And thank you in advance for your response.
Have a good day.
harvestgreen22 said: A relatively simple one (some details may be missed)
[Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Recovery]x7+[Attacking]+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in main team
（Rest）no training+[Addtional Focus Quickness]+[Double Intensity]
in U18 team
Can I get a correction? Per the table, you were able to create more Pace+Acceleration growth with [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7 than the super rest training schedule? O_o
I thought that it grew the fastest when you're doing nothing at all per the original discovery? Or is this on younger folks only? Meaning that if you did super rest for younger folks, you'll get more Pace+Acceleration as well? Please advise.
Edit: How well-rounded are the players running the best schedule? [Quickness]+[Match Practice]+[Attacking]+[Recovery]x7? Like how defensively responsible are the defenders?
Also. Per EBFM's findings, [Endurance] additional focus increased more Pace than [Quickness] additional focus for 15 years old pure strikers and pure attacking midfield wingers.
In his findings for [Quickness], Acceleration and Pace went up for pure strikers by 0 and 0.2, respectively. And -0.1 and 0.4 for [Endurance]. As opposed to the average per position control group. Conversely, when his control and test groups were aged to 24, [Quickness] additional training had more effect to increase Pace and Acceleration as opposed to [Endurance] additional training.
EBFM's testing was exactly what the FM community needed, but he was just a one-man army catering to the masses.
What I wonder is if his tests stand mostly true for FM24, would each additional focus also have different effects per position and age? And if it does have different effects on each person by their position and age, what if they have different positions?!?
He also found that [Strength] additional focus is pretty much useless as of FM23. Which might stand true for FM24 as well. So, don't use it... ever... again...
And he also found that the [Match Review] training session has a net positive effect on Pace. Which I don't understand why... but I guess if you reviewed something and found yourself to be moving too slowly, you might want to be quicker and then, by the grace of God, you end up quicker because of it. LOL!
Great work here and backs up what I've felt for sometime that the game is flawed more than we knew. Has anyone experimented with this at the lowest level of English Football, Conference N/S or below?
I am currently in the Conference North and plan to sign 18 and unders, with 10-15 professionalism, facilities are basic, 4 star quickness coaching rest is 1 star. CA will most likely be 40-60 when they join and hoping for PA of 120-150 kids.
I assume the best option to develop is the rest/recovery + Quickness [double intensity] method due to the potentially slower growth and smaller room to grow? I intend on scheduling a Friendly every week we have just one league game so I can rotate two elevens and give everyone a game a week. Obviously we're part time so only get 4-6 training slots.
Thought process was a 17 year old with 8-10 PAC/ACC and 130 PA may reach 17+ PAC/ACC by the Championship aged 21-22 at which point my training may change for the talent I can attract to more rounded anyway and the U18's would become my PAC/ACC farm for younger talent. What has everyones experience been with less than ideal players like this, any screenshots?
When he has 8 PAC/ACC at 17 he is to slow for anything except selling, 17 is too late for starting, cause best progress is at 15-17 and I doubt in such a big progress after 17, especially with such poor facilities.
By the way in that league You wont attract many youngsters with 120+ PA unless hard cheating with GenieScout
Well I have three 17 year olds who have grown by 2 on both PAC/ACC (started at 10) from age 17 not quite turned 18 yet, so I don't see why they can't reach 17+ when you consider various reports of others doing that with 100PA players with less than great facilities. I am aware of the prime ages for physical growth but they still continue to grow a fair bit until 21 and even then until 24 at a lesser rate.
(Genuine question) Have you read this whole thread or basing your opinion on what you perceive from your own experiences? I was hoping for answers with actual first hand experience of using these schedules for this type of purpose not what people assume, this thread has shown that what people have assumed for many years is bull. Its been stated opposition doesn't really matter nor the majority of your coaches so the only limiting factor I can see are the facilities but we don't yet have an accurate gauge on how that impacts the growth. Prior to age of 24 and especially 21 most of these external factors (opposition/coaches) make very little difference.
darrensmith360 said: Great work here and backs up what I've felt for sometime that the game is flawed more than we knew. Has anyone experimented with this at the lowest level of English Football, Conference N/S or below?
It works and it works spectacularly.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/40252/
lasko911 said: It works and it works spectacularly.
https://fm-arena.com/find-comment/40252/
Ew nice...would you mind confirming what level they started at for you league wise and if you had decent facilities etc? So you used the all round schedule as opposed to purely rest too?
darrensmith360 said: Ew nice...would you mind confirming what level they started at for you league wise and if you had decent facilities etc? So you used the all round schedule as opposed to purely rest too?
I holidayed season 1 and then picked one of the teams promoted to VNN/S. I had my board update the facilities as often as possible, but that process took us all the way to PL, it was slow.
I used V7 schedule as pure rest ruins other attributes too much.
I read through the spreadsheet and found that resistance training, by itself, did more for the overall physical attributes than quickness. But that’s only true for spread 7. I’ve yet to review 10, but I’m assuming that it stands, mostly, true?
And I wonder… if it stands true, does it make the most sense to use resistance training as opposed to quickness training? I also noticed that Match Review doesn’t have any noticeable negative effects, so it’s worth noting that adding it into your schedule to up cohesion in the beginning of a season to help give your team a slight edge going into each match due to team cohesion. Match Tactics gives too much growth to Decisions, so I have to say it’s probably only good to open each half season (July and January) as you bring in new players. But only to help them catch up to your tactics.
I also see that Penalties and Set Routines shows a net negative. I recommend that more testing be done to a squad where you help manage set pieces more… ala adding more takers and more outfielders to head in the corners and what not. I suspect the net negative effect comes from the lack of takers being named. But from the onset of the default data as provided by the original poster, it suggests that set piece attributes are best raised by “Wonderkids” when they’re still considered “Wonderkids”. Which means your best bet is to specialize set piece takers young and only use them for the parts you need from him.
lasko911 said: I holidayed season 1 and then picked one of the teams promoted to VNN/S. I had my board update the facilities as often as possible, but that process took us all the way to PL, it was slow.
I used V7 schedule as pure rest ruins other attributes too much.
Thank you for that. You got any other success stories still been used from the lower leagues (League 1 and 2 maybe?) Would be interested to see how they've grown.
I think its two fold, theres the possibilities for lower leagues making decent players with 13/13 ACC/PAC 16/16 or above quite quickly and also when hitting the top flight I get frustrated when finding a high PA, good personality player with great jumping, strength and every other stat but lacking in speed so now that can be easily fixed, previously I would just discard them as speed has always been the priority for me.
darrensmith360 said: (Genuine question) Have you read this whole thread
(Genuine answear) I did. And also noticed, what You didn't, that author wrote: he signs weak (because lack of other possibilities) but already quick youngsters to boost them to 18-20, as from slow it would take too much time or never. You mixed two orders: one by speed and the other by PA. I played some seasons in lower spanish leagues using rest-scheme for U-19 with really very poor trainers and weak facilities and from my observation if a player is naturally slow he rather won't progress very much, You won't get a hit from a shit, even with good deter+prof+ambit - and all my youngsters were at start 15 not 17. On the other site if he is just over average he will by at 21 good/very good (as for speed). If he is quick he will be 18-20.
But as lasko said it ruins other attr. - they can be rebuild easier than lack of quickness at 22, but not so easy. So when pace= 14-15 or at the age of 18 player should be moved to other training group.
BTW I have not-even-18-year old left defense with pace/acc 18 (progress ~5), quite decent stamina, drib, conc and good workload and his CA is about 90 and PA <110 - it's the question of the appropriate balance (only jumping is hard to find for cheap prices). What's interesting his attributes weren't ruined so much in rest training (question of luck, I think)
I observed in the spreadsheets that set pieces decline -1.00 even when you have CA growth up to 15 with the blue 'general' training sessions. By contrast there is 0 decline when you use many of the other session types.
So I came up with some theories.
The first was that perhaps instead of set pieces & technicals in general being squeezed out by low CA, it was instead the 'general' sessions being usually 80-100% priority while the other sessions are 20-60% priority - perhaps the the remaining 40-80% was directed to a hidden pool of attribute growth, just like how 'rest' increases physicals by default. This hidden attribute growth would be significantly more overall growth, which makes sense, as in games focusing on specific attributes often carries an efficiency cost as a game balance.
Perhaps 'priority' can be stacked up to 100%, but anything more simply changes the proportions of that 100%, and each extra session is an extra session of hidden attribute growth. So for instance, 'attacking' (80%) + 'overall' (100%) = 2 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth, whereas 'goalkeeping' (20%) + 'penalties' (20%) + 'outfield' (60%) = 3 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth. This would make sense from what we know SI does, where they use misdirection to keep the true mechanics unknown - in this case, the best training regime would be what appears the least likely and simplistic.
But I did some rough tests, and can rule all of the above out. HarvestGreen22's Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus produced significantly better results with less injuries.
I thought I'd share some screenshots, as this shows what you can expect in reality as opposed to a perfect environment averaged 1000 times - one season, England Div 3, 3-4 star coaches, a generous amount of good but not amazing youngsters actually training at the club, just let the chips fall where they may in terms match experience, injuries and so forth (but I'm still selecting amongst the 'survivors' to show here).
Walters_quickattack = Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus. 40 injuries.
Walters_mixed = My dense but optimized regime based on theories above. 80 injuries.
Walters_extreme = Complete overload on physicals training + 2 x match practice & 'overall' to boost technicals/mentals. 207 injuries.
So in typical play is the HarvestGreen22 training significantly better? Yes, it gives 1-2 extra Pace/Acc in 1 season, halves the injury rate, and might even have an edge in mentals over a more 'balanced' regime
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: I observed in the spreadsheets that set pieces decline -1.00 even when you have CA growth up to 15 with the blue 'general' training sessions. By contrast there is 0 decline when you use many of the other session types.
So I came up with some theories.
The first was that perhaps instead of set pieces & technicals in general being squeezed out by low CA, it was instead the 'general' sessions being usually 80-100% priority while the other sessions are 20-60% priority - perhaps the the remaining 40-80% was directed to a hidden pool of attribute growth, just like how 'rest' increases physicals by default. This hidden attribute growth would be significantly more overall growth, which makes sense, as in games focusing on specific attributes often carries an efficiency cost as a game balance.
Perhaps 'priority' can be stacked up to 100%, but anything more simply changes the proportions of that 100%, and each extra session is an extra session of hidden attribute growth. So for instance, 'attacking' (80%) + 'overall' (100%) = 2 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth, whereas 'goalkeeping' (20%) + 'penalties' (20%) + 'outfield' (60%) = 3 x hidden growth and 100% directed growth. This would make sense from what we know SI does, where they use misdirection to keep the true mechanics unknown - in this case, the best training regime would be what appears the least likely and simplistic.
But I did some rough tests, and can rule all of the above out. HarvestGreen22's Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus produced significantly better results with less injuries.
I thought I'd share some screenshots, as this shows what you can expect in reality as opposed to a perfect environment averaged 1000 times - one season, England Div 3, 3-4 star coaches, a generous amount of good but not amazing youngsters actually training at the club, just let the chips fall where they may in terms match experience, injuries and so forth (but I'm still selecting amongst the 'survivors' to show here).
Walters_quickattack = Quick + Attack + Rest + Quick focus. 40 injuries.
Walters_mixed = My dense but optimized regime based on theories above. 80 injuries.
Walters_extreme = Complete overload on physicals training + 2 x match practice & 'overall' to boost technicals/mentals. 207 injuries.
So in typical play is the HarvestGreen22 training significantly better? Yes, it gives 1-2 extra Pace/Acc in 1 season, halves the injury rate, and might even have an edge in mentals over a more 'balanced' regime
What was the difference in his different Long Throws? Was that just a random attribute gain from load-up because Brian Walters' Long Throws has a "0" in the pre-editor? I am very interested in finding out how to best grow these set piece attributes on my own, reliably. You make a very good point. SI likes to tease us on how their system works, but it isn't a direct translation of how it actually works. If you do further testing for set pieces, please do help fill the rest of us in.
I started a new R. Madrid run. Currently in season 2. I'm going to implement Resistance this season instead of Quickness. And I'm going to add a bunch of takers into my set pieces and penalty... as much as possible to see if it affects my attribute growths for set piece and penalty "takers".
I can also confirm that, Quickness+Attack+Match Practice+7xRecovery is very effective and efficient (Carvajal didn't get injured very often due to training and he's almost-always injured due to training!). My younger guys like Arda and Camavinga grew a ton. Not so much Tchouameni and Bellingham. But that's probably due to the fact they had less room for growth anyway; Bellingham is already one of the highest rated players regarding CA in the game. And the fact I moved him to right wing to allow myself to make use of all the central midfielders that R. Madrid has probably took a huge drain on his CA, unfortunately.
SaMaHaJoGu said: What was the difference in his different Long Throws?
Long throws must have increased from 1 lot of 'set piece routines' in my 'mixed' screenshot. Even 'match practice' doesn't seem to do it, as long throws is not a highlighted role attribute. Sessions do seem to train the attributes they say they do. My theory was that sessions with low priority for outfield players, like set pieces, have greater overall growth (which turned out to be wrong).
SaMaHaJoGu said: If you do further testing for set pieces, please do help fill the rest of us in.
I'm making another post here soon that will say my conclusion about set piece attributes (and surmising everything else), which is that they're pretty much useless and it doesn't matter even if your best takers have only say '6' attribute.
For example:
A season may have ~10 penalties. The difference between '6' and '16' penalty taking is perhaps ~30% success rate, so 3 goals total. Top teams probably give away less penalties due to better 'decisions', so realistically this may be just 1 key goal over the season - which may be 1 key game win. However this would no doubt be outweighed by the CA cost or rareness of the high 'penalty taking' player. Only ~30% of good striker options age 20 or under have 10 or higher penalty taking. Therefore it should be considered a luxury and a tie-breaker between 2 equal ~180+ PA players.
HarvestGreen22's data shows us that +6 pace = +40 goals. We can guess +10 penalty taking = +3 goals. So +10 penalty taking = +0.45 pace. So you're better off glancing at the pace/acc/dribbling stats and choosing the one that has 1 extra pace/acc/dribbling.
The Zippo data also suggestively shows corners and free kicks only giving +1 season goal each from +12 each.
Two other ways it can be expressed is 1 consistency = 1.25 set piece = 3 important matches, but this is just a fun piece of trivia not useful for deciding between players.
If you do want a good set piece taker for comfort, best to buy one instead of training up one.