An idea for Training - Includes a Mock up and player naming

Hello all.

One of the major instances in FM where the user feels clueless is in training imo. The control the user has over the development of a player is very vague. For example,

1) I want to train a winger on his crossing. However, with the current training model, if I want to improve his crossing, I must increase his set piece training. But that results in the player wasting valuable development years and CA points in unnecessary categories like corners, long throws, penalty taking etc.

2) I train a winger in Aerobic category, but that needlessly improves his reflexes. Why is there a need for my winger to train on his reflexes?

I also have no clue as to why Work Rate and Natural Fitness are a part of Strength category.

Because of some of my grievances with the training model, I thought of something that could actually give users more control over training. And I came up with this :

The idea is that whenever you go into Training->Overview of a player from your team, you get such a screen with check boxes for all attributes that are trainable. For example, I want to train Stoch in his crossing but not his long throws or penalty taking. Hence crossing is ticked, whereas long throws and penalty taking are unticked.

Obviously, the more attributes you select to train, the more his workload is and the less time he will spend on each attribute.

I've also left some attributes with no check boxes such as aggression, determination and natural fitness because I don't see how anyone could train to become better in them.

I feel that this could possibly help in freeing up some CA points which could be used elsewhere on attributes the user feels the player lacks.

Finally, apologies on the amateur graphics :o

It is a decent idea i think, it has been since the current training system was implemented that people have been complaining about.

Great idea IMO dontknow if it would work though as coaches cover mainly everything not just corners etc

as coaches cover mainly everything not just corners etc

I don't know if that is the case. Is it? Are you talking about in game or IRL?

Also, allotting coaches for the players is a different topic altogether

I'm not sure about your method of implementation (not keen on the idea of sorting out a long list of skills for every player and it could be overwhelming for the newbies), but I completely agree with the idea of training individual skills.

I would have 'Extra Training' as an option on the player's action area/right click menu, then each of the skills listed and just select the one you want. The rest of the training would be as it is and this just gives an option to work on one specific skill.

Tbh i would prefer the old method where you selected different activities for the training to be brought back. A) it makes more sense and B) it is far more realistic.

I like the idea. I would love to get a player to train hard on one area he's less skillfull at. I would probably also pay more attention to training.

Tbh i would prefer the old method where you selected different activities for the training to be brought back. A) it makes more sense and B) it is far more realistic.

C) and was, in practical terms, exactly the same as the current system (albeit less clear).

C) and was, in practical terms, exactly the same as the current system (albeit less clear).

No it wasn't, you used exercise like full training match, pig in the middle, etc. Each worked on different attributes, and had nothing to do with stupid sliders.

No it wasn't, you used exercise like full training match, pig in the middle, etc. Each worked on different attributes, and had nothing to do with stupid sliders.

Each worked on a GROUP of attributes - as does the current system.

The 'stupid sliders' take much less effort to set up. With a bit of investigation, it is also possible to work out exactly which attributes are being worked on and the sliders make it clear how much. That is something that could never be achieved in the old system.

The main training categories are fine. What is disappointing is that you can't then tweak the balance of them by selecting different options such as the ones you mention.

Each worked a group of attributes which were related to the exercise the players did. How 'realistic' is it for a manager to say, this week we will train an extra notch on this or that group of attributes. Each week irl managers come up with new exercises to work on the attributes they want their players to improve on. The sliders are one of the most unrealisitc things in the game.

Added to which why are work rate part of strength? That makes little sense.

<aybe you could have this and the current system? So you could set general training for most players, then fine tune it for players who you wanted to develop specific attributes. This woul dbe easier for new users as well as incorporating you idea (which i reall ylike by the way).

<aybe you could have this and the current system? So you could set general training for most players, then fine tune it for players who you wanted to develop specific attributes. This woul dbe easier for new users as well as incorporating you idea (which i reall ylike by the way).

That's a decent idea tbh.

Thanks mate

They should do as they do with tactics in FML, add a wizard, an extra layer above the sliders.

ah this would be a good idea if they dont at least implement something like this then what they should do is split the categories to be more specific, which would also mean more sliders.

the general idea would be to split the attacking category into more specific areas such as - passing, creativity

split tactics into - positioning, awareness,

you get he general idea. they need to do something i because i dont want player wasting time improving stats that are not beneficial to their position or irrelevant at the current stage of their development

If you only have tick boxes then you can't control the degree of training a player should do. There should be separate categories for each type of set-piece, but I don't see much need to further separate any of the other categories. Would it really be realistic to be able to train pace or strength without affecting any other attributes?

If you only have tick boxes then you can't control the degree of training a player should do. There should be separate categories for each type of set-piece, but I don't see much need to further separate any of the other categories. Would it really be realistic to be able to train pace or strength without affecting any other attributes?

No, but it would be able to train strength without training workrate, just because i do more weights doesnt mean i'm going to work more.

And courage is under strength too isnt it? Doing weights makes you brave?

Bravery isn't trainable.

It makes sense that work rate is linked to fitness. You can't work hard if you don't have the stamina to keep it up.

It should be possible to train corners without training throw-ins, but it makes sense that crossing and corners are linked - a training exercise that improves one would also improve the other.

Apart from set pieces and maybe ball control it makes sense the way attributes are grouped for training.

But it should be athletics (more stamina)

good idea

with a little refinement i cant see why SI wouldnt give this one serious consideration.

Would it really be realistic to be able to train pace or strength without affecting any other attributes?

Yes, why not? If you continuously train a player in strength whilst neglecting his other attributes, he'd improve his strength but obviously his other attributes will fall.

Yes, why not? If you continuously train a player in strength whilst neglecting his other attributes, he'd improve his strength but obviously his other attributes will fall.

I don't think that is what he meant. If a player's training is all running, in the end it will not just change his speed, but also stamina and leg strength. Training one aspect will affect others inevitably.

My bad then

irish2101 is right. It's not like you could have a training regime in real life that only improves strength and nothing else.

irish2101 is right. It's not like you could have a training regime in real life that only improves strength and nothing else.

I totally agree with that, my problem is that the old system which had different exercises for a team to do during training was far more realistic, even if it was a superficial difference. I also think work rate should be under athletics not strength.

From what I remember of the old system it was extremely difficult to figure out what sort of schedule was heavy and what sort was normal so I was terrified to tinker with it in case I did something wrong.

I suppose they could just rename the sliders "five-a-side," "head tennis," "weight training" and so on, but it would only really be a cosmetic difference.

I totally agree with that, my problem is that the old system which had different exercises for a team to do during training was far more realistic, even if it was a superficial difference. I also think work rate should be under athletics not strength.

My earlier point was that it worked in the same way. The different "exercises" were just different combinations of sliders. SI just removed that extra layer of complexity and allowed us to move the sliders directly. Whether you find it "realistic" or not is irrelevant as it works in the same way.

i see you have rene as your coach/ more! good choice- i have him as my AM on my manchester united save (Y)

My earlier point was that it worked in the same way. The different "exercises" were just different combinations of sliders. SI just removed that extra layer of complexity and allowed us to move the sliders directly. Whether you find it "realistic" or not is irrelevant as it works in the same way.

It wasn't the same thing, you actually programmed a weeks training like managers do irl, just not as complex and detailed as irl. The slider system might have the same basic effectr, but seen as 'realism' is such a major component according to most players, the training system should be realistic.

A fantastic idea El Sid, if implemented well, it would be fantastic

i see you have rene as your coach/ more! good choice- i have him as my AM on my manchester united save (Y)

Rene is my assistant too

A fantastic idea El Sid, if implemented well, it would be fantastic

Thank you

It wasn't the same thing, you actually programmed a weeks training like managers do irl, just not as complex and detailed as irl. The slider system might have the same basic effectr, but seen as 'realism' is such a major component according to most players, the training system should be realistic.

You seem unable to follow the logic so I give up . Either way, I'm pretty sure the training system is not going to change. The only thing I see happening is more training categories (splitting of current ones into two or more).

I,like very much your idea for individual training which will afect individual attributes, exellent !

BUT, what about collective training Sir ? I want my defense to work better movements with the middles, or I want my defense to improve off-side, how can I do ?

Can we apply your idea by creating "collective attributes" and do the same ?

Hello all.

One of the major instances in FM where the user feels clueless is in training imo. The control the user has over the development of a player is very vague. For example,

1) I want to train a winger on his crossing. However, with the current training model, if I want to improve his crossing, I must increase his set piece training. But that results in the player wasting valuable development years and CA points in unnecessary categories like corners, long throws, penalty taking etc.

2) I train a winger in Aerobic category, but that needlessly improves his reflexes. Why is there a need for my winger to train on his reflexes?

I also have no clue as to why Work Rate and Natural Fitness are a part of Strength category.

Because of some of my grievances with the training model, I thought of something that could actually give users more control over training. And I came up with this :

The idea is that whenever you go into Training->Overview of a player from your team, you get such a screen with check boxes for all attributes that are trainable. For example, I want to train Stoch in his crossing but not his long throws or penalty taking. Hence crossing is ticked, whereas long throws and penalty taking are unticked.

Obviously, the more attributes you select to train, the more his workload is and the less time he will spend on each attribute.

I've also left some attributes with no check boxes such as aggression, determination and natural fitness because I don't see how anyone could train to become better in them.

I feel that this could possibly help in freeing up some CA points which could be used elsewhere on attributes the user feels the player lacks.

Finally, apologies on the amateur graphics :o

It's a good idea I like this.

Mixing both this and the old system would be perfect. This way you can adjust how much someone trains on certain attributes.

I'd like to add one more thing though I hope the OP doesn't mind. There have been players who changed their aggressiveness/braveness when moving into a new league. Sure not by much, but enough to make a difference. At the very least we should be able to tell players that they should be braver, more aggressive/determined or even be more of a team player like we do PPMs. Whether they improve or not would depend on their professionalism (maybe adaptability), and even if they improve it won't be a significant 5 point jump. Just enough to make a slight difference.

Great idea, might be a bit tedious though going through every player...