Is the training in need of a major overhaul?

[santy001]

I think SI need to start drawing up one section that needs overhauling/updoing each year majorly alongside some new features. For the last few years training, team talks etc have remained the same and its not too great.

One thing is that, the manager should be able to train players as well, its such an enormous waste especially at LLM that you can't train your players. Can you just imagine it "Mr Chairman, I need you to get another coach in because I can't be bothered to stand out there myself coaching them through their training sessions." You'd probably have a P45 the next day lol.

My main gripe with it, is the lack of explanation around it, and the fact the system doesn't really tell you when you're getting it right or not, staff whilst beginning to offer more insight could do with offering more into player development. Possibly even providing some suggested routines along the lines of say "Young Defender A has a poor tackling ability, I suggest you put him on an intensive tackling schedule".

The current system also makes it impossible to really set a time frame, with high potential players who are poor in certain areas, with a timed schedule you could go far beyond what "intensive" seems to imply on the current scheme. You could essentially send a poor midfielder in for 1 physical session a day, and the rest spent working on his passing during pre-season etc to get him a rapid improvement in that area.

[SFraser]

Here is an example from an old FAQ:

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><[46]><>

B.01.1: Training Graph

This table merely reproduces the little graph in the game's training

screen. The + and - merely states the increase or decrease in the little

graph. It is a rough estimation. If the particular regime has more than

one +, it simply means that there is a greater proportion of increase

in the graph vis-a-vis the other abilities. The base I use is an 'empty'

schedule, meaning a rest regime for every slot.

KEY:

Men = Mental

Phy = Physical

Goa = Goalkeeping

Def = Defensive

Att = Attacking

Ovr = Overall

Rest

-------------------------------------------------------------

Type | Men | Phy | Goa | Def | Att | Ovr |

-------------------------------------------------------------

5-a-side (large pitch) | + | + | + | + | | + |

5 a side (small Pitch) | + | | + | + | | + |

cross country | | + | | | | + |

crosses | | - | ++ | | + | + |

overloading (attacking) | ++ | | | ++ | + | + |

Overloading (defensive) | +++ | | ++ | +++ | + | + |

Penalties | | | ++ | | + | + |

Pig in the middle | + | + | | + | + | + |

Set pieces (attacking) | ++ | - | + | ++ | + | + |

Set pieces (defensive) | + | | | + | + | + |

Sprints | | + | | | | + |

Tactical Training | ++ | - | | + | | + |

Technique | | | ++ | | + | + |

Training Match | | + | | | | + |

Weight Training | | + | | | | + |

-------------------------------------------------------------

Outfield | Men | Phy | Goa | Def | Att | Ovr |

-------------------------------------------------------------

Agility | | | | | | + |

Closing-Down Session | + | + | | + | | + |

Heading | | + | | + | + | + |

Shadow Play | + | | | + | | + |

Shooting | | | | | + | + |

-------------------------------------------------------------

Goalkeepers | Men | Phy | Goa | Def | Att | Ovr |

-------------------------------------------------------------

Agility (GK) | | | ++ | | + | + |

Distribution | | | ++ | + | | + |

Handling | | | ++ | | + | + |

Shot Stopping | | | ++ | | + | + |

-------------------------------------------------------------

So once you know a players preferred position and Age all you need to do is keep the chart open and spend half an hour dragging and dropping and replacing the right blocks into position for the desired schedule.

Compare that to the current system where you simply knock a Category up or down by a few notches.

Once you understand the system there is no contest. Replace Piggy in the middle with Overload Attacking and swap Technique for Tactical Training or knock Tactics Training up another 5 notches?

As I said before the problem is that people don't realise what they have now.

My main gripe with it, is the lack of explanation around it, and the fact the system doesn't really tell you when you're getting it right or not, staff whilst beginning to offer more insight could do with offering more into player development. Possibly even providing some suggested routines along the lines of say "Young Defender A has a poor tackling ability, I suggest you put him on an intensive tackling schedule".

Exactly.

Minimal explanation combined to slow results equals lack of interest and forum rants.

[Old Git]

Training is one of the things I have found bewildering over recent versions. Talk of the the old FM 05 system took me back to when I thought I could handle training comfortably, now though, I really have no idea. but what probably surprises me most is when you analyse the different training schedules created by people and the massive improvements they make to players, you find that they are radically different in approach and intensity levels, yet achieve the same astonishing improvements. Compare SFrasers system to say Tugs and you find 2 totally different approaches but achieving the same results. SFraser is very heavy on tactical trg for all players whilst actual "skill" levels appear low, in comparison to Tugs, yet both get great results. Why? Surely the results should be different, and if the AI teams are using the base system with minimal coaches, how come they can develop good players. I find it all baffling. SFrasers thread does a great job in explaining how he came to his conclusions, all of which are logical, however I am beginning to have doubts as to whether complex training regimes actually achieve anything better than a general scheme, given the vast variances in approach achieving the same result.

[lucatonix]

Surely an answer would be training individual technical attribute sliders. Physical attributes should be also trained individually and independently, however some grouping could be implemented such as acceleration and agility. Some of the mental attributes should also be grouped but some should be individual.

This would be quite similar to the current system but other than taking a while to carry out people can still use set schedules for positions.

[phnompenhandy]

I don't think the underlying system needs an overhaul, but the explanation of required information definately does...

In all honesty it would a tragedy if the current system was swapped for something like the previous system, but SI would only have themselves to blame. Very few people understand how this brilliant piece of functional and immersive gameplay works. Even though the basic principles are as simple as all hell...

Is it an SI issue or a player issue? I can sympathise with the average user with regards to information but at the same time so few users even try. Many on these forums would rather spend their time ranting than reading. If they bothered reading rather than ranting they might obtain a clue.

"Very few" actually amounts to ONE outside SI, which is you, Steven! To me that indicates that it really is SI who are culpable, and not the average users. If SI don't want to overhaul the system for FM11 they should at least commandeer you to provide clarification like they did wwfan and millie for tactics in FM10. If a wizard for training along the lines of the one produced for tactics could be designed, I think the problem could be cracked.

In the meantime, FM-Britain sent me a questionnaire asking for how they could move forward; I recommended asking you to write a training manual in the mould of TT&F. After all the work you've done, if you think your understanding is nearly there for FM10, maybe you could consolidate your findings in one document, thus reducing the current plethora of same-same complaint threads about training.

[SaintsCanada]

I loved the FM where training was a weekly schedule and you had a choice from a zillion different drills for each timeslot. That was the best training.

I would even go in and set up to practice penalties in the last training session before a big cup-tie!

[Menion]

I actually enjoyed the old system. It was more authentic and realistic. The slider system is very dull and boring.

I cant see them changing from the slider system so what i would want is to be able to have an advanced option for each slider. If we had this then we could properly focus on what we want to achieve.

The other day I was trying to increase strength in a player. To do this you would presume you would overload the strength training. 6 Months later and it hasn't even had a slight green arrow (which I presume is an increase but not enough for the attribute to go up one) added to it. Instead of strength, other attributes slightly increased (cant quite remember which ones). This should be a simple one to improve. A simple case of shouting "oi lad! go lift some weights" and he should get at least 1 attribute point for strength in 6 months.

If we had advanced sliders for each slider option, then we could pin point where we want to improve. Right now we just click the slider that can increase it and hope to god it works. Trying to train corners and increasing long throws instead is quite frustrating.

[Wee Aja]

"Very few" actually amounts to ONE outside SI, which is you, Steven! To me that indicates that it really is SI who are culpable, and not the average users. If SI don't want to overhaul the system for FM11 they should at least commandeer you to provide clarification like they did wwfan and millie for tactics in FM10. If a wizard for training along the lines of the one produced for tactics could be designed, I think the problem could be cracked.

In the meantime, FM-Britain sent me a questionnaire asking for how they could move forward; I recommended asking you to write a training manual in the mould of TT&F. After all the work you've done, if you think your understanding is nearly there for FM10, maybe you could consolidate your findings in one document, thus reducing the current plethora of same-same complaint threads about training.

What would be the point in that then? As Old Git has just said a few posts up; SFraser achieves the same results as various others do with a completely different approach. SFraser mentions (many many times) that 'so few people understand training', but why does anyone need to when people manage to have very successful games without even bothering with training?

When was the last time someone complained on the forum that they were struggling, and then got the reply "It's your training!"? It never happens, but IRL training is one of the most important aspects of football management; you train your players wrong and it can be the road to ruin. Not on FM though, you can just set up generic schedules and never bother with it again.

I genuinely feel the training part of FM is a blatant case of lazy programming on SI's part, which is a massive shame on an otherwise excellent title.

[robertcornell68]

Well, I find training totally boring. I've just downloaded SF's method and will quite happily leave it at that.

I'd even more quite happily turn it over to some kind of wizard to set up without me.

[Edle]

Id like to say yes, but I simply cant think of a better system to implement than there is now.

[mkus]

Whatever, so long as they never, ever return to the CM4/CM03/04 system of "piggy in the middle" etc.

[manreaction]

Random note - I think we should have the option of taking disciplinary action against a player if they refuse to follow orders and learn a PPM. Their manager has asked them to do something and they have said 'no'.

[Menion]

Whatever, so long as they never, ever return to the CM4/CM03/04 system of "piggy in the middle" etc.

I quite enjoyed that system

[Pangaea]

I'm pretty sure they won't return to the "run up a hill" and whatnot. It was simply a bad system. Not often is a feature simply removed from the game, so I think it's pretty safe to say that won't return.

The problem with training is much deeper than just the difficulty in grasping the current system (let's say SFraser is the exception that proves the rule). It is completely separated from the rest of the game. Training has zero impact on tactics, how well your team gels, how offensive/defensive you play, set pieces, and so on. What we need is a training system that is much more integrated into the rest of the game - in particular tactics.

Now when the tactics part of the game has largely been "fixed", I both hope and believe SI will prioritize the training module for FM2011. It has been virtually unchanged since the CM days, bar the 1-2 years when we had the gazillion options which was even more confusing than the current system. Training is the one area of the game that lags the most behind - so it simply makes good sense to focus on it.

[RT--]

Like SFraser, I think the current system is actually quite clever (other than perhaps the questionable grouping of some attributes together) but is held back because it's not at all easy to understand or particularly user-friendly.

I also agree that there should be far more of a link between training and match tactics, and indeed set-pieces, but I think it's very hard to imagine how that could actually work with the existing system. What would be the difference between a team that spends ages on their tactical shape compared to one that didn't?

My suggestion would be a step-by-step wizard of sorts, which incorporates different training philsophies, along the lines of:

Step 1, whole team: a slider system where you have a set amount of time to allocate between: tactical shape, set-pieces, physical training, technical training and rest which affects the whole team (you can use manager's attributes to decide which way AI managers set things up: someone like Wenger would perhaps prioritise technical training, whereas someone like Allardyce might favour tactics and set-pieces, whereas other managers might spend most of their time getting players strong and fit with physical training).

Step 2, groups: set seperate group routines for your goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and attackers

Step 3, individual: and lastly the opportunity to get specific players to work on individual attributes, like crossing, tackling, heading, corners, free-kicks, etc, and to work on PPMs

Those 3 steps would effectively produce a routine for each individual player, but through a far more simple and friendly process - crucially, it also means that each team's training is a bit more individual depending on their manager's attributes. As with the tactics wizard, you're not really making big changes to the underlying system so it doesn't require a huge, timely overhaul.

[SFraser]

"Very few" actually amounts to ONE outside SI, which is you, Steven! To me that indicates that it really is SI who are culpable, and not the average users. If SI don't want to overhaul the system for FM11 they should at least commandeer you to provide clarification like they did wwfan and millie for tactics in FM10. If a wizard for training along the lines of the one produced for tactics could be designed, I think the problem could be cracked.

In the meantime, FM-Britain sent me a questionnaire asking for how they could move forward; I recommended asking you to write a training manual in the mould of TT&F. After all the work you've done, if you think your understanding is nearly there for FM10, maybe you could consolidate your findings in one document, thus reducing the current plethora of same-same complaint threads about training.

SI are culpable for omitting information or being completely vague when it comes to the necessary knowledge, but this has always been a trend throughout all areas of the game. When it comes to a gameplay module where users have to piece together all the underlying mechanics of the game to achieve a result then there are always going to be problems when the required information and knowledge of how to apply it is vague or absent. It doesn't matter if it is scouting, teamtalks, assistant manager feedback, backroom staff information, squad happiness, or the age old questions of tactics and form and reading the Match Engine and playing against specific opponents in specific contexts.

There are no problems per se, in my opinion, in terms of the realism, immersion and functionality of the game mechanics. The game does not do superfluous, it does not chuck in gameplay that looks good with minimal relevence, it does not expand existing elements of gameplay with meaningless and irrelevant additions. Every element of gameplay has a point, a purpose and strong logical basis in terms of function and underlying factors. Compared to it's competitors FM is an "industrial" game in the sense that all it's mechanics are firmly bolted into the engine for the sole purpose of adding some functional and fundamental element of football management to the game.

There are several problems that stem from not knowing the function of the basic mechanics in the game. The first is obviously a failure to understand what is going on. The second is a failure in ability to control what is going. The third is a failure to appreciate what levels of realism and immersion exists. The fourth is an inability to understand what can be improved, added, substracted or changed in future games.

So while I agree that the system is a nightmare to use because of the immense lack of information as to how it actually works, it is extremely frustrating to read the criticisms of people that do not bother to try and educate themselves on the function of the system, especially when a forum two to three clicks away contains days of work outlining and explaining the exact details, combined also the fact that these individuals do not understand what they are criticising.

How can you judge something you do not understand in terms other than the fact you do not understand it or that it is difficult to understand. How can you call it unrealistic when you have no idea of how it works? How can you offer opinions on how to improve the fundamental mechanics of the system when you do not know what currently exists in the system nor have the fundamental mechanics of the entire game work?

These are all highly frustrating issues to read. If someone was to say that the system should be more clearly explained and easier to understand I would agree. But how can you agree with someone that says they take no time to understand it, it doesn't work and it should be scrapped in favour of "drills" that are completely unsupported by the game mechanics, or a system that is "more realistic"?

If it is difficult to understand then criticism that it is difficult to understand is fair. If it is difficult to understand and you do not understand it then criticism of how it works is not fair.

It is the precise same issues we always see in General Discussion. A robust, functional, immersive system is criticised as broken and unrealistic by individuals that don't know how it works.

[Wee Aja]

Random note - I think we should have the option of taking disciplinary action against a player if they refuse to follow orders and learn a PPM. Their manager has asked them to do something and they have said 'no'.

I agree. Players should do as they're bloody well told, simple as that.

[Pangaea]

My suggestion would be a step-by-step wizard of sorts, which incorporates different training philsophies, along the lines of:

Step 1, whole team: a slider system where you have a set amount of time to allocate between: tactical shape, set-pieces, physical training, technical training and rest which affects the whole team (you can use manager's attributes to decide which way AI managers set things up: someone like Wenger would perhaps prioritise technical training, whereas someone like Allardyce might favour tactics and set-pieces, whereas other managers might spend most of their time getting players strong and fit with physical training).

Step 2, groups: set seperate group routines for your goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and attackers

Step 3, individual: and lastly the opportunity to get specific players to work on individual attributes, like crossing, tackling, heading, corners, free-kicks, etc, and to work on PPMs

This is roughly what I have suggested as well. The key thing is that training is more connected to tactics, and that there is both group (team) and individual training. I really hope SI will do something like this.

[SFraser]

I agree. Players should do as they're bloody well told, simple as that.

Players only tend to do that when you are new to a club, have poor relations with them, or are old.

If they are in their 20's and have you listed as favoured personell they will rarely refuse.

The means already exist to handle the issue. Fining players is a means of altering hidden attributes or personality attributes based on performance or behaviour. There is no gameplay benefit from fining them for refusing to learn a PPM other than making them unhappy.

As I said above, superficial shine does not exist in the basic gameplay elements of FM. If you can define a method whereby Fining a player for such an action has a possible benefit and a possible negative outcome for the player then please do so. Otherwise it will never be coded as it makes for poor gameplay.

Like SFraser, I think the current system is actually quite clever (other than perhaps the questionable grouping of some attributes together) but is held back because it's not at all easy to understand or particularly user-friendly.

I also agree that there should be far more of a link between training and match tactics, and indeed set-pieces, but I think it's very hard to imagine how that could actually work with the existing system. What would be the difference between a team that spends ages on their tactical shape compared to one that didn't?

My suggestion would be a step-by-step wizard of sorts, which incorporates different training philsophies, along the lines of:

Step 1, whole team: a slider system where you have a set amount of time to allocate between: tactical shape, set-pieces, physical training, technical training and rest which affects the whole team (you can use manager's attributes to decide which way AI managers set things up: someone like Wenger would perhaps prioritise technical training, whereas someone like Allardyce might favour tactics and set-pieces, whereas other managers might spend most of their time getting players strong and fit with physical training).

Step 2, groups: set seperate group routines for your goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and attackers

Step 3, individual: and lastly the opportunity to get specific players to work on individual attributes, like crossing, tackling, heading, corners, free-kicks, etc, and to work on PPMs

Those 3 steps would effectively produce a routine for each individual player, but through a far more simple and friendly process - crucially, it also means that each team's training is a bit more individual depending on their manager's attributes. As with the tactics wizard, you're not really making big changes to the underlying system so it doesn't require a huge, timely overhaul.

That is a good post, the only problem being the quantity of calculation and additional coding required to accurately judge each players rate and form of development. It is not so easy as the current Tactics Wizard where each choice modifies maybe one or two sliders independant of a players attributes. This system would have account for attributes, position, age, personality etc.

It might seem an easier task due to the fewer sliders etc. but it would in reality be orders of magnitude more difficult to design.

[Pangaea]

I agree. Players should do as they're bloody well told, simple as that.

I may be wrong, but I think it's sort of a safety valve against learning a PPM that doesn't suit a player, based on attributes and perhaps hidden attributes. Then again I've tried to retrain a lighting quick fullback to get forward whenever possible, and after three tries he still hasn't managed to. At least a couple of times he started the training, but it ended along the way cause he couldn't learn it.

I suspect it's the same when players clash from tutoring. It's probably because the tutor has worse attributes in something, so the guy learning refuses to work with him as he doesn't want to (gravely) reduce his attributes.

Maybe I'm well off, but that's my thinking.

[Pangaea]

That is a good post, the only problem being the quantity of calculation and additional coding required to accurately judge each players rate and form of development. It is not so easy as the current Tactics Wizard where each choice modifies maybe one or two sliders independant of a players attributes. This system would have account for attributes, position, age, personality etc.

It might seem an easier task due to the fewer sliders etc. but it would in reality be orders of magnitude more difficult to design.

SI has managed to create the supremely most realistic match engine on the market - heads and shoulders above anything else. And believe me, this is much more difficult than it seems. So when they can get this working as well as it is, then I'm sure they'll be able to get a good end-product from a solid training revamp as well. It will probably take a few iterations before it works perfectly, but I think they should start with FM2011.

[SFraser]

SI has managed to create the supremely most realistic match engine on the market - heads and shoulders above anything else. And believe me, this is much more difficult than it seems. So when they can get this working as well as it is, then I'm sure they'll be able to get a good end-product from a solid training revamp as well. It will probably take a few iterations before it works perfectly, but I think they should start with FM2011.

I am not saying Training cannot be improved, I am saying that you will have to live with the fundamental mechanics regardless of the interface which is the root source of the problems people are having now.

A revamped interface will change nothing while the fundamental mechanics of player development and adaption remain the same. Changing these fundamental mechanics will result in a complete change to the basic mechanics of every single area of the entire game.

If you don't understand how players work you can never train them effectively or use them effectively or manage them effectively, no matter what the interface is like. The problem is not the Training system, it is the understanding of the basic workings of players themselves.

Change this and everything in the game changes, from tactics to teamtalks to scouting to relationships to club behaviour.

[Wee Aja]

Players only tend to do that when you are new to a club, have poor relations with them, or are old.

If they are in their 20's and have you listed as favoured personell they will rarely refuse.

The means already exist to handle the issue. Fining players is a means of altering hidden attributes or personality attributes based on performance or behaviour. There is no gameplay benefit from fining them for refusing to learn a PPM other than making them unhappy.

I may be wrong, but I think it's sort of a safety valve against learning a PPM that doesn't suit a player, based on attributes and perhaps hidden attributes. Then again I've tried to retrain a lighting quick fullback to get forward whenever possible, and after three tries he still hasn't managed to. At least a couple of times he started the training, but it ended along the way cause he couldn't learn it.

I suspect it's the same when players clash from tutoring. It's probably because the tutor has worse attributes in something, so the guy learning refuses to work with him as he doesn't want to (gravely) reduce his attributes.

Maybe I'm well off, but that's my thinking.

Yes I understand what you're both saying but my point is: I'm the manager, if I tell a player to learn (or try to learn) a PPM, I expect him to do as I say regardless of whether he thinks it will benefit him or not. I'm the manager, the boss, I decide what is best for the team and the players.

If he puts in the work on the slider board and it doesn't work out, then fair enough, at least he tried. I detest any player saying to me "no, I don't think so..."

[RT--]

The key thing is that training is more connected to tactics

Again, I agree in principle, but it's quite hard to think how exactly it would work.

If your team spends 90% of its time in a week perfecting its tactical shape, but my teams spends 5% of time on it, what would be the difference on match day?

[Menion]

I am not saying Training cannot be improved, I am saying that you will have to live with the fundamental mechanics regardless of the interface which is the root source of the problems people are having now.

A revamped interface will change nothing while the fundamental mechanics of player development and adaption remain the same. Changing these fundamental mechanics will result in a complete change to the basic mechanics of every single area of the entire game.

If you don't understand how players work you can never train them effectively or use them effectively or manage them effectively, no matter what the interface is like. The problem is not the Training system, it is the understanding of the basic workings of players themselves.

Change this and everything in the game changes, from tactics to teamtalks to scouting to relationships to club behaviour.

It's not really a case of misunderstanding the system. Its more that the system is limited to how we train the player. For example:

If I want to concentrate on training a player to take freekicks. I also have to train him at the same time on corners, long throws penalties (?) and anything else that is lumped together in that category. Why would I want to waste CA on long throws for an AMC, who probably only has around 3 for that anyway?

[SFraser]

Again, I agree in principle, but it's quite hard to think how exactly it would work.

If your team spends 90% of its time in a week perfecting its tactical shape, but my teams spends 5% of time on it, what would be the difference on match day?

Unless some huge, elaborate, entireally new fundamental set of game mechanics is introduced to both the Match Engine and the Training system, then absolutely nothing.

I am sure we would all like to see the ability to spend 3 days of Training practicising your defensive shape, marking systems and counter attacking plan before you play Milan away in the European Cup, but there is nothing in the game to really support that functionally, effectively, realistically and above all doing it well and without bugs.

There is not even the possibility of such a system in the basic game code yet. Perhaps in the future, but it is a huge task.

[RT--]

Yep.

Right now, it seems that factors which affect how likely my players are to turn up in the right position and do what I tell them (their natural position, teamwork?, positioning, PPMs, etc) are all relatively stable attributes, and not something that we could dramatically change on a week-to-week basis.

[Edle]

It's not really a case of misunderstanding the system. Its more that the system is limited to how we train the player. For example:

If I want to concentrate on training a player to take freekicks. I also have to train him at the same time on corners, long throws penalties (?) and anything else that is lumped together in that category. Why would I want to waste CA on long throws for an AMC, who probably only has around 3 for that anyway?

But if you have a different training program for each individual attribute then surely it becomes too simplistic? In my opinion it would be very wrong to encourage this as it would mean that you could essentially "genetically engineer" your player to an exact specification. Which isnt a good idea.

As well as this, I think its important to remember that certain training techniques will effect more than one attribute.

[Menion]

But if you have a different training program for each individual attribute then surely it becomes too simplistic? In my opinion it would be very wrong to encourage this as it would mean that you could essentially "genetically engineer" your player to an exact specification. Which isnt a good idea.

As well as this, I think its important to remember that certain training techniques will effect more than one attribute.

Not really. There would still be a limit of how much you can train a player. If you train more on freekicks then something else has to give way.

Thats true but it has to make sense. Working on corners could affect your crossing ability, passing, vision, etc. Working on freekicks would not improve your long throws.

[Edle]

A limit yes, but i still dont agree its correct that I can train specific individual attributes.

[SFraser]

Yep.

Right now, it seems that factors which affect how likely my players are to turn up in the right position and do what I tell them (their natural position, teamwork?, positioning, PPMs, etc) are all relatively stable attributes, and not something that we could dramatically change on a week-to-week basis.

I think directly fiddling with attributes in a major way from match to match would be far too easy to exploit.

The only way I could imagine a non-exploitable system of tightening up your teamplay would be to boost hidden attributes such as Important Matches/Consistency and perhaps Team-related attributes like Teamwork and Concentration at the expense of Motivation, Condition and Training CA shifting.

There must always be only a realistic gain and always a realistic penalty.

What is the downside of intensively practicing routines for the next match?

Perhaps something along the lines of +1 Positioning and Marking for all players versus -1 Off The Ball and Finishing at the expense of Training CA shift.

Great idea in theory, murder in practice.

A limit yes, but i still dont agree its correct that I can train specific individual attributes.

If you can train specific individual attributes precisely how you wish then you are the only one.

[RT--]

With technical attributes, I don't think it's that unrealistic to be able to train them individually - as long as it only takes up a small part of the overall schedule. I can easily imagine players IRL being asked to spend a bit of time practicing their free-kicks, corner-taking or crossing, let's say.

[RT--]

The only way I could imagine a non-exploitable system of tightening up your teamplay would be to boost hidden attributes such as Important Matches/Consistency and perhaps Team-related attributes like Teamwork and Concentration at the expense of Motivation, Condition and Training CA shifting.

There must always be only a realistic gain and always a realistic penalty.

Yeah, that's along the lines of what I'd imagined, but you're right that it just wouldn't work in a sensible way. Hence why I'm asking people how they'd link training to tactics.

[Edle]

If you can train specific individual attributes precisely how you wish then you are the only one.

If you follow my posts back to the previous post you will see I was using this as a counter arguement against another posters idea. I cant do it and have no wish to.

[tingting]

Ok so i have not read the whole thread (seeing that there are more than 84 replies) so i dont know whether someone has pointed this out....I hope that SI do not take the short cut route once again and come up with a training creator accumulating various training based ideas by some of the "more knowledgeable" people in the forum.

While i believe that tactics creator is the best feature introduced in the game in recent years, all it has done is that it has created various "scenarios" based on the experiences of some of the people who have more knowledge of the ME i.e the basic foundation of tactic making is the same...it has just helped us avoid the frustration of sliders. Often i find my team playing better football when i create tactics the old fashioned way.

So i do hope that if SI come up with a training creator...it wont be on the same lines as the tactics creator. Personally i liked the training schedules prior to the introduction of sliders. So hopefully they will come back since it was more realistic (which makes sense seeing that the game is aiming to be as realistic as possible..you dont see managers specifying slider numbers for various tasks during training)

However if SI do decide to persist with the current system, i hope that they will make a couple of additions: a) Give us the choice to hold one or two training matches... say each week with the ass man coming to us with names of who did or did not do well in those games (which could be expanded a bit more) b)Ask a player to concentrate on a particular skills (currently i come across situations where a defender, who i want to work on his header, improves his dribbling ability and thereby wasting vital CA points)

[Wee Aja]

A limit yes, but i still dont agree its correct that I can train specific individual attributes.

You don't think being able to train individual attributes would be a good idea? And why's that then?

I'd love to tell a particular player to concentrate on long shots. You know; have him constantly blast the ball at the net from 25yds or more which would no doubt fine-tune (increase slightly) his long shot attribute. Obviously, he'll be doing more than that in training but I'd like to pick out various players and work on their strengths in this sort of way.

My free-kick expert; I'd like him to practice direct FK's over and over again - at what point IRL would this also increase a players long throw ability? It doesn't, but on FM you set high set-piece training and you'll also work on pointless attributes at the same time. What nonsense.

There just isn't enough variety in training and players just improve in a very generic way, you can't fine-tune them, work on their strengths the way managers do IRL. And this is my point, it needs expanded if it can't be changed altogether.

For example - being able to set high set-piece training but on the *new* sub-menu of that, DESELECT 'long throws' from the list so they are ignored by that particular player.

[SCIAG]

The difference between a tactics and training creator is that a training creator would be far more limited. It would ultimately be "here are schedules for each position and age", rather than giving the user some creative input.

I like the idea of fleshing out the coaching side a bit more. Perhaps, rather than getting the assistant to report back, each coach or pair of coaches could be assigned a group of attributes (these could be the default ones or personalised), and then report back on the progress of players on a single attribute?

[SFraser]

You don't think being able to train individual attributes would be a good idea? And why's that then?

I'd love to tell a particular player to concentrate on long shots. You know; have him constantly blast the ball at the net from 25yds or more which would no doubt fine-tune (increase slightly) his long shot attribute. Obviously, he'll be doing more than that in training but I'd like to pick out various players and work on their strengths in this sort of way.

My free-kick expert; I'd like him to practice direct FK's over and over again - at what point IRL would this also increase a players long throw ability? It doesn't, but on FM you set high set-piece training and you'll also work on pointless attributes at the same time. What nonsense.

There just isn't enough variety in training and players just improve in a very generic way, you can't fine-tune them, work on their strengths the way managers do IRL. And this is my point, it needs expanded if it can't be changed altogether.

For example - being able to set high set-piece training but on the *new* sub-menu of that, DESELECT 'long throws' from the list so they are ignored by that particular player.

It does not work the way you think, though.

Attacking players are automatically biased in terms of attacking attributes. A striker doing set piece training will improve his penalty taking and free kicks more than long throws.

This is combined to the fact that events within the Match Engine also count towards Attribute increases. Your primary Free Kick taker can train zero set pieces, but each Free Kick he takes in a match counts towards an improvement in his Set Piece attributes.

It is a lack of understanding more than a broken system that is at fault here.

The difference between a tactics and training creator is that a training creator would be far more limited. It would ultimately be "here are schedules for each position and age", rather than giving the user some creative input.

I like the idea of fleshing out the coaching side a bit more. Perhaps, rather than getting the assistant to report back, each coach or pair of coaches could be assigned a group of attributes (these could be the default ones or personalised), and then report back on the progress of players on a single attribute?

The training creator would be far more limited but far more complicated to develop. The Tactics Creator moves sliders for you, the Training Creator would have to account for Age, Position and Attribute weights to produce the desired effects.

[tingting]

It does not work the way you think, though.

Attacking players are automatically biased in terms of attacking attributes. A striker doing set piece training will improve his penalty taking and free kicks more than long throws.

This is combined to the fact that events within the Match Engine also count towards Attribute increases. Your primary Free Kick taker can train zero set pieces, but each Free Kick he takes in a match counts towards an improvement in his Set Piece attributes.

It is a lack of understanding more than a broken system that is at fault here.

Shouldnt it be "lack of understanding of a broken system"? As i said i have central defenders improving their dribbling rating when i want them to work on their heading and full backs improving their corner/free kick rating when i want them to work on their crossing (even when they are not set to take either corners or free kicks)

[SCIAG]

The training creator would be far more limited but far more complicated to develop. The Tactics Creator moves sliders for you, the Training Creator would have to account for Age, Position and Attribute weights to produce the desired effects.

Would it really be that complicated though?

First screen: Position

Second screen: Age

Third screen: Injury history

Fourth screen: Specific attributes to target

I think those four screens could generate the required schedules. Position gives a basic framework, Age adjusts that (it would be easiest to use age gaps, which would depend on position- strikers would effectively "age" faster than goalkeepers). Injury history could make small adjustments to strength and aerobic training (for young players it could be set to "unknown", which has the same effect as "little"), and "Specific attributes", whether grouped or individual, could allow for a player's weaknesses to be targeted.

[SCIAG]

Shouldnt it be "lack of understanding of a broken system"? As i said i have central defenders improving their dribbling rating when i want them to work on their heading and full backs improving their corner/free kick rating when i want them to work on their crossing (even when they are not set to take either corners or free kicks)

Those are things that need work.

Heading isn't as important as jumping for centre backs, especially if you have decent defensive midfielders. As long as the header is won, usually they'll get it away. I agree with your point though, and I certainly think crossing should be in what is currently the "attacking" category. Heading, perhaps its own category, without much workload consumption?

[Edle]

You don't think being able to train individual attributes would be a good idea? And why's that then?

Because then you delve into the realms of having different sliders for each attribute because people all want something different from a player.

[tingting]

Because then you delve into the realms of having different sliders for each attribute because people all want something different from a player.

But there is no need to have sliders for each and every attribute. You dont have a player who works on his crossing whole morning, then works on his passing in the afternoon and shooting in evening. Just the choice to instruct the player to improve on, say shooting, and after a few days you get a report from the ass man saying whether there has been any improvement or not.

[SFraser]

Would it really be that complicated though?

First screen: Position

Second screen: Age

Third screen: Injury history

Fourth screen: Specific attributes to target

I think those four screens could generate the required schedules. Position gives a basic framework, Age adjusts that (it would be easiest to use age gaps, which would depend on position- strikers would effectively "age" faster than goalkeepers). Injury history could make small adjustments to strength and aerobic training (for young players it could be set to "unknown", which has the same effect as "little"), and "Specific attributes", whether grouped or individual, could allow for a player's weaknesses to be targeted.

If it was a "Player Development Creator" in the same vein as the Tactics Creator then it would be that hard.

If it is as you suggest then it is really on about displaying the necessary information in a better way with a much easier to use user interface for managing that information.

There are two clear points of agreement, and if you were active here last year you will find yourself subject to deja-vu.

The first is that the information necessary is sparse or absent. The second is that the system could be improved but will not alter the fundamental mechanics of the game.

People mix up difficulty and sparse information with broken fundamental mechanics. The fundamental mechanics are hindered by failure to explain the system. They are not inherantly broken, they are inherantly misunderstood.

A system that calculates the fundamental details for the player, and remember we are talking about attribute growth/decline and CA change here, would be incredibly complex to code.

A system that provides the information necessary in an obvious way without making it easy to use a calculator to min-max the system would be ideal.

[Wee Aja]

It does not work the way you think, though.

Attacking players are automatically biased in terms of attacking attributes. A striker doing set piece training will improve his penalty taking and free kicks more than long throws.

This is combined to the fact that events within the Match Engine also count towards Attribute increases. Your primary Free Kick taker can train zero set pieces, but each Free Kick he takes in a match counts towards an improvement in his Set Piece attributes.

It is a lack of understanding more than a broken system that is at fault here.

The training creator would be far more limited but far more complicated to develop. The Tactics Creator moves sliders for you, the Training Creator would have to account for Age, Position and Attribute weights to produce the desired effects.

As I've continued to say; the system is not broken, it's just nonsensical. I know what you're trying to say and believe me, I'm taking it on board. I also appreciate the fact that ripping out the training system and starting anew would be a huge task. I'm just bored with the current system and would dearly love it to be expanded and much more clear.

What gets me is that there is no way of knowing for sure what affect you will have on players' abilities until you fiddle around and test; trial and error as I've said. It shouldn't be like this, it should be clear from the get-go. I want to go into training and know exactly how to get that 'extra 5%' from my leading front man, or the youngster in my youth team who my coaches so highly recommend; I'd love to know how to develop him exactly as I want (etc).

If the training system was changed/expanded (whatever) my love for FM would go through the roof. It's an excellent game as it stands, but there is the opportunity there for SI to open up a whole new dimension by making the training realistic. Carpe diem.

[SFraser]

As I've continued to say; the system is not broken, it's just nonsensical.

You say it is nonsensical but the only example you have is that you don't understand it.

That's the underlying point to this thread. Those that don't understand it make outlandish claims on how immersive, functional or realistic the system is. Those that do understand say it could be clearer.

That is one of the major reasons why I avoid GD. There is almost nothing worth reading here. Ofcourse it is nonsensical to you, you don't understand it.

[Wee Aja]

*You say it is nonsensical but the only example you have is that you don't understand it.

Well you're wrong here. I haven't interpreted training the way you have, but I can use it just as successfully. It's nothing to do with my not understanding it, I really don't know why you keep banging on about that bit.

*That's the underlying point to this thread. Those that don't understand it make outlandish claims on how immersive, functional or realistic the system is. Those that do understand say it could be clearer.

Wrong again. You say I don't understand it, then you say that those (like me) that don't understand it make outlandish claims on how immersive, functional or realistic it is (I've said none of those so I'm not in that group). Then you say those that DO understand it say it could be clearer. I HAVE said that many times, but you say I'm in the 'don't understand it' group, so it's a complete contradiction on your part.

*That is one of the major reasons why I avoid GD. There is almost nothing worth reading here.

Apart from my thread, obviously.

*Of course it is nonsensical to you, you don't understand it. :*)

There you go again. I despair.

Answers/replies obviously in bold.

[grade]

Ok so i have not read the whole thread (seeing that there are more than 84 replies) so i dont know whether someone has pointed this out....I hope that SI do not take the short cut route once again and come up with a training creator accumulating various training based ideas by some of the "more knowledgeable" people in the forum.

While i believe that tactics creator is the best feature introduced in the game in recent years, all it has done is that it has created various "scenarios" based on the experiences of some of the people who have more knowledge of the ME i.e the basic foundation of tactic making is the same...it has just helped us avoid the frustration of sliders. Often i find my team playing better football when i create tactics the old fashioned way.

So i do hope that if SI come up with a training creator...it wont be on the same lines as the tactics creator. Personally i liked the training schedules prior to the introduction of sliders. So hopefully they will come back since it was more realistic (which makes sense seeing that the game is aiming to be as realistic as possible..you dont see managers specifying slider numbers for various tasks during training)

However if SI do decide to persist with the current system, i hope that they will make a couple of additions: a) Give us the choice to hold one or two training matches... say each week with the ass man coming to us with names of who did or did not do well in those games (which could be expanded a bit more) b)Ask a player to concentrate on a particular skills (currently i come across situations where a defender, who i want to work on his header, improves his dribbling ability and thereby wasting vital CA points)

I don't agree. The tactics creator was good addition in FM10, because the complexity is exaggeratedly high so decided that to create wizard to avoid the confusion it was in FM09.

The thing is the old system is still there, the sliders is still there. So nothing change, just had a wizard to create a wizard. I use in the first game, but on the second game and on I never used it again.

The training wizard would be great addiction to simplify the life to those that don't understand the sliders in training. personally don't care just take one out of the internet and use it.

But the thing is this was changed to the sliders, because we the fans demande it. I remember that it had different schedules of 5 vs 5 and running and all that. I recall that fans stated it was too complicated and so on and so on.

I think that a schedules should be found and stick with it. If it is to change, make the thing, dynamic, fun and simplistic that makes the game play more fun and addicted. If it a chore it will not improve gameplay by a long shot.

[SFraser]

Answers/replies obviously in bold.

That all relies upon you not lying for the sake of pure arguement, and everything you have said so far leads to me believe that you are doing just that.

Someone that understands training would not fail to get "that additional 5% from my frontman" they would not fail to boost Free Kicks in Free Kick takers while keeping long throws low, they would not claim that a system of allocating CA into attributes is nonsensical, and they would not be starting threads like these and replying with the vitriol and lack of detail and pure ranting style you post in.

Someone that understands Training would be offering up possible, realistic suggestions for improvement that actually fit into the game. They would understand why "routines" cannot exist in the current game, they would understand that the underlying mechanics are both the problem and the only means to find a solution.

In short someone that understands Training would show a degree of understanding of Training irrespective of their rhetorical internet debating skills. They would show a knowledge of the problem rather than experience of a problem.

If I was to go through each of your replies to me, how many examples of you failing to understand Training, player mechanics and fundamental game mechanics do you think I would find? How many do you think I would not only find, but be able to explain to you in great depth why you are wrong?

Infact why don't I put my money where my mouth is and start from your previous post?

What gets me is that there is no way of knowing for sure what affect you will have on players' abilities until you fiddle around and test; trial and error as I've said. It shouldn't be like this, it should be clear from the get-go. I want to go into training and know exactly how to get that 'extra 5%' from my leading front man, or the youngster in my youth team who my coaches so highly recommend; I'd love to know how to develop him exactly as I want (etc).

1) Starting up the game and instantly being aware of precisely how to obtain X result defeats the purpose of Football Manager, which a manager career simulator. Trial and Error, test and retest, experimentation and understanding and application of knowledge on a context by context basis is the entire point of this game.

That said, there are only 3 fundamental variables necessary to know to plot a players attribute development in fine detail. The first is the relative weight of attributes in terms of CA required for improvement, the second is the age function of CA gain in attribute categories, the third and the only one that changes is overall CA gain/loss from month to month.

Assuming a relatively stable overall CA, a relatively stable overall Ability, then all the user has to know is the precise CA weight of attributes and the age function upon attribute category CA gain. Once these are known it is a simple matter of plotting the relative unmodified bias of attributes and constructing a schedule that reinforces or negates relative category growth bias.

Within the Training Schedules themselves, the attribute numbers and slider positions and workload intensity provide natural balance barriers. Due to the quantity of attributes within Aerobic, the intensity of each increase of Aerobic and the 25 notches within the Aerobic category it is not possible to construct a schedule that has a bias greater than 10:1 in favour of Aerobic.

Therefore if a 40 year old Central Defender has a natural unmodified CA bias of negative 10 to 1 for Acceleration, for example, it is possible to use the Training Schedule to halt the decline of Aerobic at the expense of zero gains in all other attributes, untill such time as he gains/loses CA through Match Experience, or Ages one year.

None of this information is supposed to be known. The game is designed to hide this level of information at the very root of game code mathematics. That does not mean it is impossible to train players precisely by calculated ratios, it means only that the game is designed to make it incredibly difficult for players to understand that level of information and play the game in such a "code-breaking" way.

2) CA Development of youngsters follows several basic "hidden-attribute" dependant curves, that rely upon high school level mathematical knowledge. For the hidden attributes "Professionalism" and "Ambition" there is a basic function of CA gain. This basic function of CA gain is then modified by Match Experience and Club Reputation.

What this means in simple terms is that for each point of Ambition or Professionalism there is a corresponding level of CA gain. This level of CA gain is reduced by reducing levels of Match Experience and reducing levels of Club Reputation.

Ambition follows a linear curve, i.e. a straight line graph. Professionalism follows and exponentially increasing curve, i.e. an accelerating open-ended quadratic function. The testing has been done and if you wish to know the precise details of CA gain for Professionalism/Ambition plots 1-20 then look up threads started by CATAFAN.

Again this information is not meant to be known by those playing the game. It is thanks to people like CATAFAN, ProZone, RT--, others I have failed to mention, and myself that it is now "almost" possible to plot precise details of CA distribution. All that is required is a months further testing and someone with epic Excel skills and the community will have access to what is essentially a cheat.

It is rather ironic that I would hope no such utility is ever released and yet because of my associations, activity, and desire to understand every fundamental inch of training I am likely to be the one responsible for it's development.

3) Three is simply a credit to SI. Even when this knowledge is understood in depth you are still faced with the simple fact that SI have mixed up different Ability Categories in different Training Categories, have refused to explain the fundamental modifiers in detail and have developed the game so that knowing them is a logistical nightmare, and have further mixed up differently weighted attributes in different Training Categories.

All this ultimately means that even when the fundamental variables are understood numerically and in their function, it is still impossible to perfectly the design a schedule that produces the ideal balance of CA distribution. 5% is possible, 1% is not. And 5% is only possible with more effort than most players will reasonably give, assuming they know everything about the mechanics.

For all the depth, complexity, detail and focus on managing multiple numbers of subtle details, the Gurus at SI have produced a game where even when you know the fundamental code details you are not supposed to, you still cannot micromanage individual values.

FM is a work of profound genius. It could only have come from nerdy football fans. I have never met a game I couldn't break or atleast compete with on my terms, but this one takes you around the block and then whips out a final Ace. Fundamental information is buried deep within the guts of the game, simple events are the result of the complex interaction of vast numbers of variables, and once you have the details at your finger tips SI stick differently weighted attributes into different Categories, or chuck in random number generators.

Face it Wee, the game has beaten you. It has beaten you badly and you hate it. It has beaten me narrowly and I love it. It is the best strategy game around by a degree that is embarrasing to every other developer on the planet.

MBE for the Collyer brothers? Not wrong.

[Wee Aja]

Face it Wee, the game has beaten you. It has beaten you badly and you hate it.??? It has beaten me narrowly and I love it. It is the best strategy game around by a degree that is embarrasing to every other developer on the planet.

wtf? :confused:

What are you talking about??? How has the game beaten me? I love FM and enjoy plenty of success on it. I just don't like the training system and feel it could be different.

I have met some pompous idiots in my day but you take the gold medal. No need to respond, I won't be able to read it. You fruit cake.