FM 13 New Video: Changes in Training

[TOUGHGUY]

It won't matter too much... until you want to train a player differently than in those limited ways available to you.

And not just train him in it, but deploy him on the pitch in this new role. In that case you at least have the option of using individual instructions, unlike in the new training. But then you can't use the actually useful additions to the game like shouts, fast tactic switching etc. So you are out of luck and it's a lose-lose situation either way.

[Riz Remes]

My ideal training system is one where I can just say "I want this guy to be a winger - attack" and the game works out how to "set the sliders" to make that happen.

This is basically the direction where we are trying to take the training module. You employ a number of coaches to run the training, so you shouldn't have to micromanage the detailed drills for every single player. So the AI coaches will setup the basic training drills (or slider values, whatever way you want to view it) and by assigning an individual focus on a certain role, the training levels are adjusted so the key attributes are trained more.

Yes, it might not be perfect right off the bat, but we believe this is the right direction to go for.

Oh, and someone wondered earlier about new positions and the focus on roles in training. I can confirm that you can indeed assign a player to learn a new position and at the same time, you can assign him to focus on a role linked to the new position even if he is not yet accomplished in that.

[Riz Remes]

Hopefully Set Piece training is more appropriate, with players set as FK/Corner takers training to take them by default instead of requiring some special setting made. After all, they'll be taking in training as part of day-to-day activity, so it should be assumed so in the game.

Well said back there.

[BiggusD]

This is basically the direction where we are trying to take the training module. You employ a number of coaches to run the training, so you shouldn't have to micromanage the detailed drills for every single player. So the AI coaches will setup the basic training drills (or slider values, whatever way you want to view it) and by assigning an individual focus on a certain role, the training levels are adjusted so the key attributes are trained more.

Yes, it might not be perfect right off the bat, but we believe this is the right direction to go for.

Oh, and someone wondered earlier about new positions and the focus on roles in training. I can confirm that you can indeed assign a player to learn a new position and at the same time, you can assign him to focus on a role linked to the new position even if he is not yet accomplished in that.

The underlying mechanics of the training/CA-PA model remains the same?

[Riz Remes]

The underlying mechanics of the training/CA-PA model remains the same?

The underlying basic mechanics and links between training and player progression remain the same. The way training levels are constructed has changed obviously but the progression of attributes (and thus CA) is linked to the training the same way as before.

[Shakes]

Which is part of what I said. Create New Schedule -> Set Position or Role. (Or Use Schedule -> Set Position or Role)

You're missing the point. What you said is just paint on the current system. Static schedules that you can unlock into sliders will never do what I want.

If you didn't want to do anything else then you didn't have to. Same way that you don't have to tinker with tactics or do team talks if you think it's below you. Other people can get deeper into the changing of schedules if they want.

Unless the schedules are dynamic I'll have to continuously adapt and adjust them to my players or play in a sub optimal manner. That's what I don't like about it: the game shouldn't be making me make a choice between "do I want to waste X amount of time per season moving player's sliders around" or "do I want my players to be less than they could be". You seem to be stuck in that dichotomy, I think there's a third option of "neither, the game knows the algorithms used in training, it's perfectly possible for it to maximise players without user intervention".

This is basically the direction where we are trying to take the training module. You employ a number of coaches to run the training, so you shouldn't have to micromanage the detailed drills for every single player. So the AI coaches will setup the basic training drills (or slider values, whatever way you want to view it) and by assigning an individual focus on a certain role, the training levels are adjusted so the key attributes are trained more.

Yes, it might not be perfect right off the bat, but we believe this is the right direction to go for.

Oh, and someone wondered earlier about new positions and the focus on roles in training. I can confirm that you can indeed assign a player to learn a new position and at the same time, you can assign him to focus on a role linked to the new position even if he is not yet accomplished in that.

Indeed, I'm impressed with this direction, it's clearly moving towards where it needs to get to. Hopefully the future is coaches smart enough to see that my player is slow and needs even more work on his pace than a normal winger would (for example).

[7Bestie7]

Unless the schedules are dynamic I'll have to continuously adapt and adjust them to my players or play in a sub optimal manner. That's what I don't like about it: the game shouldn't be making me make a choice between "do I want to waste X amount of time per season moving player's sliders around" or "do I want my players to be less than they could be". You seem to be stuck in that dichotomy, I think there's a third option of "neither, the game knows the algorithms used in training, it's perfectly possible for it to maximise players without user intervention".

If the dynamic system is put into place all the better but I believe that there should be a choice in regards to if the manager gets to "tinker" or leave it to the coaches. After all, there are still plenty of real managers out there who prefer to take their team's training and adjust things as needed. The footballing world hasn't totally moved away from manager involvement in training.

[davidbowie]

You employ a number of coaches to run the training, so you shouldn't have to micromanage the detailed drills for every single player.

Why have you removed the option though? I'm perfectly happy to micromanage training schedules.

I set what categories my player should be training in, and then the coaches run those category based sessions.

The coaches do not decide how much of each category a player needs because that's my job.

The underlying basic mechanics and links between training and player progression remain the same. The way training levels are constructed has changed obviously but the progression of attributes (and thus CA) is linked to the training the same way as before.

Except you've ripped away player choice and are forcing players down this casual friendly dumbed down pre-set schedule form. The mechanics might be exactly the same but you have ruined the way the player can choose to implement them.

It's like telling us that the tactic mechanics remains the same, except we've now made it so you can only pick from 1 of 4 pre-set formations, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1 and 5-3-2.

The mechanics might be the same, but the way those mechanics are visible and interacted with the player would be destroyed. Just like the training module interaction and choice has been destroyed.

Since everyone else in this thread seems to be saying "OMG WAT UNTIL TEH DEMOSZ!!!" I'll ask you direct question:

1) Why have you removed the ability for a player to train in a 'role' and work on a specific attribute at the same time, forcing a player to do generic training plus one attribute only, completely destroying the entire purpose of your new "role" system for anyone who needs to develop one part of an overall role.

2) Does the human player have the ability to create their own training schedules in the exact same way as FM12, with their own decisions to put players onto training schedules created via use of the category workload slider system?

3) In the event that your answer to #2 is "no", Is there any ability for a player can create their own 'pre-set' schedules for example by editing a text or settings file in notepad, that would then show up in the new pre-set form system along side the new pre-set 'roles'?

4) If the answer to #2 and #3 is no, why have you ripped away the choice of the user in favour of a dumbed down, unrealistic, lacking player choice, casual friendly option, and not kept the old system in place for users who made the effort to learn the old training system?

[Riz Remes]

Why have you removed the option though? I'm perfectly happy to micromanage training schedules.

Yes, we knew some people were perfectly fine with micromanaging and loved creating detailed schedules for individual players. However we cannot cater for all the different ways people want to play the game and we also need to consider the gameplay balance and playability across all of the customer base when making design decisions. Apologies if this seems harsh to you but this is the direction that was decided in our feature meetings and naturally we are looking forward to constructive feedback on the system once the game is out. This way we can evaluate any need for future development of the module.

Since everyone else in this thread seems to be saying "OMG WAT UNTIL TEH DEMOSZ!!!" I'll ask you direct question:

Some answers then:

1) The players won't do just "generic" training as the AI coaches will still employ position based training as a foundation for the team training. No, you cannot create a custom training schedule to suit a specific "role" like in previous versions, but you can put individual players to focus on specific roles now, which is more efficient for the key attributes than the old schedule based training for a "role".

2) No. There is no option to create individual training schedules like in FM12.

3) No again.

4) I'm sorry you feel so strongly on the issue, but I don't think attacking our design decision so vigorously is the best option for voicing your criticism. We are not trying to "dumb down" the game or make it more unrealistic, although we are trying to naturally make things more user friendly.

Constructive criticism is welcome and there have been many excellent posts already in the thread with some very good points that we can consider going forward

[Smurf]

This is basically the direction where we are trying to take the training module. You employ a number of coaches to run the training, so you shouldn't have to micromanage the detailed drills for every single player. So the AI coaches will setup the basic training drills (or slider values, whatever way you want to view it) and by assigning an individual focus on a certain role, the training levels are adjusted so the key attributes are trained more.

Yes, I feel this brings more into the Football Manager, as the game title insists, rather than Football Coach.

You do hire coaches, and you tell them what you need accomplished and they do the work.

I take it then that poorer coaches will take longer or not be as effective in training players to new roles/positions/training adjustment of sliders (whatever way you look at it)?

[davidbowie]

Yes, we knew some people were perfectly fine with micromanaging and loved creating detailed schedules for individual players. However we cannot cater for all the different ways people want to play the game and we also need to consider the gameplay balance and playability across all of the customer base when making design decisions. Apologies if this seems harsh to you but this is the direction that was decided in our feature meetings and naturally we are looking forward to constructive feedback on the system once the game is out. This way we can evaluate any need for future development of the module.

So your response is "To hell with you, we're forcing this down your throat for no good reason just because we can."

1) The players won't do just "generic" training as the AI coaches will still employ position based training as a foundation for the team training. No, you cannot create a custom training schedule to suit a specific "role" like in previous versions, but you can put individual players to focus on specific roles now, which is more efficient for the key attributes than the old schedule based training for a "role".

You didn't read the question properly. When a player is doing specific attribute instruction he isn't allowed to pick a role. I'm asking why that was removed.

If a player can't do this new casual wizard/pre-set form based 'role' training while doing an attribute then he'll be stuck on generic training correct? Which basically means the ability to train an attribute will never be used now because it'll mean your player goes back on some random generic training you have idea what it does.

What if the pre-set roles don't actually do what I need.

Here's another example of your flawed system:

I play a 5-3-2 system, where I use wing-backs cutting inside and shooting after being given through balls by the midfield. The high mentality of the wing-back compared to the midfield, combined with high forward runs, the cut inside option and medium long shots means they are very effective in this role.

To train that in their 'role' I need to improve their shooting.

In FM 12 I can create a schedule which has high levels of shooting without destroying their defending ability. In fact, I've got one already.

Strength Medium.

Aerobic Light.

Tactics Medium.

Ball Control Medium.

Defending Medium.

Attacking High.

Shooting High.

Then I could train the wing-back in whatever I think is a key attribute for that player.

In FM 13 I will be forced to use the pre-set roles for a defender.

None of which include Finishing as a 'key attribute'.

By your own admission, I have to force my player into a pre-set training role. But the role I want doesn't exist.

There is nothing in the pre-set FM roles where finishing is a pre-set key attribute for a defensive role.

It's dumbed down, tears user choice away, is inherently flawed for players and roles that do not match your casual friendly dumbed down 'role focus'.

Tell me how your new 'user friendly' system is going to handle my need for a wing-back who can shoot. Without making him re-train as a midfielder. Without using non-defensive 'roles'. Without having to push him onto a generic non-role based training schedule (in effect sacrificing his entire training schedule) just to improving finishing only.

Are you going to tell Gareth Bale or the next-Roberto Carlos that he's not allowed to practice shooting because you've pre-set his training schedule to only allow defensive roles, none of which include shooting as a 'key attribute'?

There are also a number of players who use the training system to increase their veteran players longevity, by pushing high levels of physical training to keep them playing as long as possible without losing their skills.

This won't exist now either. Poof, another great way your own users were able to play the game the want they wanted that now doesn't exist.

Also, what about in reverse? I often put my young players in intensive physical training while they are young because their mental attributes are very slow to develop at a young age. Can I still do that? Or in reverse if I have a young player who is already physically strong but technically weak.

2) No. There is no option to create individual training schedules like in FM12.

3) No again.

So there it is in black and white for all the whiners and complainers telling us to wait for the demo. There is no option. We are stuck with the flawed new system.

SI have removed choice from the user in favour of an, unrealistic, inherently flawed, dumbed down casual friendly pre-set wizard/form system that destroys user choice for those who knew how to use the sliders.

In effect, SI are punishing their userbase for SI's inability to create proper documentation or a tutorial that fully explains the training system.

4) I'm sorry you feel so strongly on the issue, but I don't think attacking our design decision so vigorously is the best option for voicing your criticism. We are not trying to "dumb down" the game or make it more unrealistic, although we are trying to naturally make things more user friendly.

If I just nod my head and let it go then SI doesn't realise that people do not want this change without the ability to keep the old system. SI do not respond at all to constructive criticism. It takes force of word and actions to make SI realise anything is wrong or unpopular. I've watched bugs reported years earlier stay in the game and it takes non-stop reminding for SI to actually do anything about it and even then they ignore a lot of issues. Only when people press SI do they ever respond. Otherwise you will be happy to let this game slide into a desktop version of FM Handheld with the game becoming progressively dumbed down more and more to make it as 'user friendly' as possible.

FM 12 to FM 13 goes from:

* FM12 - The player having the ability to create their own schedules with their own mixture of workload in several areas, while focusing on an attribute and re-training for a new position at the same time.

to

* FM13 - The player being forced to use whatever pre-set schedules SI tells them to. These schedules aren't visible, only their titles. If a player trains in a specific attribute he gets moved to generic training. If a player needs to train in a role that doesn't exist or isn't available for his position then tough luck.

That's removing choice.

It makes it 'user friendly' sure, but that's because it's so simple a 4 year old could use it. All you do now is click a couple of buttons and you're done. Because you don't have to engage your brain and actually think about what you are doing to the training schedule. How 'user friendly' is FM13 not allowing me to train a wing-back who can shoot?

Removing choice and replacing it with a simplistic pre-set system is by definition making it dumbed down.

You might not be deliberately setting out to make it dumbed down, casual friendly or removing user choice, but that means almost nothing because it's the end result that matters. All it means is that instead of deliberately screwing it up, you're screwing it up because of incompetence and inability to think about what the output will be, ie a flawed design process.

Deeply flawed.

Dumbed down.

Removing user choice.

Casual friendly.

Unrealistic.

No option to use the existing module.

Constructive criticism is welcome and there have been many excellent posts already in the thread with some very good points that we can consider going forward

The only way to go forward is to go back and give us the option to keep the old system.

Note: Not replace it and go all the way back.

Give us the option.

[Smurf]

Note: Not replace it and go all the way back.

Give us the option.

But would negate the advances they are trying to make. They already explained that they felt putting every player (or multiple players) on individual traning regimes is unrealistic and shouldn't have been the way in the first place.

They've replaced that system with a system that better reflects what happens in real life training.

It's a change for everyone - but it's more realistic in terms of training.

I'm sure you've made some very valid points and I'm sure SI will take them (and everyone elses) onboard to make improvements to the new improved more realistic way of how clubs approach training.

By all means, removing the sliders and individual training regime moves the game forward to the way training should have been handled from the start.

[7Bestie7]

Some answers then:

1) The players won't do just "generic" training as the AI coaches will still employ position based training as a foundation for the team training. No, you cannot create a custom training schedule to suit a specific "role" like in previous versions, but you can put individual players to focus on specific roles now, which is more efficient for the key attributes than the old schedule based training for a "role".

2) No. There is no option to create individual training schedules like in FM12.

3) No again.

4) I'm sorry you feel so strongly on the issue, but I don't think attacking our design decision so vigorously is the best option for voicing your criticism. We are not trying to "dumb down" the game or make it more unrealistic, although we are trying to naturally make things more user friendly.

Constructive criticism is welcome and there have been many excellent posts already in the thread with some very good points that we can consider going forward

Riz, I just have one thing to ask. Has it been discussed/is it an already though of potent for the manager to be able to micro manage if he wanted to in a future version of FM? Essentially were you looking to get this revamp in place first and open it up to micro managing later on or are you looking to totally move away from allowing users to get that deep into the training?

[hursty2]

@davidbowie - I agree with the points you make about youth players who lack in technical/physical areas and I too do wonder how you will improve those areas? Maybe giving them more physical training days then more technical days? The thing is youth players vary massively.

[Bootador]

Would just like to reiterate that i really like the new system as an fm veteran and can see myself spending much more time on this module than before. Hopefully this will result in the ai developing there players better as well

[x42bn6]

But would negate the advances they are trying to make. They already explained that they felt putting every player (or multiple players) on individual traning regimes is unrealistic and shouldn't have been the way in the first place.

They've replaced that system with a system that better reflects what happens in real life training.

It's a change for everyone - but it's more realistic in terms of training.

The new system reflects it better to a certain extent by focussing on team-wide training. However, it reflects it worse when it comes to designing tailor-made training schedules for players with specific needs. It's a one-size-fits-all (with an option for one attribute of focus) approach. If you have two identical players, the only way they can be made different is if you micromanage the focus, which sort of defeats the purpose of the system because it wants to avoid micromanagement.

Individual training schedules are not necessarily unrealistic. Look at Ledley King - his training schedule involves sitting out the vast majority of physical work as his knees can't take it, which makes it more impressive on the pitch because he actually trains with the team less but can still operate within the team very well. You can't do that here. The same goes for any player who has more than one attribute with a glaring flaw (i.e. it can't be covered with one attribute in focus).

Youngsters are particularly susceptible to this - they have lots of scope to grow and therefore you could identify multiple flaws in their current state. Ironing them out takes micromanagement of focus, and doesn't reflect reality. You don't tell young Jonny Flawed to concentrate on his dribbling one year, then crossing another, then off the ball another. You tell him to focus on his wide play in general, and as he develops, you gradually ease him into a more "normal" training schedule. However, even this "normal" training schedule may not be the same as other wingers like Jonny Flawed.

So I disagree it's more realistic. In some ways, it is, but in others, it's not.

By all means, removing the sliders and individual training regime moves the game forward to the way training should have been handled from the start.

"Removing" the sliders would only have been acceptable if there were a suitable replacement in abstraction that reflected reality. In this case, it only reflects reality in certain ways. Sliders are fiddly and fairly nasty for new users to get to grips with so it makes sense to include a new abstraction that reflects "the real world" rather than "the slider world". However, as demonstrated by this thread, some users appreciate the detail that are given by the sliders (in the same way that some people like custom, non-wizard tactics) so a "fire and forget + one size fits all" approach is a heavy-handed approach.

If you like, "removing" functionality is always the wrong way to go. You have to replace it with something that is better.

Yes, we knew some people were perfectly fine with micromanaging and loved creating detailed schedules for individual players. However we cannot cater for all the different ways people want to play the game and we also need to consider the gameplay balance and playability across all of the customer base when making design decisions. Apologies if this seems harsh to you but this is the direction that was decided in our feature meetings and naturally we are looking forward to constructive feedback on the system once the game is out. This way we can evaluate any need for future development of the module.

Why not go the tactics creator approach and expose the sliders in an "advanced" mode? That way you can satisfy everyone. I'm sure even davidbowie would appreciate this approach because the "training creator" can be used as a basic template for a training schedule, which can be saved and reused (and tinkered with for individual players). It would also let you expand on the training mechanics behind the scenes by making it more complex, possibly exposing it in a more "onion" fashion (i.e. you can peel away more and more layers away to create more and more exotic training schedules).

[davidbowie]

But would negate the advances they are trying to make. They already explained that they felt putting every player (or multiple players) on individual traning regimes is unrealistic and shouldn't have been the way in the first place.

They've replaced that system with a system that better reflects what happens in real life training.

It's a change for everyone - but it's more realistic in terms of training.

I'm sure you've made some very valid points and I'm sure SI will take them (and everyone elses) onboard to make improvements to the new improved more realistic way of how clubs approach training.

By all means, removing the sliders and individual training regime moves the game forward to the way training should have been handled from the start.

Why do you persist with the fiction that this is more realistic? It is not, and that has been thoroughly shown in the last few pages. It seems like you are deliberately trolling now by completely ignoring anything that isn't what you believe.

It's not a change for everyone. It's a change to a dumbed down unrealistic and deeply flawed system that caters to casual gamers so they don't have to learn the old system.

By all means, removing the sliders and individual training regime moves the game forward to the way training should have been handled from the start.

No, it shouldn't be handled that way, and no, it shouldn't have been handled that way from the start. For all the reasons shown in this thread.

It rips choice away from the user. The mechanics are the same but the interaction is flawed, unrealistic and limited in depth.

It is less immersive.

It is not realistic, or more realistic than the old version.

It is deeply flawed in a number of ways, and this will only get worse when it goes 'live' in a game and the flaws become critical game-breaking and more are found.

@davidbowie - I agree with the points you make about youth players who lack in technical/physical areas and I too do wonder how you will improve those areas? Maybe giving them more physical training days then more technical days? The thing is youth players vary massively.

Exactly. I've had players come through who don't need any physical training at all, and others where they need it from day 1 at an intense level. From what I can gather this new style means I can't maximise or minimise any specific area. I just pick from pre-set roles which will evenly train that entire role.

Why not go the tactics creator approach and expose the sliders in an "advanced" mode? That way you can satisfy everyone. I'm sure even davidbowie would appreciate this approach because the "training creator" can be used as a basic template for a training schedule, which can be saved and reused (and tinkered with for individual players). It would also let you expand on the training mechanics behind the scenes by making it more complex, possibly exposing it in a more "onion" fashion (i.e. you can peel away more and more layers away to create more and more exotic training schedules).

I would be perfectly happy to let casual users play with the basic version then graduate to the advanced version when they have experience and understand how the game works better.

My issue has all along been that SI are destroying play choice and forcing the entire user-base to be stuck with their forced 'roles' that as we have seen in just a cursory look at a video to be flawed from their very conception.

[spankie]

I won't believe that it isn't possible to add pre-set training schedules until I have the demo and can try it out myself. I'd be a bit surprised if all of the training schedules are inside the FM13 executable, they'll probably be external to the executable and somewhere in the FM13 directories and all probably in a single file. The trick will be wether or not it can be opened in Notepad.

A few FM versions ago no one at SI knew that it would be possible to add pre-set player roles in the tactics, until some bright spark in the T&TD forum found out how. All that you had to do is locate the file, open it in Notepad, copy and paste a section of one of the pre-set roles and amend it so that it matched the slider settings you want. Then restart FM and the player role shows in the tactics screen.

[hursty2]

It also poses the question, does our injury prone CB, ala Ledley King, have to train at the same intensity as everyone else? Or can we tell him to take days off individually or only go light in training.

[Smurf]

If you like, "removing" functionality is always the wrong way to go. You have to replace it with something that is better.

I think it is better. As I've always felt the individual sliders were unrealistic approach to training.

I appreciate that others are frustrated with the removal. But I suspect this is a beginning of an overhaul in the training.

I understand that it's not perfect at the moment. But it's certainly better than what was there before in terms of realism, imo.

[Herter]

Exactly. I've had players come through who don't need any physical training at all, and others where they need it from day 1 at an intense level. From what I can gather this new style means I can't maximise or minimise any specific area. I just pick from pre-set roles which will evenly train that entire role.

..and this is your idea of "realism"? - players that dont train physical training at all because they already are good physically? how do you think people get physically fit/strong and stay that way? - yes.. hard work in the gym and on the field. You wont find a single physically fit player in the world that doesnt work hard at every single training.. its not something people are born with

I would be perfectly happy to let casual users play with the basic version then graduate to the advanced version when they have experience and understand how the game works better.

If find your arrogance funny.. nothing beats a keyboard-pirate acting all smart and better than other people.. Just go away please..

My issue has all along been that SI are destroying play choice and forcing the entire user-base to be stuck with their forced 'roles' that as we have seen in just a cursory look at a video to be flawed from their very conception.

If you dont like the smell in the bakery then take your business elsewhere.. I believe CM needs customers too

[tts0]

Hi SI!

I think you f***** it up a little bit. I mean the whole concept of the general team training is good and more realistic, but mostly only from the tactical side of it. I've been playing football in many diferent clubs for my whole life, and I know that most of the daily training routines are combined for the whole team and focusing on specific aeria of the game such as technique, first touch, shooting etc, but there are many "super-sessions" that involve only specific type of players to make their training more idividual and more focused on the important aspect of their game.

The way you are revamping trainig is good, but you should make an option to group some player for individual trainig rather than leave it as it is right now. For now it seems that all players assigned for specific individual training regime(ex. poacher) are trainig separately rather than in the group of poachers. Its kinda funny, because its threated as an idividual trainig, but it is quite te opposite in the real life - its part of the team's daily training rotune! Players can olny train some atributes individualy such as crossing, shooting, speed, acceleration, strenght and it is some additional training for them, but the role or possition traing is covered by the team's daily routine!

[x42bn6]

I think it is better. As I've always felt the individual sliders were unrealistic approach to training.

I appreciate that others are frustrated with the removal. But I suspect this is a beginning of an overhaul in the training.

I understand that it's not perfect at the moment. But it's certainly better than what was there before in terms of realism, imo.

How is it better when it is basically style over substance?

[x42bn6]

If find your arrogance funny.. nothing beats a keyboard-pirate acting all smart and better than other people.. Just go away please..

If you dont like the smell in the bakery then take your business elsewhere.. I believe CM needs customers too

It would help if you commented on the content, not the contributor.

[7Bestie7]

..and this is your idea of "realism"? - players that dont train physical training at all because they already are good physically? how do you think people get physically fit/strong and stay that way? - yes.. hard work in the gym and on the field. You wont find a single physically fit player in the world that doesnt work hard at every single training.. its not something people are born with

You are aware that it's possible to have a personal training regime which maintains your current physical performance, right?

The arguments are going round in circles. It seems like everyone who found the current training system "unrealistic" don't want to accept that it's quite easy to have individuals on their own regime within a squad structure. Players do extra gym work, crossing practice, and even training with the youth players in an attempt to fully integrate themselves to the level that the coaching staff want.

It wasn't the individual aspect of training that needed to be overhauled but the simplicity of group trainings.

[Riz Remes]

So your response is "To hell with you, we're forcing this down your throat for no good reason just because we can."

No, that is not at all what I'm saying. However you seem to be reading it that way, so apologies if it read that way to you. Sometimes we have to make design decisions that do not go down well with all of the userbase and most often the ones who don't like the changes will be quite vocal about it here. We just have to deal with it, filter out the constructive feedback and react to it if needed. But there is no need to go on ranting aggressively about it on and on because your point has been made already and the constructive parts of the feedback will surely be considered.

You didn't read the question properly. When a player is doing specific attribute instruction he isn't allowed to pick a role. I'm asking why that was removed.

In FM12, you could only ever assign players individual training focus on one specific attribute. You could not set them to focus on a tactical role individually. The option to have the individual focus on the key attributes related to a specific role is all new for FM13. So nothing was removed in this regard.

If a player can't do this new casual wizard/pre-set form based 'role' training while doing an attribute then he'll be stuck on generic training correct? Which basically means the ability to train an attribute will never be used now because it'll mean your player goes back on some random generic training you have idea what it does.

No. There is no common "generic training" that player goes back on. All players are put on position based general training based by the coaching staff and on top of that, the individual focus on either role or an attribute can be used to put a specific focus on training certain key attributes.

Also, what about in reverse? I often put my young players in intensive physical training while they are young because their mental attributes are very slow to develop at a young age. Can I still do that? Or in reverse if I have a young player who is already physically strong but technically weak.

The youth training is separate from senior training, so you can set the team training focus on fitness for the youths if you want to improve their physical attributes more.

[Crispypaul]

How is it better when it is basically style over substance?

Making something more intuitive doesn't necessarily mean the substance has been reduced, though. As Riz said the mechanics of training remain the same.

[Riz Remes]

Why not go the tactics creator approach and expose the sliders in an "advanced" mode? That way you can satisfy everyone.

This was discussed at multiple points during the design and development process and there were arguments for and against. For the time being however, the decision was made to not include an advanced mode. Yes, technically you might be able to satisfy more people by including an advanced mode but I wouldn't go as far as saying it would satisfy everyone

[Smurf]

How is it better when it is basically style over substance?

As I said, it's better because of the unrealistic sliders in the approach to training.

The substance hasn't been removed. It's just worked better.

The coaches decide what the "sliders" will be, as Riz Remes explained earlier. The coach do the coaching. You hire the coaches to do the coaching. You shouldn't be interfering with the training in respect to individual aspects of training.

Otherwise, why bother hire a coach at all?

[hursty2]

As I said, it's better because of the unrealistic sliders in the approach to training.

The substance hasn't been removed. It's just worked better.

The coaches decide what the "sliders" will be, as Riz Remes explained earlier. The coach do the coaching. You hire the coaches to do the coaching. You shouldn't be interfering with the training in respect to individual aspects of training.

Otherwise, why bother hire a coach at all?

I think you're being naive here, you hire a coach to follow your own instructions and provide the coaching using their own techniques (whether good or bad).

[playmaker]

Hi SI!

I think you f***** it up a little bit. I mean the whole concept of the general team training is good and more realistic, but mostly only from the tactical side of it. I've been playing football in many diferent clubs for my whole life, and I know that most of the daily training routines are combined for the whole team and focusing on specific aeria of the game such as technique, first touch, shooting etc, but there are many "super-sessions" that involve only specific type of players to make their training more idividual and more focused on the important aspect of their game.

The way you are revamping trainig is good, but you should make an option to group some player for individual trainig rather than leave it as it is right now. For now it seems that all players assigned for specific individual training regime(ex. poacher) are trainig separately rather than in the group of poachers. Its kinda funny, because its threated as an idividual trainig, but it is quite te opposite in the real life - its part of the team's daily training rotune! Players can olny train some atributes individualy such as crossing, shooting, speed, acceleration, strenght and it is some additional training for them, but the role or possition traing is covered by the team's daily routine!

This says more in two paragraphs than the previous three pages managed put together.

Essentially it comes down to being able to do role training AND specific attribute, rather than one or the other. It might not offer the ultimate control people want, but it would be realistic and hopefully be close enough to make it worthwhile for everyone.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

The youth training is separate from senior training, so you can set the team training focus on fitness for the youths if you want to improve their physical attributes more.

It gets worse, unless I misunderstood, you only came up with an answer to the first of his scenarios! Are you saying there is no way to split the youth team training focus? What if you want to improve physical attributes in only half your youths and technical in the others?

[x42bn6]

Making something more intuitive doesn't necessarily mean the substance has been reduced, though. As Riz said the mechanics of training remain the same.

The underlying mechanics remain the same, but if the user's options are now limited, the effective mechanics are changed. If SI disabled the ability for users to train players altogether, the underlying mechanics would be the same, but that would mean nothing to the user.

This was discussed at multiple points during the design and development process and there were arguments for and against. For the time being however, the decision was made to not include an advanced mode. Yes, technically you might be able to satisfy more people by including an advanced mode but I wouldn't go as far as saying it would satisfy everyone

What were the "against" arguments?

Of course it wouldn't satisfy everyone. But it would surely satisfy more people. If you don't want to go advanced, you can ignore it.

As I said, it's better because of the unrealistic sliders in the approach to training.

The substance hasn't been removed. It's just worked better.

The coaches decide what the "sliders" will be, as Riz Remes explained earlier. The coach do the coaching. You hire the coaches to do the coaching. You shouldn't be interfering with the training in respect to individual aspects of training.

Otherwise, why bother hire a coach at all?

In a company, some managers involve themselves in the work as well. The same applies here. Marcelo Bielsa, for example, involves himself in training fairly heavily. Wenger also involves himself in training, and in scouting, too. Even if delegated, the manager can override his employees (or coaches, in this case).

Do you think this really happens?

Ferguson: Go train this player.

Phelan: OK, I'll put him on the same training schedule as everyone.

Ferguson: Don't do that, he's got a gaping flaw in his physical attributes. Make sure he does more gym work.

Phelan: Nope, who are you to tell me what to do? Leave me alone!

No! A manager has influence over his employees!

[Dave C]

An interesting, and maybe over-heated, discussion.

For what it's worth, I prefer the direction SI are moving as the idea of training a player individually in a single attribute was far more unrealistic than anything proposed here. A player working on his passing is also working on technique, vision, decision-making. If he's working with a partner, then someone else is also benefitting. And so on. So the position focus within overall training better reflects reality, and makes it feel more like your team is training.

That said, there are some fair points about customising training to customised tactics. There's a lot of nonsense, aggression, and hyperbole in what DavidBowie has said. And a lot of it is flat-out wrong. But his example of wanting his wing-backs to improve their shooting is a valid one. Now, I'd hope a default schedule for an attacking wing-back would work on shooting, but if not, the user is basically stuffed. That's frustrating, and it's wrong. However, the solution is most certainly not to go back. That would be pointless and stupid. Instead, it's feedback SI have to take on board, and work out how to adapt the new system. One way would be to link through the requirements of the tactical role to the training role. So if you have your wing-backs set to shoot more, then your training routine would automatically include this.

I also agree with the questions from users about intensity. We may well want to have players at different intensities (for instance, you bring in a free agent in September, he's had no pre-season, he needs the more intensive individual fitness training). But if this isn't possible, your player won't reach the correct level of fitness. Players do take on individual extra work, so that needs to be reflected.

However, credit to Riz for being here answering questions. One or two users are getting a little nasty in their comments, which isn't how it should work. Other threads (like for instance the one on expanded staff roles, DoF) could do with SI bods commenting and discussing the feature, so let's make this a thread that demonstrates the good of the forum, not the bad and the ugly, eh chaps?

[Keyzer Soze]

That said, there are some fair points about customising training to customised tactics. There's a lot of nonsense, aggression, and hyperbole in what DavidBowie has said. And a lot of it is flat-out wrong. But his example of wanting his wing-backs to improve their shooting is a valid one. Now, I'd hope a default schedule for an attacking wing-back would work on shooting, but if not, the user is basically stuffed. That's frustrating, and it's wrong. However, the solution is most certainly not to go back. That would be pointless and stupid. Instead, it's feedback SI have to take on board, and work out how to adapt the new system. One way would be to link through the requirements of the tactical role to the training role. So if you have your wing-backs set to shoot more, then your training routine would automatically include this.

This would be a great ideia! so for example if your CM's would have more defensive duties in your tactics, they would get more defensive training.

Dinamics training schedules that would very according to your team/player tactical instructions and philosophy.

Too good to be true?

[x42bn6]

However, the solution is most certainly not to go back. That would be pointless and stupid. Instead, it's feedback SI have to take on board, and work out how to adapt the new system. One way would be to link through the requirements of the tactical role to the training role. So if you have your wing-backs set to shoot more, then your training routine would automatically include this.

That sounds very hacky because you might have contradictory tactics and training in preparation for a future positional switch down the line. Also, it would bind training and tactics modules together, meaning you'd get awkward things like training changing when you temporarily switch formation to combat a particular opponent. In addition, if a player plays at, say, right-back due to long-term injuries to another player, you might not want him to train his right-back attributes because it's just a temporary stop-gap.

All SI need to do is expose the ability to tinker with the training under the hood (perhaps up to a point depending on the level of micromanagement possible, depending on staff numbers and how exotic the variability is).

[davidbowie]

..and this is your idea of "realism"? - players that dont train physical training at all because they already are good physically? how do you think people get physically fit/strong and stay that way? - yes.. hard work in the gym and on the field. You wont find a single physically fit player in the world that doesnt work hard at every single training.. its not something people are born with

If find your arrogance funny.. nothing beats a keyboard-pirate acting all smart and better than other people.. Just go away please..

If you dont like the smell in the bakery then take your business elsewhere.. I believe CM needs customers too

You are an idiot. Please stop posting. Your posts are garbage. You have no clue and are too stupid to comprehend my posts. You are the exact reason why SI are dumbing down their game for idiots who can't even comprehend a paragraph of discussion.

[BiggusD]

That sounds very hacky because you might have contradictory tactics and training in preparation for a future positional switch down the line. Also, it would bind training and tactics modules together, meaning you'd get awkward things like training changing when you temporarily switch formation to combat a particular opponent. In addition, if a player plays at, say, right-back due to long-term injuries to another player, you might not want him to train his right-back attributes because it's just a temporary stop-gap.

All SI need to do is expose the ability to tinker with the training under the hood (perhaps up to a point depending on the level of micromanagement possible, depending on staff numbers and how exotic the variability is).

Tactical familiarity could play a role here.

[tts0]

Dinamics training schedules that would very according to your team/player tactical instructions and philosophy.

Too good to be true?

I think it worked this way before to some extent. For example, I had a "ball playing" central defenders adjusted in my tactics and the passing and technique skills were developing well even if i had (almost) no attacking training adjuted in general deffensive training.

[Dave C]

That sounds very hacky because you might have contradictory tactics and training in preparation for a future positional switch down the line. Also, it would bind training and tactics modules together, meaning you'd get awkward things like training changing when you temporarily switch formation to combat a particular opponent. In addition, if a player plays at, say, right-back due to long-term injuries to another player, you might not want him to train his right-back attributes because it's just a temporary stop-gap.

On the first point, you set what position he's training within the training screen, so that's not an issue. Ditto for the last point about playing someone out of position temporarily.

I'm all for binding tactics and training together, that's how real-life managers think. The current system for setting tactics gets past your identified issue around training switching temporarily (because it would be more strongly attached to your established primary tactic than something you switch to).

All SI need to do is expose the ability to tinker with the training under the hood (perhaps up to a point depending on the level of micromanagement possible, depending on staff numbers and how exotic the variability is).

I just think that's a bad, backwards, move. We should be trying to make things feel more intuitive, more integrated, not less so.

[themadsheep2001]

An interesting, and maybe over-heated, discussion.

For what it's worth, I prefer the direction SI are moving as the idea of training a player individually in a single attribute was far more unrealistic than anything proposed here. A player working on his passing is also working on technique, vision, decision-making. If he's working with a partner, then someone else is also benefitting. And so on. So the position focus within overall training better reflects reality, and makes it feel more like your team is training.

That said, there are some fair points about customising training to customised tactics. There's a lot of nonsense, aggression, and hyperbole in what DavidBowie has said. And a lot of it is flat-out wrong. But his example of wanting his wing-backs to improve their shooting is a valid one. Now, I'd hope a default schedule for an attacking wing-back would work on shooting, but if not, the user is basically stuffed. That's frustrating, and it's wrong. However, the solution is most certainly not to go back. That would be pointless and stupid. Instead, it's feedback SI have to take on board, and work out how to adapt the new system. One way would be to link through the requirements of the tactical role to the training role. So if you have your wing-backs set to shoot more, then your training routine would automatically include this.

I also agree with the questions from users about intensity. We may well want to have players at different intensities (for instance, you bring in a free agent in September, he's had no pre-season, he needs the more intensive individual fitness training). But if this isn't possible, your player won't reach the correct level of fitness. Players do take on individual extra work, so that needs to be reflected.

However, credit to Riz for being here answering questions. One or two users are getting a little nasty in their comments, which isn't how it should work. Other threads (like for instance the one on expanded staff roles, DoF) could do with SI bods commenting and discussing the feature, so let's make this a thread that demonstrates the good of the forum, not the bad and the ugly, eh chaps?

The idea of of linking the two would be brilliant, and something I'd love to see in future. Hopefully sooner rather than later.

Intensity is a key factor, especially when you are thinking about players coming back from International summer tournaments etc.

[hursty2]

Would love an answer to how we are going to manage players at different levels of fitness?

[davidbowie]

In FM12, you could only ever assign players individual training focus on one specific attribute. You could not set them to focus on a tactical role individually. The option to have the individual focus on the key attributes related to a specific role is all new for FM13. So nothing was removed in this regard.

You're missing my point.

In FM12 I could set my players to focus on a role by putting them into a training schedule that makes the player train in the categories that train the attributes that role requires. I didn't need to put them into a pre-set 'focus', I created it myself by choosing their training schedule or making it.

If I wanted a midfielder who did nothing but run around and break opposition legs, I would put him onto my "DM Destroyer" schedule. It has high strength, medium aerobic, intensive defending, high tactics, medium ball control and light attacking and shooting. If I wanted a guy who was even more limited, I'd put him onto my "CB Destroyer" schedule. Intensive strength, medium aerobic, high tactics, light ball control, intensive defending, very light attacking and shooting.

I didn't need to set him to some pre-set 'role' in the training module, I made it myself, using my own skill and ability to learn how the game works. I didn't need SI to give me a pre-set and limited list of schedules.

In my current FM game I have about 35 such schedules. I've also got my youth schedules which number another 20 or so schedules. There are also schedules which I could create but don't because my current tactics don't need certain roles.

While some of your new pre-set roles will be similar to what I have I guarantee this new system will be missing types of 'roles' I want, and that many of your 'roles' will not translate to what I actually would want them to do. Instead I'll have to guess as to what SI think a 'role' should do, instead of being able to know exactly what a training schedule is for because I've set it myself.

Now it's limited no only by position, but also by whatever pre-set schedules SI has created for for those positions, even if they are woefully inadequate to my needs. It's even more limited by the inability to train a role and an attribute at the same time which is shown in the video.

No. There is no common "generic training" that player goes back on. All players are put on position based general training based by the coaching staff and on top of that, the individual focus on either role or an attribute can be used to put a specific focus on training certain key attributes.

As far as I'm concerned position based 'general' training is generic training.

What good is 'general position training' if I have a striker who is a tall target man, and another who is a short fast goal poacher.

They aren't going to get effective training. They are going to get a generic "striker" schedule that isn't effective. So it makes that role focus mandatory, otherwise you'd get Wayne Rooney, Peter Crouch, Mark Viduka, David Villa and Michael Owen doing the exact same training.

And when I make them do effective training in a non-generic manner, I get punished by not being able to then tell my player to also improve a specific attribute.

The youth training is separate from senior training, so you can set the team training focus on fitness for the youths if you want to improve their physical attributes more.

If I wanted a player to improve their physical attributes I'd give them a physical heavy schedule.

Why do I need to have a 'team focus' at all?

This is a youth team. Having everyone doing the exact same thing is bad.

I set my youth based around what I see their future role at the club being.

If I have a 17 year old striker who is already fast, why should he get punished by not being able to do any technical training because the rest of the team is on a 'fitness team focus' because they are all 15 year old newgens?

And vice-versa, if I have a bunch of 17 and 18 year olds but find a great 15 year old, if he needs physical training why should he get punished because the 17 and 18 year olds are graduating and are all grown up physically?

The more I hear the more this system is broken when any level of scrutiny is placed on it.

If I hadn't already paid for my FM13 pre-order I'd be cancelling. If I wasn't able to get the non-ripoff pricing and had to pay the Australian price group cost I wouldn't be buying at all.

This was discussed at multiple points during the design and development process and there were arguments for and against. For the time being however, the decision was made to not include an advanced mode. Yes, technically you might be able to satisfy more people by including an advanced mode but I wouldn't go as far as saying it would satisfy everyone

You aren't including an advanced mode because it "wouldn't satisfy everyone", but destroying the existing module and replacing it with a torn down pre-set wizard that experienced players hate does satisfy everyone? That makes no sense.

As I said, it's better because of the unrealistic sliders in the approach to training.

The substance hasn't been removed. It's just worked better.

The coaches decide what the "sliders" will be, as Riz Remes explained earlier. The coach do the coaching. You hire the coaches to do the coaching. You shouldn't be interfering with the training in respect to individual aspects of training.

Otherwise, why bother hire a coach at all?

The sliders aren't unrealistic. Your interpretation of why they are unrealistic is wrong and this has been pointed out many times.

And you're wrong about what the coaches do.

The manager sets the level of training for his players. He allocates time, he looks at his player and decides what areas his player needs work in. And what he only needs little work in.

He may micro-manage exactly what time he spends, or he may give it to his assistant. Either way it's the Manager that tells his staff what he wants a player to work on.

The coaches then go and do that training for the manager.

They don't take over decisions on the overarching strategy of how a player is going to train.

In your example a fitness coach in FM 13 could go "Screw you Mourinho, Ronaldo is going to do a 4 weight session then a 20k run because I say so". And Mourihno would go "Hey, I bought him to coach, I won't tell him not to do that."

It's not how it works.

But his example of wanting his wing-backs to improve their shooting is a valid one. Now, I'd hope a default schedule for an attacking wing-back would work on shooting, but if not, the user is basically stuffed. That's frustrating, and it's wrong. However, the solution is most certainly not to go back. That would be pointless and stupid. So if you have your wing-backs set to shoot more, then your training routine would automatically include this.

Of course the problem with that is if I've set my wing-backs to "long shots: low" because my tactics is to arsenal or barca the ball around until someone can take a shot inside the box then the game won't have any way to recognise that I want them to learn shooting.

Notice how Riz Remes completely ignored my question to him about full-backs needing to learn shooting.

I'm certain it's because he knows that none of the pre-set schedules are going to train shooting. I've guessed that because I took at look at what the game believes the "key attributes" for all defensive 'roles' are (the new training module is linked to role) and not a single one of them say finishing is a key attribute.

Only a few even train Technique or Passing. In FM13 to train a defender of any kind to do passing or technique he'll have to use the "ball playing defender" focus, even though that focus doesn't consider Pace, Work Rate or Stamina as important (three vital attributes for a fullback).

So you can't create a passing full-back in addition to not being able to create a shooting full-back.

So that's one glaring flaw. I'm sure we'll see more and more crop up once the actual demo is out.

[Smac]

You are an idiot. Please stop posting. Your posts are garbage. You have no clue and are too stupid to comprehend my posts. You are the exact reason why SI are dumbing down their game for idiots who can't even comprehend a paragraph of discussion.

As has been said repeatedly, please stop attacking people personally and tone down your aggressive statements. If you feel you've been trolled please either report the person or ignore them. You continue to undermine your posts with your aggro and it is a wonder you've not been banned yet. Seriously.

That said, I don't disagree with you that being persistent and assertive that "something is wrong" is the correct strategy. It probably is the right approach considering how certain you are that a mistake is being made. However, you have to refuse to cross the line between assertive and offensive (ad hominems, fatuous insulting generalizations, etc..) or your efforts are pretty much for nothing. Balanced people will refuse to engage you if you don't show some respect. Unbalanced people who will respond to bullying or other abuse are probably themselves not taken seriously. Either way it is a losing strategy.

..........on topic...........

While I don't like the changes, I do think it is better that it is either/or rather than having an "advanced" settings area for those that prefer it. First, being able to tweak settings in the old way is a big advantage over the new way. This will make it more difficult to get people on board with the new system, especially in any competitive situation. Secondly, I think from a design perspective it is better to just go for a new system that is better than the old. If the new system is designed well enough then the old shouldn't be necessary. Third, with 2 systems SI have to keep track of a forked piece of software: "Is that bug related to the old training or new?".

Catering to everyone's peculiarities isn't the point. Designing a well rounded piece of software is the point. Its not like "Oh we have a bunch of people importing saves from FM12, so we'll need to keep some systems in place for them". Or "Some software and drivers will not be updated for our new OS, so we'll have to support the old one one more year". The only reason to have two systems is in some sense to admit that neither is really good enough. That shouldn't be the case. A new training system should truly improve the old one. While the specifics for each user might vary as to what constitutes an "improvement", it really must be good enough that even the nay-sayers have to concede that "Well yes, it is better. I'm just crotchety and set in my ways in preferring the old". I don't think it yet passes this test. It might though, here's hoping!

I suppose there is one other way of looking at it as well: In the context of the game as a whole, is removing control in training a good thing or bad? It's possible that removing control here makes the rest of the game more enjoyable. I think it is worth pointing out to those who have argued that "Less choice is always bad" that this is simply incorrect. If you design a game called "Chess" and every piece moves like a Queen (or pawn or rook, etc..), is the game improved by limiting the movements of certain pieces? If we make half the "Queens" into rooks, the game gets better, not worse. Control and choice are things to be balanced, not increased at every opportunity, at least in game design. I can see how having less direct impact on player development would be a good thing for FM, maybe. But I can certainly see how having much less impact would be a bad thing. Perhaps there is room to balance the new system without crossing that line.

[x42bn6]

On the first point, you set what position he's training within the training screen, so that's not an issue. Ditto for the last point about playing someone out of position temporarily.

You misunderstand. I was describing a scenario where, say: I have a central midfielder who has far too much competition in central midfield, but he can play at right-back as well, and that is a good position for him to get experience in, and best of all, there's little competition there. However, he is not a long-term right-back - this is a temporary thing until the competition eases off in central midfield. Consequently, I don't want him to train as a right-back. His tactical role doesn't match his training role. I don't want him to learn how to dribble and cross too much, because that is less useful in his ultimate position, central midfield.

In addition, let's say we have a right-back who is capable in central midfield who is poor at taking long-shots but you are training him there anyway because it's a weakness. Obviously, you don't want your right-back to shoot often, because he's poor at it, so you set Long Shots to low. However, how are you supposed to train his long shots? You have suggested that if a wing-back has the instruction to play offensively and shoot often, then the training will adjust to match that - but in this case, the tactics are telling him to stay away from long shots as much as possible! You would have to do something like set his training to attacking midfielder (to bring up his shooting) despite the fact he's a right-back/central midfielder, just to compensate for his long shots.

Linking tactics to training is not a good idea in the long run because in the long run, players evolve. A player in the short-term is different at his peak. They could be very different players. Training is a long-term thing, while tactics are largely short- or medium-term depending on circumstances. You don't want to mix training and tactics - they are fundamentally different things.

I'm all for binding tactics and training together, that's how real-life managers think. The current system for setting tactics gets past your identified issue around training switching temporarily (because it would be more strongly attached to your established primary tactic than something you switch to).

That's pretty funny because this solution doesn't even let managers think. Why not let the manager decide if the training matches the tactics? As stated above, sometimes you don't want them to match.

I just think that's a bad, backwards, move. We should be trying to make things feel more intuitive, more integrated, not less so.

It is possible to add a level of deep customisation ("advanced") without sliders. This system lacks deep customisation full-stop. Whether it's sliders, pink buttons, microphone-driven input or minigames, it's possible to add deep customisation. I don't think it's a backwards move to add deep customisation. Deep customisation can still be intuitive. Deep customisation is for users who enjoy fiddling with things, lots of shiny buttons and the ability to shoot themselves in the foot if they desperately want to.

You can integrate deep customisation, too. An assistant manager or coach could, as I said before, notice that your training schedule is sacrificing one of your player's biggest strengths, and therefore tell you about it. A feature can be deep and integrated.

[7Bestie7]

It is possible to add a level of deep customisation ("advanced") without sliders. This system lacks deep customisation full-stop. Whether it's sliders, pink buttons, microphone-driven input or minigames, it's possible to add deep customisation. I don't think it's a backwards move to add deep customisation. Deep customisation can still be intuitive. Deep customisation is for users who enjoy fiddling with things, lots of shiny buttons and the ability to shoot themselves in the foot if they desperately want to.

You can integrate deep customisation, too. An assistant manager or coach could, as I said before, notice that your training schedule is sacrificing one of your player's biggest strengths, and therefore tell you about it. A feature can be deep and integrated.

Exactly:

"Right coaches. You see these strikers? They need extra work their ball control, this guy is going to be retrained as a centre back libero but needs work on his marking, the wingers we have that are speed demons need to start learning how to finish so they can cut in while the others need to boost their stamina because I don't want them getting exhausted before half time. Aside from that, you're good to go."

Clicks and drop down menus. Doing a Training Creator with "advanced" doesn't mean we have to have access to sliders if SI wants to move away from them. It means we should be able to highlight specific areas for each training routine. Essentially take the "individual focus"concept and expand it. No one knows exactly how an individual focus affects the weighting of training/the sliders but it's an advanced option that makes sense and gives control.

[tts0]

Dear davidbowie,

you are 100% right that this revamp of training mode gives players much less control than ever before. I agree with that, but on the computer game's purpouse it's good to prevent players from adjusting their own training scheldues. Why? Because A.I. always uses default training settings, so our custom trainig scheldues are much much better than A.I.'s and the game is very easy which makes it so unrealistic - simple as that! Of course I like having control of whole training, but its kinda funny, when I start at 3 division and win the major league in 3 years mainly because of my custom training scheldues!

[davidbowie]

Dear davidbowie,

you are 100% right that this revamp of training mode gives players much less control than ever before. I agree with that, but on the computer game's purpouse it's good to prevent players from adjusting their own training scheldues. Why? Because A.I. always uses default training settings, so our custom trainig scheldues are much much better than A.I.'s and the game is very easy which makes it so unrealistic - simple as that! Of course I like having control of whole training, but its kinda funny, when I start at 3 division and win the major league in 3 years mainly because of my custom training scheldues!

If SI's AI is poor they should be building better AI not punishing users by removing their choice.

[milnerpoint]

I HIGHLY doubt you win 3 back to back promotions and titles on the back of training schedules, i would love to see these, could you possibly upload them somewhere?

[tts0]

I HIGHLY doubt you win 3 back to back promotions and titles on the back of training schedules, i would love to see these, could you possibly upload them somewhere?

I didn't say it was a 100% o the back of training scheldues, but I can assure you that it was abour 75-80 % of my succes. I can't upload it anywere for the moment, because a got really bored of this game and delete everything, but I can try to recreate these scheldues in my free time:P

This game is too easy i think. Of course it is more difficult year after year but you can still win everything with completely unknown club in a few years! In the previous versions I was able to win UEFA Champions League with some polish club within 5 years. Can you imagine that in real life within even 50 years? I don't!