TRAINING: Player attributes declining when learning new position

[karanhsingh]

I think I have noticed this with a few players, and I want to check if there is actually some basis to it.

I am training Ruben Vinaigre as a DL, Danny Loader as an ML, and Angel Gomes as an MR. They all have the attributes to play these positions and were at least competent anyway. The reason for training them as such as due to the tactical formation I am playing.

However fast forward a few months and I notice they are all unhappy with their individual training, and across the board their attributes are declining. I changed Danny Loader back to AML training as an inside forward (his natural position) and he immediately starts doing much better.

So my question is, that is this a recurring trend in the game? Which means if we want to maximise for player development, we better only train them in their natural positions and roles? Would kind of defeat the purpose of new position training (even though say an ML and AML are very related positions), if this comes at the cost of attribute development.

If anyone has more experience of this would appreciate some feedback.

[herne79]

2 hours ago, karanhsingh said:

and across the board their attributes are declining

Are the numeric values actually declining or are you just seeing lots of red down arrows?  If it's red arrows this could be nothing more than a known issue with the UI.

If the actual numeric values are declining, by how much and over what period?

[karanhsingh]

2 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Are the numeric values actually declining or are you just seeing lots of red down arrows?  If it's red arrows this could be nothing more than a known issue with the UI.

If the actual numeric values are declining, by how much and over what period?

Actual numeric values. By say 0.4 or 0.6 over a period of 6-7 months. And some of these are important attributes like dribbling, finishing, etc. 

I am just wondering if it is linked to the training in a new position, or what the reason is. Then I would know to not try that again in the future.

[Damedius]

I remember that this was common in older versions. Especially if a player was close to their max PA.

I would often train an experienced player that would sub off the bench to cover both sides. They would often lose a bit of CA in training the other side.

[SD]

Learning a new position does not cost CA in and of itself, but does change the CA weights of attributes. From experience, that only happens upwards, so in practice you should expect a small decrease every time you re-train a player - the fewer key attributes his new position shares with his existing ones, the bigger the decrease.

Whether it's worth it it's a whole other discussion. With the exception of key players, I'm generally okay with a slight attribute decrease in exchange for increased versatility.

[Seb Wassell]

On 15/11/2018 at 09:20, herne79 said:

Are the numeric values actually declining or are you just seeing lots of red down arrows?  If it's red arrows this could be nothing more than a known issue with the UI.

We believe that issue is now resolved. We will of course investigate any further examples however. Simply put, you can trust the arrows again.

[Seb Wassell]

As @SD mentions, each position has attribute weightings associated with it. Within that, each level of competency brings different weightings. As such a player that learns a new position but does not also develop his attributes could see a small adjustment in order to accommodate this. In the long term this would likely not impact a player's development.

Don't train a player to play 9 different positions, but if there is a new position they could perform well in and it does not contradict massively with their current positions go for it without fear of adverse attribute development.

[enigmatic]

It'd be nice if the adverse attribute weighting drop was mostly in stuff that was related to the old position rather than the new one. The idea that a midfielder learning to become a defender might shed a bit of technique and finishing because they're focused on playing in a position where they're less important is plausible, and the idea they just naturally lose a bit of pace or balance isn't that problematic. The idea they get worse at tackling and marking after months of focusing on being a DC is daft, and obviously just a CA-balancing fudge)