Just how important is a 7 star training schedule?

[303jonas]

I always thougth that work load was related to the players, i.e. the intensity of the training from the players perspective. Therefore I have always but the slide towards the high end in order for the training to be more intense and thus give the players ability to develop more quickly compared to light training..

But now it seems that the work load is related to coaches??? So actually it is better to keep the slide on the left side hand towards the light work load? (if the coaches can handle it of course).

That it definetely not intuitive at all!

About the discussion of PA improvement:

It is quite obvious that a coach cannot improve your PA. You are born with your PA. The only thing coaches can do is to improve the CA towards the PA.

[Majkee]

It wouldn't be that hard to test this out for 08.

Just take one team in the editor, edit their coaches to have perfect stats and maximum loyalty. Save the game when you load it up, and use Genie Scout to export each squad player's attributes to Excel or something. Select a first-team, leave training on 'general', go on holiday and tell the AM to use your line-up where possible, not to sign anyone, etc., then go on holiday until the beginning of next season. Use Genie Scout again, export each player's attributes and see what's changed.

Then you'd have to edit the coaches to be average/rubbish, do exactly the same as before, and compare attributes again.

There are confounding factors like how often each player appears in the first-team, how well the team performs, but I think you'd get a decent idea of how big a difference the coaches make.

You could possibly repeat this a few times, changing the club's training facilities, and see what difference that makes as well.

If you only had the one league active, it shouldn't take that long to do.

RT-- can you test it? please, do some research as you have done in thread which Ljuba82 has started about CA/PA/retraining/attributes.

[Deltaroad]

Si still not going to comment??!?!?!?!

[CaptainPlanet]

Si still not going to comment??!?!?!?!

Well they aren't going to admit it are they!

[Deltaroad]

^ why not? It's important for us to know.

[Deltaroad]

Si teeeeeeeeellllllll uuuuuuuusssssss!!!!!!!!!

[Deltaroad]

Nooooooooooooow!

[zeusbheld]

I always thougth that work load was related to the players, i.e. the intensity of the training from the players perspective. Therefore I have always but the slide towards the high end in order for the training to be more intense and thus give the players ability to develop more quickly compared to light training..

But now it seems that the work load is related to coaches??? So actually it is better to keep the slide on the left side hand towards the light work load? (if the coaches can handle it of course).

That it definetely not intuitive at all!

About the discussion of PA improvement:

It is quite obvious that a coach cannot improve your PA. You are born with your PA. The only thing coaches can do is to improve the CA towards the PA.

work load is related to coaches. training load as it relates to players is reflected in the actual training schedules (where you set the sliders on teh player).

if the workload on the coach(es) who are training, say, shooting is heavy, then the players won't improve as fast as if the workload on teh coach(es) who are training shooting is light, all things being equal. that's not scientific and i don't work for SI but i have consistently observed this in playing both 2008 and 2009 versions of FM.

[zeusbheld]

RT-- can you test it? please, do some research as you have done in thread which Ljuba82 has started about CA/PA/retraining/attributes.

yeah it would definitely be interesting if someone ran an experiment that was rigorous and controlled. i'm not going to do it because i'm lazy, and it won't affect how i play the game (i try to make decisions as if i were really managing a football team, regardless of if they have any real impact on the game, so even if it has no impact i'd buy good coaches anyway, but i'm still curious to know).

[trackhead]

I can sort of believe this, for the last couple of years I've been trying to get the best coaches I can afford or who will come to the club, but I never see a dramatic improvement, which is what I was expecting.

I can fully accept that this is the case and I'm happy with it, it just seems the wrong way round to me. As someone who in real life is actually a part time coach I know that a better coach will get more from an athlete than a bad or inexperienced one.

[zeusbheld]

With no official response I suspect that this is true and is in contradiction to what is said in the manual.

Embrassingly un-realistic and not explicitly conveyed, not impressed SI.

If this is the case currently, can this be looked at and re-worked for 2010 please?

i don't think the lack of official response is *any* basis for making *any* assumptions. perhaps you've noticed the vast chaos resulting from the release via STEAM and use of DRM, and the need for an immediate patch. fair to say SI have their hands full at the moment, and this is not exactly an issue on the same level as not being able to run the game.

i seriously doubt that the manual is flat out wrong, althoguh their may be more to it than is explicitly described in the manual.

[zeusbheld]

I can sort of believe this, for the last couple of years I've been trying to get the best coaches I can afford or who will come to the club, but I never see a dramatic improvement, which is what I was expecting.

I can fully accept that this is the case and I'm happy with it, it just seems the wrong way round to me. As someone who in real life is actually a part time coach I know that a better coach will get more from an athlete than a bad or inexperienced one.

better coaches, correctly assigned to the right schedules, in my experience in FM help the players reach a higher percentage of their abilities faster. i have seen good coaching have a substantial but not miraculous impact; that seems fairly realistic to me.

[CaptainPlanet]

better coaches, correctly assigned to the right schedules, in my experience in FM help the players reach a higher percentage of their abilities faster

What is being explained here is that this categorically isnt' true, a player's increase in attributes through training has NOTHING to do with the quality of the coaches (providing the load is light) and is purely down to other factors.

SI and Sega staff have been making general comments on many other topics on the forums since this thread was started, and none have either confirmed or denied what we're saying.

Until they do, I am cynically believing that what we think is true.

The manual is slightly ambiguous in its wording but it does say that better coaches will yield better training performance, which in the context that everyone here believes, is a total lie.

[jayahr]

RT-- can you test it? please, do some research as you have done in thread which Ljuba82 has started about CA/PA/retraining/attributes.

Oh yes please

This is highly disturbing I have to say. Highly disturbing.

I'm afraid if this is true we should not expect anyone from SI showing up to confirm that the whole training area of the game is purely cosmetic

[Neb]

Its not purely cosmetic, you still get to decide which attributes increases more when the CA of a player rises. So you can shape a player.

What you don't get is the better coach increasing the CA either further or faster than a worse coach, which is what everyone (myself included) assumed happened.

[jayahr]

Its not purely cosmetic, you still get to decide which attributes increases more when the CA of a player rises. So you can shape a player.

Can you? Didn't the test also reveal that the attributes which improved were at best loosely connected to the training schedule?

If all this was indeed a fact it would save me lots of money as the coaches are what I sort out first thing. Would be more than handy to know for LLM managers too.

[mikeseel82]

So if i hired a coach with all his attributes at 1, he would have the same affect on my players as someone who had 20 stats? As long as the workload was light?

I dont think they would have gone to all the trouble of programming thousands of stats that don't mean anything!

Then again maybe they would!

[Rare Soul]

If the star rating doesn't indicate the speed in which the coach helps players reach their PA, then I will eat my hat, and all of my FM CDs.

[Deltaroad]

Siiiiiiiiiiiiiii respond!!!!

[Neb]

Can you? Didn't the test also reveal that the attributes which improved were at best loosely connected to the training schedule?

I'm sure that I can't turn my young striker into a Defender, but I'm also sure that I can make sure he focuses on his finishing instead of his crossing, or his pace over his passing.

It probably doesn't go far enough though, it could be a lot better!

[Dimony]

SI, any comment?

[sjm]

I always thought that the point of training (and coaches) was to provide your players with targeted skill increases in certain attributes. So you got your attackers to practise shooting so that their finishing skill rose by a couple of points; you got your defenders to focus on tactics and defending so that they got a couple of extra points in tackling etc.

The more intense the training in an area, the bigger the increase (up to +3 I think); the less intense the training, the lower the benefit.

And better coaches seem to reap better benefits (read bigger bonuses). Forgive me if this has changed in the last few versions though.

The assumption that there's no difference between light/medium/hard training is incorrect, unless something's drastically changed since FM06.

CA seems to benefit most from playing games; and players won't benefit from "playing beneath their level" - i.e. reserve games aren't going to help Christiano Ronaldo get any better, but can be great for promising U-18s that are are already more advanced in their development than most of their peers. This can make loans an interesting option if you send the right player to the right team.

Conversely, players seem to suffer when not regularly playing "at their level".

[BrianQuinn]

I dont think SI are too sure themselves lol

[zeusbheld]

What is being explained here is that this categorically isnt' true, a player's increase in attributes through training has NOTHING to do with the quality of the coaches (providing the load is light) and is purely down to other factors.

hmmmm i think the speed at which they reach a fulll level of training increases with better coaches. at least, that would be my conclusion from having played the game with the worst coaches possible in 2008 (at African Warriors, RSA) and 5 star or better coaches (Tianjin, China). not a scientific experiment, but it seemed pretty obvious.

again: good coaches won't change the maximum attributes they'll get with a given training schedule. what it will do, based on my quite extensive experience, but not on a scientific experiment, is get your players to the max their schedule permits faster.

and for the record i am of the opinion that anyone who believes that PA should be maleable is naive at best and is asking for a magic wand, not a coach. if they can find such a coach in real life please recommend them to me as i would like to be a world class sprinter even though i am glacier-slow.

SI and Sega staff have been making general comments on many other topics on the forums since this thread was started, and none have either confirmed or denied what we're saying.

they have failed to comment on far more threads than they've commented on. so?

Until they do, I am cynically believing that what we think is true.

you can believe whatever you want, but if they don't actually comment their silence does not make much of a case for anything.

The manual is slightly ambiguous in its wording but it does say that better coaches will yield better training performance, which in the context that everyone here believes, is a total lie.

um. "in the context that everyone here believes" i do believe you are appealing to a false consensus. i don't think everyone here believes the same thing. in fact i know i don't believe the same things as you. so there's one less in your consensus. stop pretending to speak for "everyone." you speak for YOU.

[zeusbheld]

If the star rating doesn't indicate the speed in which the coach helps players reach their PA, then I will eat my hat, and all of my FM CDs.

seconded, but i'll only eat two out of my three hats (i'm keeping the black one in reserve, it's my favorite and i wouldn't risk it on such a trivial point even though i consider the odds incredibly favorable).

[zeusbheld]

Its not purely cosmetic, you still get to decide which attributes increases more when the CA of a player rises. So you can shape a player.

that is what the training schedule does, is decide which attributes increase more.

What you don't get is the better coach increasing the CA either further or faster than a worse coach, which is what everyone (myself included) assumed happened.

in my experience making the players reach a higher overall level of training faster is EXACTLY what a good coach does. i have seen this effect over and over and over again. i've never read the manual fwiw.

[CaptainPlanet]

um. "in the context that everyone here believes" i do believe you are appealing to a false consensus. i don't think everyone here believes the same thing. in fact i know i don't believe the same things as you. so there's one less in your consensus. stop pretending to speak for "everyone." you speak for YOU.

I'm speaking on behalf of the people in this thread who are saying the same thing as me, including the guy who did extensive research into this for FM08 which is where the whole concern has risen from, and to be honest I believe that controlled experiment over your personal experience.

[zeusbheld]

I'm speaking on behalf of the people in this thread who are saying the same thing as me, including the guy who did extensive research into this for FM08 which is where the whole concern has risen from, and to be honest I believe that controlled experiment over your personal experience.

i don't think my experience and the semi-rigorous testing Joor referred to contradict each other necessarily. if you have a reasonably large squad (which you need at a big club), it's pretty much impossible get a light workload with crappy coaches, so exactly how the influence occurs is largely academic.

to be honest i think you're vastly overreaching in your conclusions pretty consistently.

[jayahr]

SI, any comment?

Honestly, we can be sure that SI are aware of this thread and reading it and looking into it.

And if the ability of coaches indeed doesn't matter according to the assumptions in here, at least I wouldn't come here to confess if I was SI. This might not be a bug if intended to be like that but the whole stars thing is very misleading then and has caused the majority of users to vastly overspend on coaches if that is correct.

Btw has anyone ever tested if at least the working with youth stats of coaches matter?

[Neb]

hmmmm i think the speed at which they reach a fulll level of training increases with better coaches. at least, that would be my conclusion from having played the game with the worst coaches possible in 2008 (at African Warriors, RSA) and 5 star or better coaches (Tianjin, China). not a scientific experiment, but it seemed pretty obvious.

again: good coaches won't change the maximum attributes they'll get with a given training schedule. what it will do, based on my quite extensive experience, but not on a scientific experiment, is get your players to the max their schedule permits faster.

At these clubs, was it just the coaches that were different or were the training facilities different too? I think the facilities make a much bigger impact than the quality of the coaches, probably because it sounds like the quality of the coaches doesn't have any effect on a players training.

and for the record i am of the opinion that anyone who believes that PA should be maleable is naive at best and is asking for a magic wand, not a coach. if they can find such a coach in real life please recommend them to me as i would like to be a world class sprinter even though i am glacier-slow.

I believe that there shouldn't be a PA! Am I naive?!?

What matters is your Current Ability, if thats too low, then no matter how good a trainer is he'll never get you to be a world class sprinter. But if you are already quite good then he's got less work to do in the same time, so it might be possible. If you are already an excellent sprinter then it shouldn't be a problem. Its got nothing to do with a PA, in life its purely based on how good you are at something and how much time you've got to improve. Rooney was said to have massive potential when he burst onto the scene at 16. That breaks down to the fact the he's already very good (CA) and that he'll improve because he's only 16 (time left to improve) = 'Massive potential'.

I agree with you that someone can only get as good as they are going to get. which in the game is simulated by using 'PA' - That can't change. But in real life its not as simple as someone having a limit, its all about the differential, how good they can get over a certain time, that will actually change depending on circumstances, eg how good your trainer is. A better trainer will make you better. how much better depends on how good you are to start with and how long you've got to train before your 'past it' (in the game 24yrs old??)

[Boleyn]

Slightly changing the subject here, but how far accross do peoploe have the sliders for aspects of training?

I uaualy have have for example Attackers in an Att schedule with med/high shooting & attacking, a few notches less ball control, a notch lower for tactics & very light def etc... is that right|?

[CaptainPlanet]

Slightly changing the subject here, but how far accross do peoploe have the sliders for aspects of training?

I uaualy have have for example Attackers in an Att schedule with med/high shooting & attacking, a few notches less ball control, a notch lower for tactics & very light def etc... is that right|?

Check and post in the tactics and training forum rather than derail the point of this thread please

[Boleyn]

New on here soz!

You could have given me a quick answer just as quickly

[zeusbheld]

Honestly, we can be sure that SI are aware of this thread

really, the only thing we can be sure of is that they haven't responded. anything else is just an assumption.

[CaptainPlanet]

An educated guess given how big the thread is and how many of them are on the forums regularly.

Rarely does a thread get this big about as issue without a response.

[zeusbheld]

At these clubs, was it just the coaches that were different or were the training facilities different too? I think the facilities make a much bigger impact than the quality of the coaches, probably because it sounds like the quality of the coaches doesn't have any effect on a players training.

i was careful to qualify that it was not an experiment, and not at all rigorous. thus chances are the conditions were quite different. whether or not the 'stars' have substantial impact or not is the question.

i believe it has been established that stars affect how many players a coach can train. if you have a large squad you may need quality coaches in order to train all your coaches (and if you are a big prem team playing in europe and domestic cups, you'd need a big squad).

i'm about to start over at City for my little warmup game for 09 (just got the mac patch). this still won't be an experiment but i'm going to do it with Hughes staff as-is (3 stars except for gk and phsyical) and carry it up through the January window without signing anyone. i'm curious about the coaching thing, what if any impact their attributes have on training players, so i'll run it again with 6-7 star staff (at least through preseason).

it's still not an experiment, i'm not being that careful about it and won't document it extensively but players and training facilties will be the same. should be adequate to get an impression of whether the impact is significant.

I believe that there shouldn't be a PA! Am I naive?!?

PA is necessary to determine how much potential a young player has some have to grow up to be great and some have to suck. arguably its' too transsparent to scouts, however. i do believe that when actually playing, one shouldn't pay any attention to CA or PA, and just pay attention to visible attributes and coach reports. it is interesting to have an idea of what's under the hood, however.

What matters is your Current Ability, if thats too low, then no matter how good a trainer is he'll never get you to be a world class sprinter.

if i'm not mistaken, current ability is exactly what you can do right now. although, i'm not sure in SI's terms, how it models it. CA may be short-term potential and PA may be long-term potential. if that is the case than measuring coaching impact in terms of CA is misleading. i'm going to look strictly at attributes when i run my little non-experiment comparison.

But if you are already quite good then he's got less work to do in the same time, so it might be possible. If you are already an excellent sprinter then it shouldn't be a problem. Its got nothing to do with a PA, in life its purely based on how good you are at something and how much time you've got to improve. Rooney was said to have massive potential when he burst onto the scene at 16. That breaks down to the fact the he's already very good (CA) and that he'll improve because he's only 16 (time left to improve) = 'Massive potential'.

I agree with you that someone can only get as good as they are going to get. which in the game is simulated by using 'PA' - That can't change. But in real life its not as simple as someone having a limit, its all about the differential, how good they can get over a certain time, that will actually change depending on circumstances, eg how good your trainer is. A better trainer will make you better. how much better depends on how good you are to start with and how long you've got to train before your 'past it' (in the game 24yrs old??)

it is clear that a lot of things affect how much of your PA you will realize as a player if you're one of those little gobs of statistics in FM. clearly some players reach more of their potential than others. and clearly how you manage those players has an impact on their realizing their potential.

however, the question on the table in this thread is what, if any, impact do the star ratings of the coaches have on players, no more than that.

incidentally if it turns out the stars on coaching staff make no difference and the math is built around the quality of the training facilities, it in no way denies the effect that coaches have in real life--just models that effect in a far more abstract way.

[zeusbheld]

An educated guess given how big the thread is and how many of them are on the forums regularly.

Rarely does a thread get this big about as issue without a response.

i've seen a lot of threads get this big without a response. including some pretty major ones. i've also noticed that they rarely comment in detail on what's under the hood.

also one must keep in mind that SI still have a rather full plate of crises at the moment, given that they just released a patch to the mac patch on the 21st, and the DRM thing is going poorly.

i think it a bit irresponsible to make assumptions based on SI's lack of a response. i hope that, if you make those kinds of guesses in your day job, you have the kind of job where lives don't hang in the balance.

[CaptainPlanet]

So when my experiment finishes, and I have stats to prove that coaching stats make no difference to the speed at which CA and/or attributes increases and we've all effectively been duped by a wrongful assumption. Will you still defend them, or will you be just as annoyed as the rest of us?

[zeusbheld]

ps i will post the outcome of my comparison here if this is still unresolved by the time i finish playing half a season at City (twice), and any preliminary observations as well. bear in mind, though, that it is not intended to be conclusive, i'm merely taking advantage of the game i'm going to play anyway.

[zeusbheld]

So when my experiment finishes, and I have stats to prove that coaching stats make no difference to the speed at which CA and/or attributes increases and we've all effectively been duped by a wrongful assumption. Will you still defend them, or will you be just as annoyed as the rest of us?

if you do a rigorous, well designed experiment, and your methodology is transparent, i'll definitely trust your results.

do post results, as well as the design of the experiment.

if you do a half-assed non-experiment like i'm doing then it will affect my impression of what's going on with coaching.

i doubt i'll be just as annoyed as it's never been a big issue to me, especially in light of the vast improvements in the match engine between 08 and 09.

incidentally i'm not "defending" them. i just think it's horribly irresponsibly to shrilly proclaim you know the truth when you're just making assumptions. i prefer a more cautious approach. their non-presence on this thread *still* will prove absolutely sweet f*** all. the manual giving clearly incorrect information, however, would be pretty damned incriminating.

[Snoop Robbie Rob]

Also, why is it that, I could put a player on heavy attacking training, yet no improvements, but if I completely remove let's say, defending, the defending attributes will go down.

[Ah Fat]

I suggest that a coach with defending coaching attribute 15 should only help a player to develop his marking, tackling to 15.

That makes more sense.

while both of a 15 and 20 coach gives the same speed of development, there should be a limit to distinct good and bad coaches

[zeusbheld]

Also, why is it that, I could put a player on heavy attacking training, yet no improvements, but if I completely remove let's say, defending, the defending attributes will go down.

could be that player has already hit his maximum. for example, i'm sure liverpool have very solid coaches and facilities but no one on earth is going to give Dirk Kuyt wheels like Gabby Agbonlahor.

[zeusbheld]

I suggest that a coach with defending coaching attribute 15 should only help a player to develop his marking, tackling to 15.

That makes more sense.

while both of a 15 and 20 coach gives the same speed of development, there should be a limit to distinct good and bad coaches

perhaps you're offering that to SI as the way forward, but it doesn't seem to work that way at present.

at most, coaching attributes affect the speed at which players train to their maximum ability. training schedules and innate ability have more to do with how far a player can develop a skill.

the question on the table regarding how the system actually works is, as i understand it, whether attributes have any significant effect, or whether coaching is modeled entirely by coaching workload and training facilities.

[Ah Fat]

yah... that's exactly what i mean... A suggestion for the future

[Iggy]

I disagree, there should be several things to affect a players progress. The players own mental skills of course, his body, the coach teams knowledge and social behavior/motivation. The facilities they train on. I think it shouldn't be a black/white issues where a player might just max to a certain level but that it's more dynamic and would be different each time

[Joor]

If the star rating doesn't indicate the speed in which the coach helps players reach their PA, then I will eat my hat, and all of my FM CDs.

How fast a player develop over time depends on the clubs training facilites and hes mental attributes + the difference between the CA and the PA.

The coach star rating is only an indicator on how high workload he can manage...lets say a 7 star coach can have 30 players on intensive attacking schedule and a 3 star coach can have 15 players ...

[Joor]

Let me summarize what we learn last year in Fm08.

1.Growth of ability depends on the player's age and more of the difference between CA and PA, but not on the training shedules.

4. Only if workload in training category is <6, then you can see that attributes will fall.

5. The overall training's workload responsible for the growth of the CA.

6. The lowest skills increase slightly quicker.

7. When your team have poor training conditions or when you send player on loan, skills fall.

8. Development of player skills is not dependent on the skills of coaches.

[Joor]

A screenshot from the test; http://img376.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sravgp6.jpg

At the left we see a team of superb coaches on each category with 7 stars, the maximal training base, and on the right 3 star coaches.

The player development is almost identical.

[zeusbheld]

I disagree, there should be several things to affect a players progress. The players own mental skills of course, his body, the coach teams knowledge and social behavior/motivation. The facilities they train on. I think it shouldn't be a black/white issues where a player might just max to a certain level but that it's more dynamic and would be different each time

currently, there are several things that affect player progress, the only question is how much of a factor (if any) are the coaches' attributes. training facilities, match experience, etc. will almost certainly still affect player progress if training is revamped. it would make no sense as a simulation to do otherwise, although the coaches' talents should be taken into account if they're not already IMO.