Just how important is a 7 star training schedule?

[zeusbheld]

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.

very interesting--are those screenshots taken from an editor? it doesn't look much like FM.

any shots of the players' training levels/progress from the player's training schedule screen?

i'm also curious as to why the physical training is so low--is that training schedule something you came up with for the experiment?

[Nick A]

I wish SI would respond on this; it is very important gameplay!

[Deltaroad]

This is stupid SI needs to comment on this.

[Deltaroad]

This whole thing more or less proves the theory that 7 stars means jack.

So coaches with mentality, determination, adaptability means nothing.

NOw can the same be said with scouts?, Ass man etc etc etc.

[T4RG4]

SI/Mods - if you stumble on this, please comment. I've just read through all this and I'd love to get some proper facts!

[hozhoz]

It blatantly isn't the same for them... I'm sorry but from one game with Derby compared to a game with Manchester United I got a huge potential on Bojan when I scouted him from United (with an 18judging pot. scout) compared to 'this player will not improve much' with a Derby scout with 5 potent judge. So ass. man and scout are definitely 'working'...

The 'test' is pretty inaccurate really as the arrows only show a limited amount of time + maybe showing how far the players potential were away from their CA would show why they had slow growth.

[zeusbheld]

It blatantly isn't the same for them... I'm sorry but from one game with Derby compared to a game with Manchester United I got a huge potential on Bojan when I scouted him from United (with an 18judging pot. scout) compared to 'this player will not improve much' with a Derby scout with 5 potent judge. So ass. man and scout are definitely 'working'...

agree.

scout ability definitely has a clear effect, both in terms of accuracy and detail of the reports they make. one doesn't need a scientific test to easily demonstrate that, it's obvious.

The 'test' is pretty inaccurate really as the arrows only show a limited amount of time + maybe showing how far the players potential were away from their CA would show why they had slow growth.

i'd agree that the test posted here doesn't unequivocally demonstrate that coach attributes have no effect, or even that their effect is necessarily insignificant. it does, however, suggest that it very well could be the case and it may warrant further study.

[matt_132]

quick question. if the stars only show how many players a coach can coach, what about the coach's stats. Surely a coach with attack coaching 20 will improve a player more than a coach with attack coaching 1? Please respond SI! This is quite an important thing and is new to me...

[phnompenhandy]

quick question. if the stars only show how many players a coach can coach, what about the coach's stats. Surely a coach with attack coaching 20 will improve a player more than a coach with attack coaching 1? Please respond SI! This is quite an important thing and is new to me...

Well that's the whole problem. The stars are based on the coach's attributes; if the stars merely determine how many players on a schedule, so do the attribute stats. It's a mess if true, and definitely needs urgent attention by SI.

[ExiledTiger]

Just had a look at the training section in the in game tutorial. It states that higher quality players require higher quality coaches to improve them. Still not sure about the whole thing and would appreciate a difinitive response from someone at SI. Won't hold my breath though.

[Yzzycz]

SI games crew.I just have to say it is really disapointing that you not responding when is issue like this discussed.It looks like you guys don't want to respond for it is actually as tihs guy says....big BS with whole training.Is he right or not?Does really not matter how coach is good and how many stars are there?

[zeusbheld]

i don't suppose it's occurred to anyone who is breathing hard about SI not responding that with a title like "just how important is a 7 star rating schedule" there's nothing that would make an SI employee think they *ought* to look at this thread?

maybe someone who is busy fretting can take a time out and start a thread with a title like "coaching attributes: SI, please comment." then i'd suggest all those who are wasting their time (and space in this thread) posting "SI, please respond" do so on that thread, where it's more likely to have an effect.

incidentally, the person starting that thread should a) summarize the situation, preferably non-hysterically, and b) link to this thread. however, if that seems to wildly... practical, then continue to whine about SI not commenting on this thread. that's working out really well so far.

[zeusbheld]

This whole thing more or less proves the theory that 7 stars means jack.

So coaches with mentality, determination, adaptability means nothing.

actually, it doesn't.

quite possibly their experiment *does* show this, but i can't decipher where it does, largely because they've chosen to show screen shots from some sort of 'under the hood' editor (or use a skin so indecipherable even the numbers don't look like FM) rather than in-game screens from FM. i would like to see a) a sequence of the training levels and b) a sequence of the player's attributes as displayed in FM before i can fully understand the implications.

what it seems to show clearly is that coaches don't affect the overall CA significantly. PA seems to model the long-term potential.

i'm not sure exactly what is meant by CA. if CA fluctuates as the player's skills fluctuate--that is, if a player is injured or it's the beginning o the season and their training levels are low, their CA would be noticeably lower, and CA shows every little change in a player's training level--then indeed coaching attributes have little effect.

however, if CA is something more akin to 'short term potential ability'--how good a player can be this year--then the CA won't change over the course of a season, but the player's actual abilities may change dramatically. someone less lazy than me should do an experiment.

i suspect that CA may be a measure of short-term potential rather than a cumulative snapshot of a player's attributes. part of the reason i think this is that when a player comes back from a long injury, and his attributes are low, they rise to normal without a green arrow. the green arrow seems to only occur when a "permanent" rise in the maximum

if CA is short-term potential then coaches could have a significant effect in the short term but relatively low impact on overall realization of PA, but an experiment would have to carry on for several seasons before results would be conclusive.

either we would have to see the short term effect in FM, side by side with an editor to know for sure. we'd have to know whether there was a difference between what one sees in the editing software and what one sees in FM. this may be something the experimenters already did, and they just haven't shown all the documentation, but i haven't seen enough to know for sure.

[heliotrope]

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.

was the 'experiment' repeated multiple times? did you try it with different teams? did you observe the other protocol necessary to really call it a fair and scientific test? did the testing run for a long enough period to account properly for the possibility that the quality of long term coaching may have an impact more than the quality of coaching in the short term?

i'm not saying that your findings aren't necessarily true, but i am saying that if you are going to present your findings in a quasi-scientific manner and imply that they are superior to anecdotal evidence then you need to actually have conducted a test which has scientific merit, and you need to show your results in a format which actually allows other people to comment on them and understand them, rather than in a format which no-one is actually familiar with.

[Joor]

was the 'experiment' repeated multiple times? did you try it with different teams? did you observe the other protocol necessary to really call it a fair and scientific test? did the testing run for a long enough period to account properly for the possibility that the quality of long term coaching may have an impact more than the quality of coaching in the short term?

i'm not saying that your findings aren't necessarily true, but i am saying that if you are going to present your findings in a quasi-scientific manner and imply that they are superior to anecdotal evidence then you need to actually have conducted a test which has scientific merit, and you need to show your results in a format which actually allows other people to comment on them and understand them, rather than in a format which no-one is actually familiar with.

After 30 runs(3-4 years) under various conditions done by the Fmfan.ru community, I think its a good enough ? .

[Majkee]

however, if CA is something more akin to 'short term potential ability'--how good a player can be this year--then the CA won't change over the course of a season, but the player's actual abilities may change dramatically. someone less lazy than me should do an experiment.

i suspect that CA may be a measure of short-term potential rather than a cumulative snapshot of a player's attributes. part of the reason i think this is that when a player comes back from a long injury, and his attributes are low, they rise to normal without a green arrow. the green arrow seems to only occur when a "permanent" rise in the maximum

CA is counted directly from player attributes, it has been confirmed here via tests, observations etc. and another issue has been raised from these tests...http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=58666

[zeusbheld]

CA is counted directly from player attributes, it has been confirmed here via tests, observations etc. and another issue has been raised from these tests...http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=58666

that's not really my question.

the question is, if you are just playing the game, as opposed to using an editor, do the numbers you see add up to the same attributes you'd see if you looked under the hood?

[zeusbheld]

After 30 runs(3-4 years) under various conditions done by the Fmfan.ru community, I think its a good enough ? .

how many times along the way did you stop and document the effect (or lack)?

do you have screencaps from actual in-game player attribute development, as opposed to in-editor? did you save data on the progress in getting to the screencap you showed or just before and after?

[Nick A]

Of course, an SI respose would clear all this up and make life chilled and easier for the people who have spent good money on this game.

[Bluntaxe]

Just another request for a SI response...

[zeusbheld]

Just another request for a SI response...

which is a complete waste of time. you'd make for a lousy movie character. if something doesn't work, you keep doing it over and over instead of trying something else.

maybe a) write to them b) start another thread or b) come up with something clever to get their attention on the issue if it keeps you up at night? just a thought.

[Valar Morghulis]

Just something else to consider ... I had 1 star coaching for Strength and Aerobic and while it was still "Light" I had players moaning about the quality of the coaching.

[kennec]

why should si respond everytime something isnt clear in the game?

i played this game 12 years and a HUGE part of this game is try and error method for succes with tactics/training and stuff

[Bluntaxe]

which is a complete waste of time. you'd make for a lousy movie character. if something doesn't work, you keep doing it over and over instead of trying something else.

maybe a) write to them b) start another thread or b) come up with something clever to get their attention on the issue if it keeps you up at night? just a thought.

geez, I make one quick post and I get flamed... Is the whole community here this nice?

*I* didn't keep doing anything over and over. I was just adding my voice to numbers that would like an answer. Sometimes these things just take enough pressure on the company to entertain a reply. If their is some community request that I can sign, please by all means let me know.

[JohnShaft]

why should si respond everytime something isnt clear in the game?

i played this game 12 years and a HUGE part of this game is try and error method for succes with tactics/training and stuff

You're comparing apples with orangutans.

People have legitimate concerns that Coaches ratings are worthless, after all these years of spending our time to get the best coaching setups we can. We have a right to know if we're wasting our time. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with being spoonfed the game.

The only thing worse than this being true, is it being true and SI deliberately developing deaf ears on this issue if they know it to be true.

[zeusbheld]

geez, I make one quick post and I get flamed... Is the whole community here this nice?

*I* didn't keep doing anything over and over. I was just adding my voice to numbers that would like an answer. Sometimes these things just take enough pressure on the company to entertain a reply. If their is some community request that I can sign, please by all means let me know.

sorry i can't sort you from the ones posting that over and over.

don't take it personally it wasn't intended personally, just observing that your "strategy" of posting over and over (you as a group) in this thread is not putting any pressure on them AT ALL if they don't read the thread.

if you put together a commuty request that people could sign then THAT would make more sense.

[zeusbheld]

The only thing worse than this being true, is it being true and SI deliberately developing deaf ears on this issue if they know it to be true.

i think assuming they're deliberately developing deaf ears based on them not responding in a thread that you have no evidence they're even aware of is worse.

if it's that important to you why don't you do something that could have an effect, like starting a "hey SI, address this" thread as a petition, or PMing someone from SI. at least try something besides spinning half-baked conspiracy theories.

[JohnShaft]

if it's that important to you why don't you do something that could have an effect, like starting a "hey SI, address this" thread as a petition, or PMing someone from SI. at least try something besides spinning half-baked conspiracy theories.

Have you seen the bugs forum?

There's enough SI posters that threads like this don't go around three pages long, and at the top of the board, unnoticed. The chances are very slim otherwise. This is backed up by the lack of replies in similar situations in the past. So I think it's fully baked, thanks. It's certainly much more likely they've seen it than not.

[zeusbheld]

Have you seen the bugs forum?

There's enough SI posters that threads like this don't go around three pages long, and at the top of the board, unnoticed. The chances are very slim otherwise. This is backed up by the lack of replies in similar situations in the past. So I think it's fully baked, thanks. It's certainly much more likely they've seen it than not.

however baked it is (and you're aware of the connotations of baked, aren't you? not sure fully baked is something a sensible person would confess publicly)

have you noticed that this thread is a) in the general forum, and b) titled in such a way as to give no indication that SI SHOULD pay attention to it?

have you noticed all the problems with the release of 09, and has it occurred to you that SI may have had a few things to deal with besides a thread with an innocuous title?

have you noticed the large numbers of threads running to a massive three pages that SI neglects to comment on, and do you assume that they, too, are a tacit expression of opinion on the part of SI?

have you noticed the "Go to first new post Just found something amazing!!! Must see!!!" and how long that took, even with a provocative title, to get a response from SI, and did you also notice that SI responded even though it's a more serious flaw and they're not sure what to do about it yet?

have you noticed that actually getting off your butt and doing something about what bothers you, while not always effective, is considerably more effective than whining about conspiracies, collusion and persecution? apparently not.

[RobinGoodey]

To all the people who want a comment on this from SI - what exactly are you expecting them to say?

1) Do you really think they are going to come in here and admit that training quality is actually irrelevant, and that they have been lying for all these years about the necessity of having good coaching staff etc?

2) If they come in here and say that training is working as we all thought it did until this thread / these tests on fm.ru started, then none of the critics on here will believe them anyway!

They are in a no-win situation - if they don't respond, then you all say they are ignoring / avoiding the issue, if they do comment (and if they did then 99% for sure their responce would be similar to my point no 2) then the doubters will call them liars, due to this allegedly overwhelming evidence that has been found.

I'm quite sure that SI are aware of this thread, but let's be honest - even if the tests that have been run ARE correct - what are they going to do about it in FM09? The answer is nothing, cos it would mean completely re-writing HUGE chunks of the game code to make it how we all expected it to be - so I'd suggest people calming down and just get on with playing and enjoying the GAME!

(Please note - FM09 IS a GAME - it's supposed to be enjoyable, not causing all sorts of arguments and conspiracy theories )

[Kewell08]

I would think it's pretty straightforward.

A coach gives better training if he has less work to do. In the game, a better coach is more effective at doing his work, he does it more easily so he has less work to do, or at least the equivalent of that.

[jbrowes]

It would be nice if SI would comment on this discussion - after all, this subject shouldn't be a secret!

[CaptainPlanet]

Maybe if it gets to 19 pages long and starts talking about off-topic drivel like chocolate biscuits someone will turn up.

have you noticed that actually getting off your butt and doing something about what bothers you, while not always effective, is considerably more effective than whining about conspiracies, collusion and persecution? apparently not.

You're making the assumption that people haven't done anything outside of posting in this thread. And you may wish to stop coming off as so conceited. You're beginning to troll the people responding in this thread, when there are hundreds of other threads just like it that you don't feel you have to comment on.

[zeusbheld]

1) Do you really think they are going to come in here and admit that training quality is actually irrelevant, and that they have been lying for all these years about the necessity of having good coaching staff etc?

i don't know about the "lying" part but they have jumped into threads and admitted flaws in the game before; they have also had stats in the game that meant nothing (i think it's been addressed but it used to be in previous editions that a player's height and weight had no effect on their match performance in FM, and a couple of years ago when it came up, they confessed).

2) If they come in here and say that training is working as we all thought it did until this thread / these tests on fm.ru started, then none of the critics on here will believe them anyway!

that's true for a number of reasons. for one thing, the fm.ru people didn't exactly publish a science paper and their tests aren't completely transparent or conclusive, but they are pretty detail oriented and give an impression f

also, it's human nature that some people would rather complain how they're getting screwed and dream up conspiracies than think about the relationship between evidence and certainty.

there will also be people like me who won't be fully convinced either way unless hard evidence (by either party) is presented. to be honest i'd not be all that convinced if SI (or anyone else) say it works a certain way without some sort of evidence, or a suggestion as to how we can see the effect ourselves (or lack of effect).

They are in a no-win situation - if they don't respond, then you all say they are ignoring / avoiding the issue, if they do comment (and if they did then 99% for sure their responce would be similar to my point no 2) then the doubters will call them liars, due to this allegedly overwhelming evidence that has been found.

they are not getting anywhere near as pilloried here as they do in dozens of threads that they actually respond to. they may be selective about it but they do often respond to messes. usually the bigger the mess the more likely they'll respond.

their lack of response may be a result of not wanting to respond, but it could also be a result of not paying attention. we just don't know.

I'm quite sure that SI are aware of this thread, but let's be honest - even if the tests that have been run ARE correct - what are they going to do about it in FM09? The answer is nothing, cos it would mean completely re-writing HUGE chunks of the game code to make it how we all expected it to be - so I'd suggest people calming down and just get on with playing and enjoying the GAME!

don't see how you can be quite sure they are aware, (we have no evidence except that they didn't say anything) but you're right that there's nothing they can do in 09. they usually comment anyway, though, as they did in the "amazing' training flaw thread.

agree that people should stop treating it like the end of the world, or that if SI are indeed evil and wicked and read this and refuse to respond, their life is shattered and they'll never pick up the pieces.

(Please note - FM09 IS a GAME - it's supposed to be enjoyable, not causing all sorts of arguments and conspiracy theories )

for some people, this *is* enjoyable. also, it's a complicated bit of coding and so it's quite interesting (at least to me) to have little hints of what's actually under the hood.

you're spot on in that the sky isn't falling either way, and its' a game though.

[zeusbheld]

Maybe if it gets to 19 pages long and starts talking about off-topic drivel like chocolate biscuits someone will turn up.

if it gets to 19 pages long, someone will turn up.

You're making the assumption that people haven't done anything outside of posting in this thread.

no, i'm making the assumption that posting "please say something SI" here isn't the best way of getting a response from SI, and really is just a waste of time for both reader and poster considering other things are likely to be far more effective.

And you may wish to stop coming off as so conceited.

while i'm flattered that you're so concerned about my wishes, you might be better off to devoting your energy to managing your own affairs rather than mine. and attempting to manage my affairs is an extremely odd way to express your own humility.

You're beginning to troll the people responding in this thread, when there are hundreds of other threads just like it that you don't feel you have to comment on.

there are hundreds of threads on this issue? as it happens i'm interested in this issue, but not interested in ineffectual whining and have no interest in the conjecture of conspiracy nuts with fact allergies.

i don't think it's up to you a) to decide what i am interested in or b) to moderate the thread. you can say whatever you want about A and B of course, but i'm not obligated in any way to care about your recommendations.

on the other hand, you could click the "report" button if you feel i have crossed some line, and then you'd at least know that *someone* from SI has seen it.

[CaptainPlanet]

Pure troll reply *claps*

And if I did report a post it would be a mod that answers, not necessarily someone from SI.

[JayJay99]

Clearly what is being implied in this thread is wrong. And I don't understand why SI did not reply to explain the use of one of the functions to the game. Nobody will break any algorithms if we knew what should have been stated in the manual in the first place, that a better star rating coach trains the players better in his field.

Anyway, my players training levels(bars) indicate that they train less where I have a less star coach but intensity is set at the same level(e.g. high) for 2 or more sub-schedules(e.g attacking/shooting/set pieces). If this is not just a shopping window I take it that players train better with better coaches.

I made a screenshot in paint if someone can quickly instruct me how to upload it here.

[zeusbheld]

Pure troll reply *claps*

And if I did report a post it would be a mod that answers, not necessarily someone from SI.

well if i'm a troll as you say, you could get me banned. surely that would make your day.

how about making a positive contribution to the thread? as in, YOU actually DOING something and reporting it? why not do something besides whine and fling ad hominems?

[zeusbheld]

Anyway, my players training levels(bars) indicate that they train less where I have a less star coach but intensity is set at the same level(e.g. high) for 2 or more sub-schedules(e.g attacking/shooting/set pieces). If this is not just a shopping window I take it that players train better with better coaches.

i noticed that too. i'm not doing it rigorously or scientifically but i am playing the same half of the season twice--once with off-the-rack coaches at a 3 star training level and a light workload, and then i'll do it again after hiring a new staff. same exact players, same exact games, same exact training schedules, same exact tactics. other things may vary. it won't prove anything but at least it's a detailed comparison and looks at things that the Russians who ran the original test didn't mention. i'll also have the saved game files, 'before' and 'after.'

the graph on the bottom right of the training window does seem to have an overall lower training level.

[JohnShaft]

have you noticed that actually getting off your butt and doing something about what bothers you, while not always effective, is considerably more effective than whining about conspiracies, collusion and persecution? apparently not.

What I have noticed is you giving 98 replies to everyone who decides this needs addressing too, in this thread. I think there's only one person doing their nut in this thread, and it's you.

The guy who called you a troll (albeit a minor one) is pretty accurate from my perspective.

And FYI one of the reasons people don't post things like this in the bugs forum is because it's not a bug report. It's something that people want clarifying. The last thing the bugs forum needs is people posting all and sundry there that should be in here.

It's like your a knight in shining armour for SI or something. Get over yourself and let people comment on the game they paid for without you having to challenge them all to a duel.

[Socdk]

I haven't read the entire thread since a lot of posts are "WHA? I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS NOT BUTTER!!!" so I don't know if this have been mentioned.

Players can get unhappy with the level of training for the various areas. I got hired at Levante and noted that a lot of players where unhappy about certain areas of training. (IE. Is unhappy about the level of shooting training). This indicates that the ratings of coaching attributes does in fact matter. Perhaps only to the degree that some players get unhappy (Unhappy equals loss of CA in my experience) if it's low and satisfied when it's a good standard. Considering the tests made by others, which states that training ratings are pretty much worthless in terms of results in CA, I would believe that it doesn't matter what value they have for the attributes, as long as it exceeds the individual demands of the players.

wheew long sentence.

Just thought I'd mention it. I don't recall seeing this in FM08 but I usually upgraded staff from start, so I might just have missed it. Might be relevant for these speculations though!

[zeusbheld]

What I have noticed is you giving 98 replies to everyone who decides this needs addressing too, in this thread. I think there's only one person doing their nut in this thread, and it's you.

The guy who called you a troll (albeit a minor one) is pretty accurate from my perspective.

what have you posted? nothing but complaints? *your* contribution is massive: three complaint posts, no attempt at figuring out what's going on... and a lecture on manners? impressive.

way to lead by example. from my perspective, your posts have been consistently lightweight. you've shown nothing that would make me CARE about your perspective.

And FYI one of the reasons people don't post things like this in the bugs forum is because it's not a bug report. It's something that people want clarifying. The last thing the bugs forum needs is people posting all and sundry there that should be in here.

who suggested it should be posted in the bug forum? wasn't me.

It's like your a knight in shining armour for SI or something.

right. pointing out that we don't know if they've seen the thread is somehow defending them. briliant, just brilliant.

Get over yourself and let people comment on the game they paid for without you having to challenge them all to a duel.

exactly how have i prevented anyone from commenting? and i should take orders from you exactly why?

[zeusbheld]

I haven't read the entire thread since a lot of posts are "WHA? I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS IS NOT BUTTER!!!" so I don't know if this have been mentioned.

Players can get unhappy with the level of training for the various areas. I got hired at Levante and noted that a lot of players where unhappy about certain areas of training. (IE. Is unhappy about the level of shooting training). This indicates that the ratings of coaching attributes does in fact matter. Perhaps only to the degree that some players get unhappy (Unhappy equals loss of CA in my experience) if it's low and satisfied when it's a good standard. Considering the tests made by others, which states that training ratings are pretty much worthless in terms of results in CA, I would believe that it doesn't matter what value they have for the attributes, as long as it exceeds the individual demands of the players.

wheew long sentence.

Just thought I'd mention it. I don't recall seeing this in FM08 but I usually upgraded staff from start, so I might just have missed it. Might be relevant for these speculations though!

i thought that the players' happiness over their training was a product of their professionalism (hidden attribute)?

are you sure that more players get unhappy with low-rated coaches, or is that just an impression? or is it workload-related? or both?

hmmmm.

[Socdk]

i thought that the players' happiness over their training was a product of their professionalism (hidden attribute)?

are you sure that more players get unhappy with low-rated coaches, or is that just an impression? or is it workload-related? or both?

hmmmm.

Workloads where all light since Levante didn't have a buckload of players. It was in fact down to my coaches having poor attributes in the areas they where training. In "Training - Happiness" it clearly stated "Unhappy about the level of [area of training]".

I can't say if it determines the amount of players getting unhappy about low level training. I think it is individual, might very well be related to each players professionalism. But lower level training will naturally raise the odds that more players will be displeased with the current standard.

I haven't tested this to any extend so I can't tell you how accurate this is. It was definately not workload-related though. But seeing as some players on a training schedule would be happy with their training and others on the same schedule would be unhappy with the level of, say tactics training, it could well indicate that a hidden attribute (Like professionalism) determines what minimum level of training (Not star-wise but attribute-wise for the coach(es) assigned to that training area) the player is satisfied with.

Finding it hard to explain myself. Sorry

[crouchaldinho]

I'm with Zeusbheld on this.

Frankly, anyone who says 'ad hominem' on the SI Games forum gets my vote. Clearly, he is an intelligent man and therefore he is clearly correct.

[crouchaldinho]

(I bet only Zeusbheld will actually get the irony).

[matt_132]

what about the reputation of a coach. does this mean nothing as well

[zeusbheld]

I'm with Zeusbheld on this.

Frankly, anyone who says 'ad hominem' on the SI Games forum gets my vote. Clearly, he is an intelligent man and therefore he is clearly correct.

more important than any alleged intelligence, i am tall. i wear glasses. i really *look* like i must be an expert in something. screw "evidence," i am right because i'm tall (and i stand firmly by my position, which is "i don't know.")

[zeusbheld]

Workloads where all light since Levante didn't have a buckload of players. It was in fact down to my coaches having poor attributes in the areas they where training. In "Training - Happiness" it clearly stated "Unhappy about the level of [area of training]".

I can't say if it determines the amount of players getting unhappy about low level training. I think it is individual, might very well be related to each players professionalism. But lower level training will naturally raise the odds that more players will be displeased with the current standard.

I haven't tested this to any extend so I can't tell you how accurate this is. It was definately not workload-related though. But seeing as some players on a training schedule would be happy with their training and others on the same schedule would be unhappy with the level of, say tactics training, it could well indicate that a hidden attribute (Like professionalism) determines what minimum level of training (Not star-wise but attribute-wise for the coach(es) assigned to that training area) the player is satisfied with.

Finding it hard to explain myself. Sorry

hmmm so they were unhappy specifically with the standard of training? seems like if it is a specific schedule like tactics that it probably isn't caused by poor training facilities, but by the coaches themselves.

i wonder what is causing this unhappiness--the coach's poor attributes or maybe the coach has a low reputation? (if they were real humans rather than data and algorithms i suspect they'd care more about a coach's reputation than his actual ability, sadly enough).

[phnompenhandy]

I'm with Zeusbheld on this.

Frankly, anyone who says 'ad hominem' on the SI Games forum gets my vote. Clearly, he is an intelligent man and therefore he is clearly correct.

Ah, but .... leave me out in the rain and call me rusty, but shouldn't the Latin plural be ad homina, not ad hominems? Well, well?