Royaltea Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 (edited) Introduction I'm interested in exploring the various effects of different aspects of training over player's attributes, to that end I've concocted the following test settings. Test Settings I've set up my B team as Brest (French League 1) to test various training schedules over a period of an entire season using the following method and wanted to share the results with you. Using the in-game editor I've edited the B team to have the following: · Attributes: Each player visible attributes to be a 10. · Hidden Attributes: Each player hidden attributes to be a 10. · Player Positions: Players that could play multiple positions turned into pure position by setting 1 to all other positions but the natural position (20). · Age: Each player's age changed to 18 (Changed date of birth to 1/1/2003). · Nationality: Changed each player's nationality to French (to avoid any Adaptability effects). · Weaker Foot: Removed any value in weaker foot (All the player have one very strong foot – 20, very weak foot – 1). · Injuries: I reset any existing injuries but made sure the players have similar sharpness and fatigue. · Current Ability: I've edited the Current Ability to be the RCA (Recommended Current Ability) advised by the in-game editor (ranged between 63 for a Striker and 68 for a Centre-back). · Potential Ability: I've edited the Potential Ability of each player to be x2 the Current Ability. · Training Facilities: Brest have Good Training Facilities (12) and Good Youth Facilities (12). · Coaches: All training categories have 2.5 stars (Fairly Good) at least. · Balanced squad: 3 GK, 2 DR, 4 DC, 3 DL, 2 DM, 3 MC, 2 AMC, 2 AMR, AML, 2 ST. A balanced squad in terms of positions. · Transfers/Loans/Contracts: Players were set unavailable for loan, they were also given the same salary ($60k p/a) for the same contract duration (5 years). How do I test a training schedule? I take over the B team general and individual team training, set up a schedule for the team to train over a period of a season and go on holiday. Because the B team have no games scheduled (they do play, it just doesn't show on calendar) this training setup don't get spoiled by the occasional cup match reschedule. Tested Training Strategies Training Strategy Times Tested Avg. Overall Growth in Attributes Full Rest 1 -104 Delegate to Assistant Manager 1 +146 Test #1: 5 Endurance, 5 Overall, 6 Recovery 1 +74 Test #2: 3 Quickness, 3 Physical, 5 Defensive Engaged, 3 Attacking Patient 1 +188 Test #1: 5 ENDURANCE, 4 OVERALL Expectations: I am expecting major improvements in Stamina, Natural Fitness and Work Rate alongside mild improvements in all attributes depend on positions. Results: Most improved attributes were: Strength (+19), Stamina (+16), Jumping Reach (+12), Balance (+9), Anticipation (+9), Work Rate (+8) Most declined attributes were: Off the Ball (-7), Finishing (-6), Marking (-6), Bravery (-6) Overall growth in attributes: (+74) Name Age Position CA PA Prof Inj Pr Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Sébastien Cibois 19 GK 73 142 1 1 1 Isaïa Hubert 19 GK 71 142 1 1 1 Loïck Massé 19 GK 70 140 1 1 1 1 Kylian Le Her 19 D (R) 73 136 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 Mathéo Da Silva 19 D (R) 74 136 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 Brieg Le Bars 19 D (C) 74 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 Noé Sow 19 D (C) 71 136 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 Josué Escartin 19 D (C) 75 138 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 Ali Dicko 19 D (C) 71 136 1 1 -1 -1 -1 Kévin Galisson 19 D (L) 72 136 1 1 1 1 -1 Tom Flamanc 19 D (L) 71 136 1 1 1 -1 Téva Lossec 19 D (L) 72 136 1 1 1 1 1 -1 Kilian Liri 19 DM 68 132 1 -1 Pierre Jouan 19 DM 69 132 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 Rémi Maugain 19 M (C) 70 128 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kurtis Chadet 19 M (C) 67 128 1 1 1 1 1 Abdourahmane Thior 19 M (C) 69 128 1 1 1 1 -3 1 1 1 1 Djibril Konté 19 AM (R) 69 130 1 1 -2 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 Axel Camblan 19 AM (R) 66 130 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 Loïck Piquionne 19 AM (C) 67 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 Aymeric Faurand-Tournaire 19 AM (C) 65 122 1 1 1 1 1 Rafiki Saïd 19 AM (L) 66 130 1 1 1 1 -1 Samuel Genty 19 AM (L) 70 130 1 1 1 1 1 Lucas Gélébart 19 ST (C) 67 126 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 Chris Basakila Bazungula 19 ST (C) 66 126 1 1 -2 -1 -1 Sum 2 -1 2 2 9 12 7 1 16 19 0 9 -6 1 4 5 0 2 0 -7 1 0 2 8 0 -3 0 -6 1 0 0 1 0 -6 1 0 -2 1 In the table above you can see the difference between attribute at the start of the season (12/7/21) and end of the season (22/05/22). A positive value means the attribute increased, a negative value means the attribute decreased (due to injuries or training effect). There is also a sum at the bottom. Discussion, conclusion and follow-up: I was surprised to see such a massive improvement in strength, jumping reach and balance as they were not specifically trained. My hypothesis is that 1. The players naturally grow stronger and taller because of young age. 2. There is some correlation between Endurance and Resistance sessions. It's also interesting to see that the defending unit declined in terms of attacking attributes (such as off the ball -7, finishing -6), and the attacking unit declined in terms of defensive attributes (marking -6). Also interesting to see two players got an increase in professionalism despite not having any mentors. One player injury proneness decreased by 1. However, due to injuries Overall Stamina increased only by 16 and Bravery got an overall decrease of 6. Follow-up test would be changing Endurance session to Resistance and compare the results. Test #2: 3 Quickness, 3 Physical, 5 Defensive Engaged, 3 Attacking Patient Expectations: I am expecting major improvements in Pace, Agility and Acceleration (Physical, Quickness), as well as Marking, Tackling, Aggression, Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning (Defending Engaged, Attacking Patient). Results: Name Age Position CA PA Prof Inj Pr Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Sébastien Cibois 19 GK 79 142 1 1 1 1 Isaïa Hubert 19 GK 73 142 1 1 Loïck Massé 19 GK 71 140 1 Kylian Le Her 19 D (R) 74 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mathéo Da Silva 19 D (R) 73 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Brieg Le Bars 19 D (C) 71 136 1 1 Noé Sow 19 D (C) 76 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Josué Escartin 19 D (C) 73 138 1 1 1 Ali Dicko 19 D (C) 78 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 Kévin Galisson 19 D (L) 73 136 1 1 1 1 Tom Flamanc 19 D (L) 76 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Téva Lossec 19 D (L) 73 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kilian Liri 19 DM 74 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pierre Jouan 19 DM 74 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rémi Maugain 19 M (C) 67 128 -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kurtis Chadet 19 M (C) 71 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Abdourahmane Thior 19 M (C) 68 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Djibril Konté 19 AM (R) 75 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Axel Camblan 19 AM (R) 71 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Loïck Piquionne 19 AM (C) 68 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Aymeric Faurand-Tournaire 19 AM (C) 66 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rafiki Saïd 19 AM (L) 74 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Samuel Genty 19 AM (L) 70 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lucas Gélébart 19 ST (C) 70 126 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Chris Basakila Bazungula 19 ST (C) 68 126 1 1 1 1 1 3 -2 9 18 15 17 11 11 19 15 0 8 0 4 6 6 0 6 0 1 4 0 5 3 0 2 6 0 3 0 0 5 2 4 2 0 4 2 In the table above you can see the difference between attribute at the start of the season (12/7/21) and end of the season (22/05/22). A positive value means the attribute increased, a negative value means the attribute decreased (due to injuries or training effect). There is also a sum at the bottom. I've also used colors this to emphasize improvements. Most improved attributes were: Stamina (+19), Agility (+18), Jumping Reach (+17), Strength (+15), Nature Fitness (+11), Pace (+11), Acceleration (+9) Most declined attributes were: Notable attributes: Aggression (0) Overall growth in attributes: (+188) Discussion, conclusion and follow-up: This training schedule seem to have a much greater impact on the players than test #1. Massive improvements in all areas of players physicality. Surprisingly stamina improved more with this schedule than the "pure" Endurance from the previous test. Also no decline whatsoever (is that even a good thing? I'd rather have strikers that can't mark). I think that the most baffling result is that defending unit's aggression attribute hasn't changed despite having dedicated 7 (!) training sessions (Defending Engaged), and 3 training sessions (Attacking Patient) as secondary impact for an entire season. Because of that I had to recheck the sessions descriptions: Follow-up test would be to see if aggression is even trainable, using 21 Defensive Engaged schedules. Any comments, ideas, suggestions and critique are welcomed. Edited August 11, 2022 by Royaltea updated metrics Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted August 10, 2022 Share Posted August 10, 2022 I know SI are always interested in studies such as this and once finished you could create a thread / post your data and results into the Bugs forum (I know it’s not a bug but that’s the place to upload such information). My only observation for now concerns the design ethos and intent behind the Training Module - it’s designed to be realistic. Because of that, once we start introducing unrealistic inputs such as changing things in the editor or creating synthetic training schedules, we run the risk of receiving unrealistic outputs. So if some results are surprising, whilst it may show an area of concern within the module it’s probably more to do with the complexities of the module and the realistic basis. Because of that, trying to draw conclusions is perhaps coming at it from the wrong angle - instead output the results and then, as said above, feed them into SI to analyse and let them draw conclusions 👍. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 10, 2022 Author Share Posted August 10, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, herne79 said: I know SI are always interested in studies such as this and once finished you could create a thread / post your data and results into the Bugs forum (I know it’s not a bug but that’s the place to upload such information). My only observation for now concerns the design ethos and intent behind the Training Module - it’s designed to be realistic. Because of that, once we start introducing unrealistic inputs such as changing things in the editor or creating synthetic training schedules, we run the risk of receiving unrealistic outputs. So if some results are surprising, whilst it may show an area of concern within the module it’s probably more to do with the complexities of the module and the realistic basis. Because of that, trying to draw conclusions is perhaps coming at it from the wrong angle - instead output the results and then, as said above, feed them into SI to analyse and let them draw conclusions 👍. Thanks for the reply. The decision to sort of "reset" the players using the editor was done to ease the testing, isolate variables, and being able to change one variable and see the effects on others. In addition, I don't think the edits are so far fetched from a realistic team of 17-18 years old players advancing to the B team. As far synthetic training schedules I'm not sure what you mean, both training schedules seem sensible to me. Test #3: Aggression in Normal Environment I used the save without any edits. I left training to my assistant manager and went on holiday for entire season. The default training schedule for the B team is Pre-Season: 'Tactical - Early, Mid, Late' then cycling through the 'Training Style' category with no particular order. 'Training Style – Balanced', 'Training Style – Defence' and 'Training Style – Physical' all have the 'Defending' and 'Defending Engaged' training sessions which list Aggression under their impacted attributes. Results: Name Age Position Personality CA PA Prof Inj Pr Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Sébastien Cibois 24 GK Fairly Professional Isaïa Hubert 19 GK Balanced 1 Kylian Le Her 20 D/WB (R) Balanced -1 1 -1 -2 -1 Brieg Le Bars 20 D (C), DM Fairly Determined 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Noé Sow 23 D (C), DM, M (C) Balanced 1 1 Josué Escartin 19 D (C) Balanced 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ali Dicko 19 D (C) Balanced 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Kévin Galisson 19 D (LC) Fairly Determined -1 1 1 1 1 Tom Flamanc 20 D (L) Balanced 2 1 1 1 -1 Téva Lossec 19 D/WB (L) Determined 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Kilian Liri 19 M/AM (C) Balanced -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Pierre Jouan 19 DM, M (C) Balanced -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Kurtis Chadet 18 M/AM (C) Balanced 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 Abdourahmane Thior 20 M (C) Fairly Determined 4 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Djibril Konté 19 AM (RL) Balanced 3 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Axel Camblan 19 AM (R), ST (C) Balanced 2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Rémi Maugain 20 AM (C), ST (C) Fairly Determined 3 1 2 1 -1 1 Aymeric Faurand-Tournaire 18 AM (C) Balanced 1 Rafiki Saïd 22 AM (RL), ST (C) Fairly Loyal Loïck Piquionne 21 ST (C) Balanced 1 Samuel Genty 20 ST (C) Balanced 2 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 Lucas Gélébart 19 ST (C) Balanced 1 0 -1 -1 4 6 3 4 0 5 7 0 1 -2 -1 1 -4 4 3 1 1 -2 -3 -2 -3 -7 -3 0 -4 -3 -5 -2 -4 -2 -3 -2 -2 -4 -3 Discussion, conclusion and follow-up: This was done to further verify that Aggression cannot be trained despite it being listed under General->Defending and Defending->Defending Engaged under normal settings. Aggression hasn't changed in a single player. Edited August 10, 2022 by Royaltea Made table more compact for readability Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 7 hours ago, Royaltea said: This was done to further verify that Aggression cannot be trained despite it being listed under General->Defending and Defending->Defending Engaged under normal settings. Aggression hasn't changed in a single player. Why does it mean Aggression cannot be trained? Perhaps it means that Aggression is just very slow to develop in players, sometimes to the extent where it doesn’t shift at all - and isn’t that realistic? Do real life footballers become more Aggressive as they age? I don’t have data to know one or the other but I know SI do, therefore isn’t their training module realistic? Just because Aggression is listed under a training session doesn’t mean it will automatically develop - it means it’ll behave in line with the realistic training module that SI have developed. As said above, drawing conclusions is perhaps coming at this from the wrong direction - if you think something is off with the training module (SI have never said it’s perfect) then feed the data into SI, let them study it and draw conclusions 👍. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
poobington Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 @Royaltea Have you checked out Evidence Based FM's videos on training. He does similar experiments and goes into a great deal of detail about the efficacy of the different training schedules in FM 22. This video in particular summarises all of the training schedules in FM and shows what attributes they affect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotsworthy Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 (edited) This is anecdotal, but I've never seen aggression change on any of my players in any FM game for the last few years. While SI do mention there is some stuff going on under the hood which we don't know about, I do believe that aggression is bugged. Would be interested to know how this differs from just following the assistant managers advice, whether there is significant different in attributes. Edited August 11, 2022 by Dotsworthy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 11, 2022 Author Share Posted August 11, 2022 @poobington I wasn't aware of his tests. His videos are pure gold mine. Very informative and methodical. They also revealed potential flaws in my test settings because the B team do play matches (even though they do not appear on schedule), and there's no way to know whether I'm recording training effects or match effects. There's also the issue of repeating tests multiple times and using averages instead of absolute values which I'll do in the future. Thanks for the link! @herne79 You're absolutely right. Maybe it take years for aggression to increase and this will have to be further investigated. The right wording would be that under a period of one season of numerous training schedules (including the default one) the Aggression attribute hasn't changed once. --------------------- At the end of the day, I'd like some actionable training strategy to follow, and being able compare different training strategies. Therefore, I decided to introduce a metric and give different training strategies a "score" (overall growth in attributes). This metric should be taken with a grain of salt because training affects lots of things: fatigue, sharpness, familiarity with the tactical system, injuries, morale, team's cohesion etc. Test #0: Establishing a Base Line: Full Week of Rest Results: Name Position CA PA Prof Inj Pr Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Att Ch. Sébastien Cibois GK 72 142 1 1 -1 1 2 Isaïa Hubert GK 71 142 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 7 Loïck Massé GK 70 140 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 8 Kylian Le Her D (R) 69 136 1 -1 -2 1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 1 -2 -8 Mathéo Da Silva D (R) 67 136 1 -1 1 -1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -11 Brieg Le Bars D (C) 70 136 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -6 Noé Sow D (C) 69 136 1 1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -11 Josué Escartin D (C) 70 138 -2 -1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -13 Ali Dicko D (C) 69 136 1 1 -2 -2 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -12 Kévin Galisson D (L) 70 136 -1 -2 1 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -10 Tom Flamanc D (L) 69 136 1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 1 -1 -8 Téva Lossec D (L) 70 136 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -5 Kilian Liri DM 67 132 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 4 Pierre Jouan DM 67 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 Rémi Maugain M (C) 65 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 5 Kurtis Chadet M (C) 64 128 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 -10 Abdourahmane Thior M (C) 66 128 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -4 Djibril Konté AM (R) 68 130 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -2 -1 1 -5 Axel Camblan AM (R) 65 130 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 1 -11 Loïck Piquionne AM (C) 62 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 Aymeric Faurand-Tournaire AM (C) 63 122 -1 -1 -2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -7 Rafiki Saïd AM (L) 67 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 2 Samuel Genty AM (L) 66 130 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 2 Lucas Gélébart ST (C) 65 126 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1 -7 Chris Basakila Bazungula ST (C) 65 126 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -2 -5 Sum 1 0 12 10 9 16 0 14 11 12 0 -2 0 -8 -11 -7 0 -24 0 -18 -10 9 -15 7 6 -19 -15 -25 -13 5 -17 2 6 -16 -7 6 -10 -12 -104 Most improved attributes were: Jumping Reach (+16), Pace (+14), Strength (+12), Acceleration (+12), Stamina (+11), Agility (+10), Team Work (+9) Most declined attributes were: Finishing (-25), Flair (-24), Crossing (-19), Off The Ball (-18), Marking (-16) Overall growth in attributes: (-104) Funnily enough the team suffered 14 in-training injuries during the test, including a major hip injury for Matteo Da Silva that required a specialist. Even though they do not train. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 11, 2022 Author Share Posted August 11, 2022 Test #0: Establishing a Base-Line: Delegate to Assistant In this training strategy I left the B team general and individual training to my assistant manager. Results: Name Position CA PA Prof Inj Pr Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Att. Change Sébastien Cibois GK 74 142 1 1 Isaïa Hubert GK 71 142 1 1 2 Loïck Massé GK 70 140 1 1 Kylian Le Her D (R) 73 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Mathéo Da Silva D (R) 73 136 1 1 1 1 1 5 Brieg Le Bars D (C) 74 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Noé Sow D (C) 71 136 0 Josué Escartin D (C) 72 138 1 1 1 3 Ali Dicko D (C) 70 136 1 1 -1 -1 0 Kévin Galisson D (L) 71 136 1 1 1 3 Tom Flamanc D (L) 74 136 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Téva Lossec D (L) 71 136 1 1 1 1 1 5 Kilian Liri DM 72 132 1 1 1 1 4 Pierre Jouan DM 73 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Rémi Maugain M (C) 71 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 -2 1 1 1 1 1 9 Kurtis Chadet M (C) 69 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Abdourahmane Thior M (C) 69 128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Djibril Konté AM (R) 75 130 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Axel Camblan AM (R) 75 130 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Loïck Piquionne AM (C) 68 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Aymeric Faurand-Tournaire AM (C) 68 122 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Rafiki Saïd AM (L) 71 130 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Samuel Genty AM (L) 74 130 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Lucas Gélébart ST (C) 68 126 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Chris Basakila Bazungula ST (C) 69 126 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 -1 3 12 9 14 10 6 20 15 0 9 -3 1 4 6 0 2 0 0 3 0 4 2 0 1 7 2 4 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 2 3 146 Most improved attributes were: Stamina (+20), Strength (+15) Jumping Reach (+14), Agility (+12), Natural Fitness (+10), Anticipation (+9), Balance (+9), Dribbling (+7) Most declined attributes were: Bravery (-3) due to injuries Overall growth in attributes: (+146) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashidi Posted August 11, 2022 Share Posted August 11, 2022 Just a heads up. These kind of experiments are interesting and there are a few things people should bear in mind when they are doing these. Your assumptions need to be accurate otherwise the experiment is moot. SI assume you will play the game realistically, by that it’s assumed that people will play the game, so ideal situations for best performance will involve someone handing training themselves and playing through matches with a system that is ideally suited to their teams. If it’s assumed that your facilities are maxed out and you have the best coaches then your performances in games will play a part. Playing well leads to good ratings and those good ratings also influence how a player performs in training. How you manage a players time on the pitch and rotate your squad can also have an impact on a players training. Finally having a training schedule that is ultimately balanced and works on units evenly allows for realistic organic development. Even when I need to simulate training I need to take this into account. During simulated seasons thinking about the right tactic and setting up the right schedules for your side that give balanced coverage needs to be considered. I am not trying to throw shade on this simulations because God knows I run 1000s of simulations in each iteration. What I would recommend is if you’re keen on doing this consider the points I’ve raised above and there is a very good chance SI will notice. Id be very careful with messing with CA here I do know where you are coming from, but the moment we change attribute dispersions we run into another issue. Good luck and I do think your approach is fairly close to what I do barring a few key differences. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 11, 2022 Author Share Posted August 11, 2022 (edited) B Team Training Bugs/Flaws? Note: This was tested using the unedited saved game. I don't know whether it's specific to Brest B team or general. I suspect it's generic for any reserve/B team that has no schedule (fixture list is empty), but that would require some further checking. One of the major difficulties I encountered in setting up training strategy was the unknown schedule of the B team. I simply could not know in advance when matches occur and design schedules around them. Therefore, I decided to investigate to see if there's a pattern to the schedule and found some concerning stuff... 1. The B team manager arranged friendly matches, they were just not listed in the fixtures list. Unticking this button: did NOT work. As you can see the B team fixture list is empty at the end of the season: (I cancelled all the friendly matches at the start of the season) However, This is one of Brest B players (Kylian Le Her) Reports -> Form card, apparently he played 15 non-competitive matches this season. Including 3 games against Mount Pleasant FC which is a Jamaican team. Notice the role he played - full back, we'll get to that later. 2. The matches (both official league matches and non-competitive) did not show in training e-mails. If you tick the option under Responsibilities->Training called 'Receive training emails for team B', you'll get to review training schedules two weeks in advance. This feature is immensely useful because matches get re-arranged all the time and you need to make changes on-the-fly. Unfortunately, the B team matches are not shown in these previews. This is part of a training email I got: As you can see a Physical training and some Ball Retention sessions were set, but there was a game scheduled at the same date (Again, there's no way to know about it). At this point I don't know if the team trained that day. 3. Injuries during matches register as training injuries. Injuries during training register as match injuries (maybe?) I suspected something was fishy following the previous test in which the team suffered 14 training injuries despite not having trained at all. This is the central defender, Josué Escartin, getting hurt on a match against Saint-Etienne 2 on the 16th of April, but the medical centre suggests otherwise: On a different note Chris Bazungula suffered a match injury according to this report in a match on 27/03, which according to his Player->Report->Form he hasn't played. In fact, nobody played, because there was no match that day. 4. The B team trained my tactic, but did not play it. The default behavior of Football Manager is that both the reserve and u-18 teams train the senior team tactic (which is unrealistic in itself, but that's a different matter). I was always under the impression that they also play it during matches! That's not the case. I noticed that when I set a 4-1-4-1 tactic with a sole striker as Advanced Forward for the main team, yet both B team strikers got 40+ matches a season, and not as substitutes, one of them playing according to its reports a Target Man and Deep Lying Forward. In the picture above of Kylian Le Her (the third picture from the top), you can see he played as a Full Back even though the tactic I set for the main team uses Inverted Wing Backs only. ---------------------- At this point it's pretty clear that reliable way to test training schedules is to use the senior/u-18 team training module, as the B one is potentially faulty. Edited August 11, 2022 by Royaltea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 13, 2022 Author Share Posted August 13, 2022 (edited) Follow up - Testing Aggression · I've created a new save without attribute masking including the top 5 leagues from Europe: England, Spain, Germany, France, and Italy using large database. · I've added an unemployed manager. · The player search shows the entire database of players, I've created a view that includes the UID (Unique Identification Number), name of the player, age, and his aggression attribute. · I've extracted that information into a SQL database table. · I went on holiday for 4 years auto-saving each year. · I extracted the same information at the end of the 4-year holiday. · I created a join table using the UID, not one single player from 24,677 there were present at the start of the test and at the end of the test changed his aggression. · added CVS file of the results aggression.csv Edited August 13, 2022 by Royaltea Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 13, 2022 Author Share Posted August 13, 2022 (edited) Onwards we go... As a result of the weird behavior of Brest B team with no fixture list described in previous post, I decided to go with a more realistic testing settings, this time I decided to manage FC Groningen (Dutch Eredivisie). Groningen has a reserve team, Jong FC Groningen, that plays in the Dutch Reserve Competition Eredivisie, and FC Groningen Under 18s that plays in the Dutch U18 League, so hopefully there's will be no more Jamaican friendlies shenanigans This time I haven't touched the player's attributes and just wanted to get a sense of what I'm getting from the original behavior of just leaving things for the reserve team and u19 managers. I assume this is very common. U18 Squad ID Name Age Position Traits Left Foot Right Foot CA PA 1 Jasper Meijster 16 GK - 3 20 68 96 2 Maxim Mariani 16 D (C) - 8 20 60 85 3 Joop Oosterhof 16 D (C) - 1 20 65 105 4 Nathan Lesman 16 D (LC) - 20 8 63 88 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) - 9 20 65 120 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 16 D (C), DM - 9 20 72 119 7 Robin Kelder 16 D (RC), DM - 8 20 65 96 8 Wouter Prins 17 D/WB (L) - 20 8 75 104 9 Jorg Schreuders 16 DM, M (C) - 12 20 75 127 10 Djurre Laansma 17 M (C) - 9 20 70 104 11 Brian Minde Jahren 17 AM (RL) - 20 9 70 105 12 Nils Eggens 16 AM (R), ST (C) - 8 20 70 95 13 David van der Werff 16 ST (C) - 8 20 78 124 14 Thom van Bergen 17 ST (C) - 8 20 65 113 15 Mees Mink 16 ST (C) - 7 20 60 78 The footedness of a player is represented in-game by a value between 1 to 20, Proficiency Value Very Weak 1-4 Weak 5-8 Reasonable 9-11 Fairly Strong 12-14 Strong 15-18 Very Strong 18-20 Changes in Footedness and Current Ability ID Name Age Position Traits Left Foot Right Foot CA 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK - 0 0 0 2 Maxim Mariani 17 D (C) - 0 0 1 3 Joop Oosterhof 17 D (C) - 0 0 2 4 Nathan Lesman 17 D (LC) - 0 0 1 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) - 0 0 18 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 17 D (C), DM - 0 0 3 7 Robin Kelder 17 D (RC), DM - 0 0 0 8 Wouter Prins 18 D/WB (L) - 0 0 10 9 Jorg Schreuders 17 DM, M (C) - 0 0 13 10 Djurre Laansma 18 M (C) - 0 0 9 11 Brian Minde Jahren 18 AM (RL) - 0 0 6 12 Nils Eggens 17 AM (R), ST (C) - 0 0 5 13 David van der Werff 17 ST (C) - 0 0 5 14 Thom van Bergen 18 ST (C) - 0 0 2 15 Mees Mink 17 ST (C) - 0 0 2 Changes in Physical Attributes ID Name Age Position Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str Change 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK 0 0 1 0 0 -1 1 1 +2 2 Maxim Mariani 17 D (C) 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 +4 3 Joop Oosterhof 17 D (C) 0 0 0 -1 0 1 1 0 +1 4 Nathan Lesman 17 D (LC) 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 +2 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) 1 3 1 0 1 1 0 3 +10 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 17 D (C), DM 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 +3 7 Robin Kelder 17 D (RC), DM -1 0 1 0 0 -1 0 1 0 8 Wouter Prins 18 D/WB (L) 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 +7 9 Jorg Schreuders 17 DM, M (C) 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 2 +9 10 Djurre Laansma 18 M (C) 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 +7 11 Brian Minde Jahren 18 AM (RL) 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 +7 12 Nils Eggens 17 AM (R), ST (C) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 +4 13 David van der Werff 17 ST (C) 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 +3 14 Thom van Bergen 18 ST (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 +2 15 Mees Mink 17 ST (C) 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 +5 Changes in Mental Attributes ID Name Age Position Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor Chang 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 +1 2 Maxim Mariani 17 D (C) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 +3 3 Joop Oosterhof 17 D (C) 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 4 Nathan Lesman 17 D (LC) 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 +5 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 17 D (C), DM 0 0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 -4 7 Robin Kelder 17 D (RC), DM 0 -1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -1 0 -1 -3 8 Wouter Prins 18 D/WB (L) 0 2 0 1 1 -1 0 0 0 -1 2 0 1 0 +5 9 Jorg Schreuders 17 DM, M (C) 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 +8 10 Djurre Laansma 18 M (C) 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 +10 11 Brian Minde Jahren 18 AM (RL) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 -1 +4 12 Nils Eggens 17 AM (R), ST (C) 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 +4 13 David van der Werff 17 ST (C) 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 -3 14 Thom van Bergen 18 ST (C) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 15 Mees Mink 17 ST (C) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 +3 Changes in Technical Attributes ID Name Age Position Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec Chang 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 +1 2 Maxim Mariani 17 D (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Joop Oosterhof 17 D (C) 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 0 0 0 -5 4 Nathan Lesman 17 D (LC) 0 0 0 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -6 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -1 2 0 0 +3 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 17 D (C), DM -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -10 7 Robin Kelder 17 D (RC), DM 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 -1 -5 8 Wouter Prins 18 D/WB (L) -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -4 9 Jorg Schreuders 17 DM, M (C) 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 +6 10 Djurre Laansma 18 M (C) 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 +6 11 Brian Minde Jahren 18 AM (RL) 0 -1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 Nils Eggens 17 AM (R), ST (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 David van der Werff 17 ST (C) -1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 0 0 -1 0 -5 14 Thom van Bergen 18 ST (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 15 Mees Mink 17 ST (C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Changes in Goalkeeping Attributes ID Name Age Position Aer Cmd Com Ecc Han Kic 1v1 Ref TRO Pun Thr GK Chang 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK 0 0 -1 0 -1 -1 1 -1 0 0 1 -2 Summary ID Name Age Position CA Change Phys Change Mental Change Technichal Change GK Change Attr Change 1 Jasper Meijster 17 GK 0 2 1 1 -2 2 2 Maxim Mariani 17 D (C) 1 4 3 0 7 3 Joop Oosterhof 17 D (C) 2 1 -1 -5 -5 4 Nathan Lesman 17 D (LC) 1 2 2 -6 -2 5 Fofin Turay 17 D/WB/M/AM (R) 18 10 5 3 18 6 Thijmen Blokzijl 17 D (C), DM 3 3 -4 -10 -11 7 Robin Kelder 17 D (RC), DM 0 0 -3 -5 -8 8 Wouter Prins 18 D/WB (L) 10 7 5 -4 8 9 Jorg Schreuders 17 DM, M (C) 13 9 8 6 23 10 Djurre Laansma 18 M (C) 9 7 10 6 23 11 Brian Minde Jahren 18 AM (RL) 6 7 4 1 12 12 Nils Eggens 17 AM (R), ST (C) 5 4 4 0 8 13 David van der Werff 17 ST (C) 5 3 -3 -5 -5 14 Thom van Bergen 18 ST (C) 2 2 2 2 6 15 Mees Mink 17 ST (C) 2 5 3 1 9 Overall positive +85 attribute change with heavy bias towards the physical attributes (which could be just the natural progression of attributes system due to player's young age). This is obviously very small sample size over over a short period of time (one season). It does reveal an intresting and intricate aspect of the attributes system though, if you pay your attention to player number 6, Thijmen Blokzijl, DC, who dropped -14 attributes (-4 mental, -10 technical) and increased +3 in physical, still managed to net a +3 CA ability increase. Or even player number 7, who dropped -8 attributes but still didn't change his current ability. How so? Introducing Average Current Ability Consumption (ACCA) Not all attributes were created equal, and depending upon position, the attributes system "consumes" more current ability for certain attributes than others. The following tables were created using reseting the player's attributes to 10, and then changing each attribute from 1 to 20 and recording the RCA change, then dividing the RCA change by 19. This produces the average current ability consumption for increasing that attribute by 1 for a player with reset - 10 attributes. For example: An increase of a goalkeeper's Decisions attribute by 1 will consume on average 2.58 CA, while an increase of First Touch will consume 0.16 Attribute GK Attribute D C Attribute D R Attribute DM C Attribute D/WB R/L Decisions 2.58 Decisions 2.74 Acceleration 2.26 Decisions 2.32 Acceleration 2.42 Handling 2.00 Positioning 2.16 Decisions 2.26 Tackling 1.95 Stamina 2.11 Reflexes 2.00 Marking 2.16 Stamina 1.89 Acceleration 1.63 Decisions 1.95 Agility 2.00 Acceleration 1.58 Agility 1.89 Agility 1.63 Agility 1.79 Aerial Reach 1.47 Agility 1.58 Pace 1.58 Weaker Foot 1.42 Pace 1.74 Command Of Area 1.47 Jumping Reach 1.58 Weaker Foot 1.26 Strength 1.37 Weaker Foot 1.26 Acceleration 1.47 Strength 1.58 Strength 1.21 Anticipation 1.37 Strength 1.21 Concentration 1.47 Anticipation 1.32 Concentration 1.21 Positioning 1.37 Concentration 1.11 Bravery 1.47 Heading 1.32 Positioning 1.21 Pace 1.11 Positioning 1.11 Communication 1.21 Tackling 1.32 Tackling 1.21 Stamina 1.11 Tackling 1.11 Kicking 1.21 Pace 1.26 First Touch 0.89 Vision 1.11 Anticipation 0.89 Positioning 1.21 Weaker Foot 1.21 Anticipation 0.89 Work Rate 1.11 First Touch 0.89 One On Ones 0.89 Concentration 1.05 Marking 0.89 First Touch 1.11 Marking 0.79 Strength 0.89 Stamina 0.74 Composure 0.58 Marking 1.11 Crossing 0.74 Throwing 0.68 Balance 0.47 Heading 0.58 Passing 1.11 Passing 0.74 Anticipation 0.68 Bravery 0.42 Jumping Reach 0.58 Concentration 0.79 Technique 0.74 Pace 0.68 Composure 0.42 Technique 0.58 Heading 0.79 Work Rate 0.58 Weaker Foot 0.63 Leadership 0.42 Crossing 0.58 Long Shots 0.79 Balance 0.53 Passing 0.63 Work Rate 0.42 Work Rate 0.58 Technique 0.79 Teamwork 0.53 Balance 0.37 First Touch 0.42 Vision 0.58 Balance 0.47 Vision 0.53 Composure 0.37 Passing 0.42 Passing 0.58 Composure 0.47 Heading 0.47 Teamwork 0.37 Off The Ball 0.16 Balance 0.58 Teamwork 0.47 Jumping Reach 0.42 Leadership 0.37 Teamwork 0.16 Teamwork 0.58 Dribbling 0.47 Bravery 0.42 Stamina 0.16 Vision 0.16 Bravery 0.58 Finishing 0.47 Composure 0.42 Vision 0.16 Corners 0.16 Finishing 0.21 Jumping Reach 0.16 Off The Ball 0.37 Work Rate 0.16 Crossing 0.16 Off The Ball 0.21 Bravery 0.16 Dribbling 0.37 First Touch 0.16 Dribbling 0.16 Dribbling 0.21 Leadership 0.16 Leadership 0.21 Technique 0.16 Finishing 0.16 Long Shots 0.21 Off The Ball 0.16 Corners 0.21 Jumping Reach 0.16 Free Kick Taking 0.16 Leadership 0.21 Corners 0.16 Finishing 0.21 Eccentricity 0.00 Long Shots 0.16 Corners 0.21 Crossing 0.16 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Punching (Tendency) 0.00 Long Throws 0.16 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.16 Long Shots 0.21 Rushing Out (Tendency) 0.00 Penalty Taking 0.16 Long Throws 0.21 Long Throws 0.16 Long Throws 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.00 Technique 0.16 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.16 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 0.00 Off The Ball 0.00 0.00 Attribute M C Attribute M R Attribute AM C Attribute AM R Attribute ST Decisions 1.95 Acceleration 2.53 Acceleration 2.47 Acceleration 2.79 Acceleration 2.37 Agility 1.68 Agility 1.84 Weaker Foot 2.00 Pace 2.79 Finishing 1.84 Acceleration 1.68 Pace 1.84 Pace 1.89 Stamina 1.89 Weaker Foot 1.79 Weaker Foot 1.68 Weaker Foot 1.58 Agility 1.63 Agility 1.63 Pace 1.63 Passing 1.68 Stamina 1.58 Stamina 1.63 Weaker Foot 1.58 Stamina 1.42 Stamina 1.68 Decisions 1.58 Decisions 1.63 Decisions 1.42 Agility 1.42 Vision 1.68 Crossing 1.58 Vision 1.63 First Touch 1.42 First Touch 1.42 First Touch 1.68 First Touch 1.26 Technique 1.37 Dribbling 1.42 Strength 1.42 Pace 1.37 Technique 1.26 First Touch 1.32 Crossing 1.42 Composure 1.42 Strength 1.05 Strength 0.89 Passing 1.05 Technique 1.05 Off The Ball 1.42 Technique 1.05 Anticipation 0.89 Strength 0.74 Vision 0.79 Heading 1.42 Positioning 0.79 Composure 0.89 Anticipation 0.74 Strength 0.79 Decisions 1.16 Anticipation 0.79 Vision 0.89 Composure 0.74 Anticipation 0.79 Dribbling 1.16 Composure 0.79 Work Rate 0.89 Off The Ball 0.74 Composure 0.79 Anticipation 1.16 Work Rate 0.79 Dribbling 0.89 Work Rate 0.74 Work Rate 0.79 Jumping Reach 1.16 Tackling 0.79 Passing 0.89 Dribbling 0.74 Passing 0.47 Technique 0.89 Marking 0.79 Balance 0.58 Finishing 0.74 Tackling 0.47 Crossing 0.37 Long Shots 0.79 Concentration 0.58 Long Shots 0.74 Long Shots 0.47 Vision 0.37 Off The Ball 0.79 Off The Ball 0.58 Balance 0.47 Off The Ball 0.47 Work Rate 0.37 Concentration 0.47 Teamwork 0.58 Concentration 0.47 Concentration 0.47 Passing 0.37 Balance 0.47 Finishing 0.58 Positioning 0.47 Balance 0.47 Long Shots 0.37 Teamwork 0.47 Long Shots 0.58 Teamwork 0.47 Teamwork 0.47 Concentration 0.37 Dribbling 0.47 Tackling 0.58 Tackling 0.47 Finishing 0.47 Balance 0.37 Finishing 0.47 Jumping Reach 0.21 Jumping Reach 0.21 Positioning 0.21 Positioning 0.37 Bravery 0.21 Bravery 0.21 Bravery 0.21 Marking 0.21 Tackling 0.16 Leadership 0.21 Leadership 0.21 Leadership 0.21 Bravery 0.21 Teamwork 0.16 Jumping Reach 0.21 Positioning 0.21 Corners 0.21 Leadership 0.21 Marking 0.16 Heading 0.21 Corners 0.21 Crossing 0.21 Jumping Reach 0.21 Bravery 0.16 Corners 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Heading 0.21 Leadership 0.16 Crossing 0.21 Heading 0.21 Heading 0.21 Corners 0.21 Corners 0.16 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Long Throws 0.21 Long Throws 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.21 Free Kick Taking 0.16 Long Throws 0.21 Marking 0.21 Marking 0.21 Long Throws 0.21 Long Throws 0.16 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.21 Penalty Taking 0.16 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Natural Fitness 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Aggression 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Determination 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 Flair 0.00 For me this was extremely intresting to discover that the attribute system consumes a lot of current ability for the Decisions and Acceleration attributes, especially in defensive players. Also intresting to see Flair and Natural Fitness basically have zero current ability cost. Edited August 13, 2022 by Royaltea 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 14, 2022 Author Share Posted August 14, 2022 In previous post I took a very small sample size of players and examined it over a course of one season, trying to get a sense of what the default behavior looks like. Since then I examined another simulation, and found that on a course of a season the default behavior is to have: No weaker foot training No new traits are being learned Players are being played out of position, that's why you get those red 'Makeshift Players are not playing their assigned role in Position/Role/Duty so you might train a striker to be an Advanced Forward but in practice he's playing a Winger or Inside Forward as AML on support duty. All these things makes it highly preferable to not only take control over the u-18 training and reserve team general and individual, but also to mutually terminate or demote the managers to coaches so that you may have full control over tactics and playtime (unfortunately the game doesn't allow you to take responsibility over team selection while a manager is in place). This is extremely useful for managers that rely on their youth development. The Natural Progression of Under 19 Outfield Players Over 5 Years I increased the sample size from 15 to 1,347 players. I examined all outfield players (no goalkeepers) under the age of 18 playing for the five major leagues in Europe. The only exclusion was having a potential ability of 105 and above, as this was the median value for PA at these leagues at the age. So basically the criteria for entering the test was: Age < 19, PA > 105, Plays in one of the five major leagues of Europe (Serie A, Premiership, La Liga, Ligue 1 & Bundesliga). I increased the duration of test from 1 season to 5 years (calendar years). Position Distribution By natural positions: Defenders - 679, Midfield - 890, Attackers - 638, Strikers - 389 (obviously if you sum these up it's more than 1,347 and that's due to overlapping positions DM/M for example was counted both as defender and midfield). Physical Change Each value in the table below represents the number of players out of 1,347 that changed in attribute. For example: 50 players had their strength increased by 6 points over 5 years. Att Ch. Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 14 1 0 0 0 -2 4 5 2 84 5 7 1 0 -1 66 19 7 186 18 67 6 4 0 427 194 63 272 380 355 49 26 1 481 350 228 263 658 515 229 147 2 270 385 383 242 222 291 349 278 3 85 237 354 190 53 99 345 357 4 14 105 219 71 8 9 236 292 5 0 36 73 17 2 4 101 179 6 0 11 14 8 0 0 26 50 7 0 4 3 0 0 0 5 13 8 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Mental Change A Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor -7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 7 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 1 10 3 14 6 7 0 0 7 13 3 2 7 -2 0 4 50 43 106 23 17 3 0 87 115 48 23 35 -1 0 85 41 204 262 219 88 12 0 307 291 345 141 336 0 1347 319 664 317 272 443 590 272 252 390 428 577 433 622 1 0 434 523 265 195 371 296 624 661 306 310 293 434 289 2 0 334 47 221 204 195 170 297 352 180 136 74 211 53 3 0 127 0 169 139 65 92 108 65 44 42 7 79 4 4 0 35 0 80 97 16 44 28 12 20 11 0 19 1 5 0 7 0 32 41 7 23 2 4 6 1 0 4 0 6 0 1 0 10 11 2 15 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 2 3 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical Change A Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 -3 4 11 0 28 0 9 0 19 1 25 0 4 38 1 -2 86 146 22 258 45 142 39 126 54 196 31 42 190 43 -1 516 483 173 511 287 510 246 350 360 405 249 375 480 304 0 502 526 495 451 519 539 526 412 647 390 540 643 462 538 1 157 142 413 82 369 109 378 255 186 233 366 180 140 330 2 56 35 174 11 103 23 128 125 60 74 129 63 31 102 3 18 3 60 2 20 9 26 39 22 17 30 26 2 28 4 3 1 10 0 4 4 4 14 12 5 2 9 1 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 4 2 0 5 0 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 These tables give the fluctuation and internal bias of the game towards attribute growth. Interesting Observations: Bravery: Fairly static attribute, over 5 years only 3% of the players getting a +2. Technical attributes seem to be decreasing, especially set-pieces ones. Finishing: Extremely hard to maintain and to increase, with 511 players (38%) losing at least 1 in this attribute. tl:dr Under no interference from human manager: Attributes more likely to improve dramatically (5+ over 5 years) in youngsters with decent to high potential: Physical: Strength, Stamina, Balance, Agility Mental: Concentration, Composure, Determination Technical: None Attributes likely to improve slightly (3 - 5 over 5 years) in youngsters with decent to high potential: Physical: Jumping Reach, Pace, Acceleration Mental: Anticipation, Flair, Vision, Off The Ball, Positioning, Leadership Technical: Dribbling, Passing Long Shots, First Touch, Heading, Marking Attributes unlikely to improve dramatically or at all (1-2 over 5 years) in youngsters with decent to high potential: Physical: Natural Fitness Mental: Team Work, Work Rate, Bravery, Aggression (static) Technical: Set-Pieces, Crossing, Tackling, Finishing Consult the tables for more accurate information. ----- 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dotsworthy Posted August 14, 2022 Share Posted August 14, 2022 Fascinating that technical attributes seem to be decreasing over time. There was a thread in the bug tracker pointing out how certain attributes (like agility and balance) would be on average much higher on newgens as the game progresses. The thought was that this was an issue with how the initial stats are distributed to newgens, but maybe it's actually an issue with the youth training? As I go 4 or 5 years into the game, I did notice too many young players with 9 or 10 crossing, and a winger in my own youth team just didn't improve crossing at all in the 5 years from intake to being 21/22. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 14, 2022 Author Share Posted August 14, 2022 I wish I could say it's just a simple case of the youth schedules not being balanced properly but this test was produced by some players who were 18 at the beginning of the save, and 23 at the end of it, meaning some of them got couple of years of senior training. I did observe youth intake players 'overcompensating' with high attributes in attributes that don't change very dramatically (specifically aggression, bravery, tackling, natural fitness). I believe there's an innate bias towards the physical attributes at the early stage of a player trying to mimic real life growth (16 years old getting bigger, stronger, faster etc.). That's why even without any training youth players still see growth in strength, jumping reach etc. My conjecture is that age plays significant role in attributes growth, age 18-23 is physical, age 23-28 is technical, age 28+ mental but that requires some testing. On a personal note: my initial goal was just to develop training schedules and see the effects of them on my team. Coming from FIFA (I know, heresy ), I really loved how you can actually see the benefit of different training on players and having this sort of customization was really fun. In FM this sort of customization just doesn't work or works extremely slow. I could set 'penalties' on a weekly basis in the team training, set up penalty takers in the tactics and still, 0 improvement in penalty taking over a course of a season. At this point who knows even if it's working. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fc.cadoni Posted August 15, 2022 Share Posted August 15, 2022 @Royaltea Thank you for doing these tests, really appreciated! As for: For me this was extremely intresting to discover that the attribute system consumes a lot of current ability for the Decisions and Acceleration attributes, especially in defensive players. Also interesting to see Flair and Natural Fitness basically have zero current ability cost. In Pre-Game Editor you can see the attributes weighting (public since FM21) for every position. As you can see here, Decisions and Acceleration consume a lot of CA points. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rashidi Posted August 15, 2022 Share Posted August 15, 2022 In terms of performance position rating is also very important Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 15, 2022 Author Share Posted August 15, 2022 I conducted another test. This time I looked at pure strikers, that is players that their position is ST (C) and no other position is listed in their position. Age 20 - 25. Again no human interference, this is me just letting the game run for 5 years... (sample size: 667 players) Progression in Pure Strikers Aged 20-25 (667 Players) over 5 Years (Age at the end: 25-30) Physical Change Again, a value in table is the amount of players that have their attribute changed after 5 years. For example: 75 strikers had their agility increased by 2. Change Acc Agi Bal Jum Nat Pac Sta Str -8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 -6 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 -5 0 3 2 2 1 2 1 0 -4 0 2 3 1 2 3 2 0 -3 2 3 5 3 3 5 8 1 -2 9 14 9 12 9 16 10 7 -1 81 57 71 134 21 90 108 115 0 422 275 344 323 460 426 383 373 1 136 215 182 150 158 106 131 126 2 12 75 38 35 12 12 22 38 3 1 16 11 6 1 1 2 3 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mental Change Change Agg Ant Bra Cmp Cnt Dec Det Fla Ldr OtB Pos Tea Vis Wor -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -6 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 -5 0 0 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 -4 0 1 1 0 23 4 0 2 0 1 21 0 1 2 -3 0 2 15 1 45 5 0 1 0 0 37 0 6 2 -2 0 10 16 3 43 11 0 1 0 1 41 1 12 11 -1 0 38 27 18 114 40 11 14 0 50 107 136 50 176 0 667 345 533 297 315 314 528 307 289 397 335 471 382 438 1 0 215 73 271 99 235 80 302 317 188 97 54 172 37 2 0 46 0 57 14 45 32 38 54 25 14 4 40 1 3 0 8 0 12 3 11 13 2 6 2 4 1 4 0 4 0 2 0 8 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Technical Change Change Cor Cro Dri Fin Fir Fre Hea Lon L Th Mar Pas Pen Tck Tec -8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 -4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 0 2 0 -3 0 3 3 6 2 1 1 1 0 44 1 2 24 2 -2 3 5 17 16 1 4 5 2 2 66 3 3 55 3 -1 136 181 183 165 41 212 134 123 177 289 71 144 323 43 0 379 417 324 408 414 399 413 350 449 229 420 374 253 387 1 87 56 118 65 182 45 103 132 35 24 159 74 9 210 2 42 5 18 3 23 3 9 39 3 3 13 32 0 22 3 17 0 3 0 3 2 2 12 1 0 0 27 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No dramatic growth in any striker's mental/technical attributes. Apparently strikers also seem prone to lose their concentration, team work, work rate and technical attributes as they age with the exception of first touch, passing and technique. Finishing seems bugged. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted August 15, 2022 Share Posted August 15, 2022 50 minutes ago, Royaltea said: Finishing seems bugged. Then as said before, you need to put these findings into the Bugs forum . This forum is for human managers looking for help or discussion about their own tactics or training techniques and SI aren’t as likely to pick up on potential bugs here compared to the bugs forum. Personally I have plenty of examples where my players have developed really well across all 3 attribute areas - even Finishing and Penalty taking. So a potential bug for AI managers as you are showing, not so much for us human managers 😊. I’ll share some examples later when I’m at my PC if you’d like? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 15, 2022 Author Share Posted August 15, 2022 @herne79 Well, I wanted to explore the baseline before I keep on to testing interesting training strategies and their effects, but if there's is inherent fault within the attribute system that affects the entire database I might as well write about it. Since someone posted thread in which a staff member says they're monitoring this thread I thought it's redundant to start a new one. I'd love to see a +3 and above examples for finishing specifically. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted August 15, 2022 Share Posted August 15, 2022 1 hour ago, Royaltea said: I'd love to see a +3 and above examples for finishing specifically. Two players below. The first at age 17 then at age 22. The second player at age 16 then at age 21. Even penalties and crossing increased and I never specifically asked them to train those . The first player has +3 for finishing, the second "only" +2 but then his starting point is much higher - basically the higher the attribute the harder it becomes to increase. I agree there are certain attributes which barely seem to move (if at all) such as aggression and bravery - without knowing what input SI have had on how real life clubs see those attributes develop I can only assume it's either modelled correctly or some possible room for improvement. Anyway, some significant development as you can see . Development method in a nutshell: Assistant manager looks after General Training; I look after individual training, mentoring, morale and match time. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royaltea Posted August 15, 2022 Author Share Posted August 15, 2022 (edited) If anyone have examples of a decent striker that started with below 10 finishing and now have 14-15 I'd love to see that. I can tell you that I looked at the entire DB over 10 years and saw +3 finishing only a handful of times. Never above 4. Edited August 15, 2022 by Royaltea 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
herne79 Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 7 hours ago, Royaltea said: If anyone have examples of a decent striker that started with below 10 finishing and now have 14-15 I'd love to see that. I can tell you that I looked at the entire DB over 10 years and saw +3 finishing only a handful of times. Never above 4. Just for a different perspective - given SI have developed the training module to reflect real life, is it realistic to expect Finishing to improve to such a large extent except very rarely? I have no data to suggest one way or another, but SI do. Perhaps that data isn’t being modelled correctly in game and there is room for improvement or perhaps it is, I don’t know. Only SI would be able to tell. So it may be that Finishing (to carry on the example) only increases by such a degree as we see by design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleon Posted August 16, 2022 Share Posted August 16, 2022 This is Endrick's development. Odd occasion he might have seen an attribute take a slight dip due to injury. This is Ben Hur, I lost him on his release fee to Liverpool after a couple of seasons; 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownTheFrank Posted September 24, 2022 Share Posted September 24, 2022 Great thread @Royaltea. Very informative. Thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now