Jump to content

ZdlR

Members+
  • Content Count

    878
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About ZdlR

  • Rank
    Amateur

About Me

  • About Me
    Manchester

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Let's use this image as a real-world example. It shows the progress of an inverted winger, the white circle, as he progresses down the line before coming inside on his stronger foot. The grey circle is the defender, who is jockeying the attacker as he dribbles. At point #1, the defender had just arrived at the attacker, having moved to close him down. He has a decision to make - do I tackle or not? There are too many variables in play to determine exactly what he might do at this point. First, you have his attributes - aggression, tackling, composure, concentration, decisions, etc. These are k
  2. @Vatis: The maximum clicks you can achieve using non-physical training areas is 152. So, assuming that 130 needs to be hit with 152, x >= 8.5526..... However, assuming that the clicks are actually rounded up: 152x > 129 => x > 0.8486... or 152x > 129.5 => x > 0.8519.... Depending on whether the rounding is a Math.Ceil() or a Math.Round() style rounding, respectively. I know the numbers I arrived at are approximations, but they hold out enough for my training editor to work quite well:
  3. What calculations are you doing? It might be worth noting that the game saves workload as an integral value from 0->130. 109.53 would probably be saved as 110 (I think it rounds up). If you set Strength and Aerobic to 25 and then pick a general training area, you can set that to 22 before filling the workload bar. However, if you take either Strength or Aerobic back down to 24, you can't subsequently return it to 25. This indicates that, although the game may save only integral values, the calculations probably involve decimals to hold intermediate values.
  4. I calculated the overall workload to be: 0.855 * general training clicks + 2.22 * physical training clicks It's just an approximation but it seems to work.
  5. Possibly, but he is fairly static during games. His strike partner is the more energetic of the pair, looking to regain possession and working the channels. Fowler just finds a yard or holds off his man (15 strength at 17 years old is ample for me) and scores. He hasn't finished a game <70% yet. But I agree, extra stamina would be nice to have. Disappointingly, it seems that his goalscoring 'form' has been eradicated by the his permanent signing. Really frustrating because he now needs to build up a head of steam again.
  6. This methodology is yielding great results for me. The key is giving the youth players as much football as is possible for them to perform well. For example, I got this young striker on loan from Man City and he scored 10 goals in 11 apps for me. So I broke the bank to buy him. I never get players like this generated at my club I put him on str: 3 aer:4 gk: 0 tac: 3 ball: 5 def: 2 att: 5 sho: 5 setp: 2 His game isn't based around pace (he plays with his back to goal, turns his man and smashes it home), so I'm not going for hard gains in that department. I just want his shooting
  7. Does anyone know what governs the quality of kids that are inducted into the youth academy each summer? It doesn't make logical sense for the quality of the youth facilities to dictate it - buildings don't choose players. It should depend on the staff you have at the club. Perhaps the scouts' with a decent "working with youths" stat. However, and this might just be coincidence, but in my last intake at Newcastle I had only one player who is really worth spending any time on developing - a striker. If you look at Peter Beardsley's stats, he has excellent "working with youths", "judging player
  8. I would never presume to speak for someone else, but I'll have a stab at this one. By 'forget', I think it was meant as 'forget about improving' those areas, in order to concentrate on targeting other, more important, areas for improvement. If you forget about them entirely, ie: 0 training, they will go down. This isn't forgetting about them - it's wilful negligence. It sounds like you're wanting to make a science out of an art here, Jumbalumba. If SFraser left the training as he has planned it here and didn't alter it again, you'd be absolutely right to enquire why such (partially) arbitrar
  9. As far as I am aware, players don't train while injured. Therefore, it is for the recovery of the injury. Probably until they are fully fit and integrated back into the squad again.
  10. SFraser, do you have any thoughts on the impact of coaches on training results? I've previously assumed that good coaches merely increase the velocity of attribute gains, but this feels like it misses the point that some coaches are 'better' than others. The difference between two people doing the same job is often not the pace they accomplish a task, it's the quality of the end product. Basically, this would account for a more efficient conversion of spare potential ability into current ability. This is intuitive because it allows better coaches to produce higher quality players, not just al
  11. Are the player ratings the undeniable, objective truth about how a player played - or is there some level of interpretation allowed? The reason I ask is due to a number of discrepancies between the match engine view of the game (or, rather, my interpretation of events) and the ratings dished out at half- and full-time. The most obvious manifestation of this mismatching is a player, most often a defender, who makes a mistake during the game. I will accept the drop in rating for players who make mistakes, that's perfectly natural and part of football. The problem is in identifying the root ca
×
×
  • Create New...