Jump to content

SFraser

Members+
  • Content Count

    2,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. Exactly. Categories with few attributes will always appear low precisely because they have fewer attributes. Aerobic has 5 trainable attributes and Attacking has 2 trainable attributes. Placing Aerobic and Attacking at the same Training level means each Category is training at the same level, but it means each Attacking attribute is getting 2.5x more training than each Aerobic attribute. Aerobic at notch 5 and attacking at notch 4 means attacking attributes are still getting 2x more training than Aerobic attributes. It is lower training for the Category, but the Category contains less than h
  2. You already answered your own question. Starting from a position of zero Training bias allows you to construct schedules for players based on their needs from a controlled position. It is much easier to design a schedule for Defenders based on a control schedule of zero bias than it is to design a schedule for Defenders based on a Schedule designed for Strikers. A control schedule is an essential template as it allows you to judge subsequent schedules in comparison to a schedule with minimal impact on attributes. Attempting to design a schedule for a Defender based on a schedule designed for
  3. I have already written a large post in this very thread explaining how I go about designing specific schedules, how I judge the value and importance of Categories, and how I modify my ideal end results based on Age for a longterm approach to development. Even when starting from the basic and simple premise of increasing Category intensity according to the number of attributes in that Category, there are still a vast number of factors that have to be taken into account when designing an accurate schedule. Some of those factors are by-products of the premise itself and of the limitations of the
  4. I have already explained to you that Attribute Weightings do not fit into Training Schedules and that there are no patterns of attribute change that correspond to Attribute Weightings. The difference between the largest and smallest Attribute Weights is a factor of 21x as far as I am aware, and if these Weights were directly involved in attribute growth then Training would be impossible, and there would be rediculous scales of non key attribute growth. Attribute Weightings, like CA, are limiting factors on the maximum level of attributes. All differences in attribute growth rates can be expla
  5. It is you that is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. You assume that it is important to know the relative weightings in order to make accurate schedules, but you have no evidence or arguement to back this up. It is a mere assumption based on the fact you are aware that attribute weightings exist. There are many arguements against Attribute Weights directly factoring into Training. 1: If Training alters attributes directly rather than manipulating CA directly then Attribute Weights are irrelevant. CA will automatically redistribute into the improved or declining attributes accordi
  6. What you have read from Marc Vaughan and invented based on that information is irrelevant. We have all read these tips. What matters is end results. You have shown zero end results. You have no screenshots of improvements and no explanation for improvements. You have only an idea that you should base training off of Training Level bar charts. Everyone has had that idea, everyone has failed to achieve either desireable end results or a desireable level of understanding of the entire training system based on that idea. The information given by Marc Vaughan is vague, it is open to interpretation
  7. Jim I am not sure what you are saying here, but I can see that you are working with Categories and not taking into account the impact on individual Attributes. Any schedules you design based on Training Levels and Training Progress will always fail to account for the fact that there are different numbers of attributes in each Category. The bar graphs do not take into account the number of attributes in a Category, and while I am sure they are supposed to show useful information, I am not convinced they are of any real use when it comes to getting the desired end results in terms of Attribute
  8. Those are not the correct attribute weights, and from my investigations into training and discussions with other people about training I have found no evidence that attribute weights are actually involved in training. Attribute weights seem to me to be like CA and PA values. Important "under-the-hood" values with minimal gameplay involvement. The fact that a Centrebacks Tackling attribute takes up 10x more CA than his Finishing attribute is completely irrelevant from a gameplay point of view, and rightly so. The only time attribute weights have any relevence is when you are using editors to
  9. That doesn't seem to have the expected effect in Training. It is a complicated business but so far as I can tell right now it has a negligable impact on Training.
  10. You are almost on the exact precise track here. What changes is the rate at which attributes in each of the 3 Profile Panels increase or decrease. Each Category often contains attributes from different panels, mental-technical-physical. These three groups of attributes increase and decrease at different rates according to Age. Thus Passing increases at a different rate according to Age than Creativity. Passing is a Technical Attribute whereas Creativity is a Mental Attribute. Technical Attributes reach peak increase levels around age 28, Mental Attributes reach peak increase levels much lat
  11. Jumping is in the Aerobic Category. To improve Jumping in players you need to choose or design a schedule that has a large bias in favour of Aerobic. Aerobic has alot of attributes in the Category and is one of the biggest Categories overall. This means your Aerobic will have to be very high and the rest of your Categories will have to be very low to get the desired scale of difference. If your Aerobic is at notch 15 and your Defending is at notch 15 you will doing 3x each Aerobic Attribute for 5x each Defending Attribute. This is a huge Training bias in favour of Defending, and it does not
  12. Designing Schedules Sorry for the double post, but I would like to explain this process and go into depth for those wishing to design their own schedules or wishing to refine the ones already produced, using Prozones excellent guide to understanding the underlying principles. The basic principle here is to design schedules with "one notch per attribute" in each category. This should first of all make sure that we are designing schedules based on attribute growth and not category growth. As different categories have different numbers of attributes, designing schedules based on category growth
  13. I have tried to stick to a relatively balanced schedule for all positions and age groups, with a bias towards key attributes as I saw them when designing the schedules. These biases are small and are "on-the-fly" judgements as I was doing all this stuff in my head and did not have the clarity and ease of the excellent "Focus" explanation to assist me in working more easilly with my own basic premise. Generally, I have taken a "Focus" of 2 as a baseline, then increased categories that are likely to contain lots of positionally key CA heavy attributes to Focus 3 for balance of those attributes,
  14. That would be precisely what I suggest, especially after Cleon backed up my suspicions regarding match events. I would suggest that high Creative Freedom over time may very well increase Flair. It seems reasonable to assume that the opposite is also true.
  15. I like that alot Prozone. It is like the original training slider system but rather than 25 notches and no real understanding of how the different positions and categories relate to each other, instead we have a system of only 4 or 5 orders of difference and each attribute is accounted for individually. As is seen here: The scale of actual training difference between categories is marginal despite the difference in notch numbers been vast in some cases, but the differences themselves are clear, organised, balanced, "whole" and easy to understand. If this system is accurate then most oth
  16. Natural Fitness and Reflexes are not counted for outfield training. That is the mistake I made in the original schedules. Likewise Flair is not trainable in the Ball Control category. So basically: Natural Fitness was miscounted for the Strength Category and for each multiple of 4 in that category the schedule should be decreased by one. 12 Strength means 3x4 means reduce the schedule by 3 strength. Agility was miscounted in the Aerobic Category. For every multiple of 6 increase in that schedule, reduce the schedule by 1. Flair was miscounted in the Ball Control Category. For every multi
  17. If you look at his attributes you can see that his Set Pieces, Shooting, Tactics and Defending Categories are all going down. This leaves only Ball Control, Attacking and the two Physical Categories. However you say that his Pace and Acceleration have also dropped. This leaves only Strength, Attacking and Ball Control Categories as possible gains. Now the WF schedule is Ball Control and Aerobic intensive, so the schedule should be favouring these areas for gains. They should not be reducing unless your player is suffering from a reduction in CA. If his CA stays stable they should increase. I
  18. An updated version is hopefully coming real soon. I am just about completed the 4 Goalkeeping schedules, 4 SW schedules and 4 DR/L schedules, although I might have to redo these ones as I made some errors in judgement of attribute weight ratios. If that all goes well then only another 32 to design and proof check. No youth schedules this time around unfortunately, also no age related schedules, and certainly no P/T schedules in the foreseeable future. Ofcourse if anyone would like to see Youth, Veteran and perhaps Pre-Season schedules then let me know here, and I will do my best to produce
  19. The schedules were not particularly balanced in terms of overall workload or overall "clicks" or notches etc. The point of this set was to see if training individual attributes at ratios compared to each other would produce more accurate results, or a "better spread" of attribute gains for each position. As for compensation for the drop in Workload by increasing Set Pieces, the initial effect would be to increase the gains in Set Pieces by reducing the gains in the rest of the categories. The ratios between those attributes would be preserved, but each would receive less overall CA in order t
  20. For each "group of notches" I have miscounted by 1 for Strength and 1 for Aerobic. Therefore if Strength is at position 16 it has gone up by 4 points 4 times. This is 4 times I have added an additional notch, so reduce Strength by 4 notches to position 12. Aerobic functions in multiples of 6. Every time Aerobic has gone up 6 points, I have miscounted by 1. If Aerobic is at notch 24, I have miscounted one attribute 4 times, so reduce Aerobic by 4. Because my Developing and Veteran Schedules are Physically Intensive, there is a rather large margin of error in these particular schedules, and r
  21. Yes it still holds true and yes you are quite correct in understanding how to apply it. That would be absolutely brilliant. Thank you very much.
  22. Part Time contracts and Training, Youth Training Schedules, and indeed variations in "Intensity" per notch of a Category are all things to be looked at for an ultimate overall understanding of Training. These schedules, although apparently producing excellent ratios of distribution, are essentially nothing more than my first basic attempt at designing generic schedules for download based on my understanding of Training. They are simplistic, basic, embryonic test sets that I released for public download because A: I was confident in my basic understanding of Training and B: I wished large scal
  23. Those are some very interesting graphs there lch. Could you explain precisely and carefully what has been plotted and how you came across this information?
  24. The problem with AMC's is that there is quite a lot of different varieties for them. A DMC tends to come in either a physical or mental flavour, the Makalele or the Essien. AMC's however can be anything from Pirlo/Carrick style sitting deep and pinging expert passes to a highly attacking and highly numerous forward line, the Gerrard/Rooney type "action-man" style of aggression, workrate, physical ability and technical brilliance, the Kaka/Modric/Ronaldinho style of Pace, Technique, Dribbling and slick Passing, the Zidane type of pure Ball Control and Technical genius, or the Scholes type AMC
  25. Thanks again for the feedback. I will try to respond to the points made by Phnompenhandy and Old Git first. It does seem that way. I have very few in my own save but that doesn't mean the schedules are not a huge contributing factor for other managers. I believe I have miscounted certain Attributes in both Strength and Aerobic Training Categories. This means that in my next set of Schedules I could knock down every Aerobic and Strength slider by 3 to 4 points atleast while maintaining the same or similar balance, which would be a huge improvement to the overall Intensity of Physical Traini
×
×
  • Create New...