Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. It is neither completely accurate not entireally flawed. 1 notch per attribute is only a small part of the overall training regime here, and it is the approach to setting sliders that gives the most accurate level of control over balancing Categories. You cannot accurately choose specific attributes, nor can you accurately control whether attributes within a category receive the same amount of Training, i.e. one notch. However what does happen is that by using 1 notch per attribute you make sure you are accounting for attribute growth and not category growth, and then by exploiting Age related development trends you can pick and choose when and where to apply increased/decreased training ratios for the Categories containing specific attributes. For example in a 20 year old player training the Strength Category at notch 3, the Stamina and Strength attributes will take more than their equal share of training while Workrate takes less than its equal share. In a 30 year old player the converse is true. Thus 1 notch per attribute is simply a basic standard for keeping Categories reasonably balanced when you come to design a schedule. You then take into account the other factors that influence Training and take into account your desires for your player and alter the schedule accordingly.
  2. You can use players with no bravery in a good covering role. Significantly poor bravery is a handicap though. As for the Positions used in my Schedules, they are all designed for a club like Manchester United where the CF is expected to not only be strong but intelligent and play a key link-up role in the team. For the lower leagues a schedule like Wing Forward that aims to produce physically powerful, direct players might be more suited to your Centre Forwards. The problem here is that I cannot create all types of ideal schedules for all users in all contexts. I build schedules for my side and release them. Hopefully the information in this thread regarding how to design schedules is enough for some people to expand the number and type of schedules, but these "additional schedules" are not very forth coming. I had hoped that providing enough detail would enable people to design their own schedules and produce them here in this thread for others to download. I am not sure why, but this ambition for a "schedule library" has seriously failed.
  3. 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 half the attributes. Each attacking attribute is getting heaps more training than each Aerobic, even for less Category Training. Attacking is hard to balance because it is so small. Each notch increase for attacking is another 50% increase for each attacking attribute versus all other attributes. Knock Aerobic up a single notch and you gain 20% more training for each Aerobic attribute. Knock Aerobic up 2 notches and you gain less than 50% more training for each attribute. Knock Attacking up two notches and you gain an additional 100% bias for each attribute. Aerobic can never go higher than 5x Training for each attribute. Attacking can go as high as 12.5x training for each attribute. It is easy to "fluke" good results for Aerobic, it is a matter of absolutely perfect fine tuning to get the right balance of attacking.
  4. 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 a Striker in the absence of a control template gives you no ability to judge which Categories are biased for improvement, which are biased for decline and to what extent these Categories are biased. I have produced control schedules for download in my schedule pack precisely for the purposes of designing schedules if mine are not to your satisfaction. Without a control schedule it is incredibly hard to reverse engineer schedules developed for specific positions, specific roles, specific age groups etc. You really need to read this thread in it's entirety. I am not going to constantly rewrite detailed explanations of my entire thought process and design procedure because you cannot be bothered to find the previous explanation in a 5 page thread. Start with this post. http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=4924985&postcount=250
  5. 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 Schedule interface, such as a limit on the scale of relative differences between Categories. Other factors are actual game mechanics, inability to know in detail the precise impact of those game mechanics, the details of the player himself, the club around the player, and what you want to achieve with the player. The combination of all of these factors produce an individual "framework" for a particular player and no two players are exactly alike. The first and greatest "standard of importance" is an accurate understanding of the player in question in terms of general development potential, in-match ability and longterm desires for improvement shape. This is the absolute crux of all Training, and everything else after this point is just the application of basic rules to achieve the ideal end Schedule. The biggest stumbling block in Training so far has not been a lack of understanding of basic rules of attribute growth and player development, but a working method of applying these rules accurately to the Schedule Categories. The fundamental problem has been highly theoretical "guestimates" on how the sliders relate to each other and should be positioned for X result. All the knowledge in the world on the practical mechanics of attribute development is completely useless if you do not know how to position and judge the sliders. Working in terms of Categories or Bar Charts, Overall Training Lines and maximising Overall Limits are all "theories" with no solid arguement behind them and no solid end results supporting them. Indeed they fail to account for factual and inevitable declines in attributes while focusing solely on achieving high Bar Chart levels and interpreting those levels as success. These are unanimously poor approaches to Training built entireally upon assumptions that directly contradict ingame development patterns. The race to produce pretty, symmetrical, and unanimously high Bar Chart levels has blinded people to the fact that these charts provide unknown information that is guessed at and assumed to mean "great training" while people also get carried away by seeing 25+ green arrows in youngsters and assume these schedules are perfect. There is a significant quantity of fundamental misinterpretation of game mechanics being paraded around as excellent Training schedules. My own approach to Training is to simply find out how to judge slider positions relative to each other. To find out what slider positions per Category produces the same or similar Training effect once Age is accounted for. My first attempt was to increase each Category according to the number of Attributes contained within that Category, and it turned out to produce incredibly accurate results. Only when I was convinced that I was on the right track, that training Attributes per Category and not simply matching Categories was producing significantly superior results in terms of targetted attribute increases, did I release these schedules to the public. I am not sure exactly what you want here.
  6. 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 explained by Age, and if there is any room for Attribute Weight influence on Attribute Growth rates it is minor. There are certainly no examples whatsoever of natural growth patterns of non key attributes reaching 21x the rate of increase of key attributes. Indeed there are few examples of any attributes growing at a rate of 4x another per season even under perfect conditions with vast biases in Training schedules. Attribute Growth rates do not correspond to differences in Attribute Weights. Indeed the actual evidence suggests that once Age is taken out of the equation there is no difference in the growth rates of attributes in the same Category. Any and all variations in attribute growth rates inside a Category when Age is removed are minor and are very likely to be perception errors. You assume that I have made no study of Attribute Weightings, and you completely wrong. I have spent a long time studying their influence on Training and Attribute Growth and my conclusion is that they have none, or if they do it is minor and accounts for a fraction of the end result which could equally be explained by perception errors. That is entireally incorrect. My initial starting point is that attribute growth behaviour is not equal, does not follow patterns of Training Levels and Training Progress, and does not produce equal results from equal slider positions. My initial starting point is that all the tools available to us immediately upon entering the Training screen or Attribute Profile requires vast quantities of study and interpretation before even basic relationships can be defined and exposed. The end result of a long term process of study and investigation is a set of experimental Schedules testing the premise of Training players based on accounting for the number of attributes being Trained and taking into account the impact of Age. The resulting feedback from these schedules accounting for Attributes and Age would inform me of the impact of other factors, such as Attribute Weights etc. As you can clearly see from this thread there is none, or only a minor impact accounting for a fraction of the end result. This is the fundamental point you are missing. The direct evidence argues against the impact of Training Weights. The direct evidence argues directly in favour of accounting for number of Attributes being Trained and the impact of Age on their rate of growth or decline. It is not possible to see all results conform precisely to predictions and knowledge of factually involved game mechanics based on a completely faulty premise. Have you actually tried these schedules? You keep asking me for evidence as if none exists when this entire thread is a library of evidence. Now it is my turn to ask you for evidence to support any of your assumptions. First of all I would say you are vastly overcomplicating issues without providing any kind of basic explanation of how to train players for best results, and providing absolutely zero evidence for any of your claims. Secondly I would say you are completely focused on Bar Charts without explaining precisely what they tell us, or taking into account Attribute Change end results. I am sure everyone that plays FM has had their fair share of grand theories on how Training Schedules relate to Bar Charts, but end results are inevitably poor and most "theories" simply fail to take into account the most basic of factual, unavoidable, clear-cut and important factors. The "Training Line Theory" that you so love simply cannot work when CA changes or attributes increase/decline with Age, which is something we all know happens ingame. There is no Aerobic Maintain line for a 40 year old player, end of story. You can pretend otherwise but it is still only a pretence of an understanding of Training. The "Training Line Theory" is a double edged sword. On the one hand due to its simplicity it has become quite enthralling to many people, on the other hand it is so obviously false that it motivates others to dispel what is quite frankly a rediculous myth. When the completely false is obviously wrong it is much better for everyone looking for information than when the completely false is not obviously wrong. I should thank you both for your input to this thread. You have both perfectly illustrated precisely what is to be avoided, and that is assumptions that are never tested, never explained, that never take into account the data presented on screens. Assumptions that are put into practice on the wing of a prayer without ever checking to see what is what, or taking into account what actually happens. My "theory" is simple. Ignore "Training Lines" ignore "Attribute Weights" ignore all these other theorems that simply do not correspond to what is seen ingame. Take into account the number of attributes per Category, take into account the impact of Age on the rate of improvement/decline of each of the three Attribute Profile Panels. I have produced schedules based on these simple points and the results are here for anyone to look at. This thread always was a test, and the results have been as good as I could have hoped for. The feedback and refinement and subsequent analysis, investigation and explanation has been absolutely top notch. The bottom line is end results. Everyone wants the best possible results. I want the best possible results and that's why I started this thread.
  7. 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 according to Attribute Weights. 2: It is unrealistic gameplay for players to have to consider Attribute CA Weights when designing schedules, and it is nigh on impossible to discover this information through gameplay. If Attribute Weights are necessary information, Training is impossible without using editors. 3: Attributes do not increase through Training according to their relative Weights. If Attribute Weights were involved in Training then a Strikers Balance would always go up 7x faster than his Acceleration and this would not be alterable. 4: If Attributes went up according to their CA Weight then a Strikers Acceleration would have be trained 21x more than his Tackling for equivelant rates of increase. The entire scale of the sliders would have to be utilised simply to achieve equal rates of improvements in different attributes. Add to that the fact that there are 5 Attributes in Aerobic and only 3 in Defending, and it would be impossible to Train a Striker in his key attributes. There is quite simply no way that Attribute CA Weights factor directly into Training. There are not enough slider notches to Train incredibly heavy attributes, and there is no evidence that attributes in the same Training Category from the same Attribute Profile Panel go up at hugely different rates. Once you actually try to factor Attribute CA Weights into Training Schedules, you find it is not possible to do so as the scale between CA weights is so vast. Training Schedule Sliders cannot handle attributes that must be trained 10x other attributes as a basic standard before moulding. It is pretty obvious once you actually take the time to consider it properly. Even using "relative weights" and Training Aerobic at 6x Defending leaves you with only a maximum possible ratio of Aerobic 4:1 Defending if Defending is no higher than notch 1. If Defending is at notch 4, and you ignore the amount of attributes in each Category, then you cannot Train Aerobic any higher than 1:1 using Attribute Weights. If you take into account the numbers of attributes in each Category as well, you cannot favour Key Aerobic Attributes over Defending for improvements in a Striker if Defending is any higher than notch 1. If you use the actual Weights rather than the "Relative Weights" then Training Aerobic becomes impossible. This is obviously not true. The screenshots in this thread prove that attribute weights do not factor into Training. The largest difference in improvement between attributes in the same Category in these screenshots is around 3:1, not 7:1. These differences can be accounted for by age. If you factor in Attribute Numbers, Attribute Weights, and Age then the differences should be approaching the completely rediculous levels of 50:1 between some attributes. I will give you an example, Acceleration versus Teamwork in an 32 year old Striker. To the best of my knowledge, the actual difference in CA Weight for these two attributes is 21:1. Acceleration requires 21x more CA than Teamwork in a Striker. That is already an increase rate of 21x more Teamwork than Acceleration for the same CA. Mental Attributes improve rapidly in older players, physical attributes naturally tend to decline. If I am generous and state that there as an Age factor of 2:1 in favour of Mental over Physical at Age 30, then that means we now have an improvement bias of 42:1 in favour of Teamwork. Aerobic and Tactics both contain the same quantities of attributes. There is no additional bias caused by failing to account for attribute differences. Our final, natural improvement bias between Acceleration and Teamwork for a 30 year old Striker is 42:1 in favour of Teamwork. By putting Tactics at notch 1 and Aerobic at notch 25 we should be able to reduce this by 24 to a bias of 18:1 in favour of Teamwork. These are rediculous scales of difference. They are not even remotely accurate. Not only is it completely unrealistic to have Attribute Weights involved in Training from a gameplay perspective, factoring them into Training produces completely unrealistic predictions of end result.
  8. 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, and it tells everyone very little. Not only is it vague, but much of the detail is wrong. Indeed the attributes Marc Vaughan said are trainable are attributes I assumed were trainable, and then through this specific thread and the discussion it has generated, discovered they were infact incorrect. This thread is a not an FM10 manual paragraph written to appear friendly and funny and provide a rough overview of training. This is a deeply serious training thread attempting to explain, or discover, the fine details of training through study, analysis, experimentation and discussion of fundamental game mechanics. This thread is the culmination of over a years worth of direct community effort to look into the basic function of all game mechanics relevant to training, and many more years of indirect effort. The bottom line though is end results. The bottom line is being able to judge and design schedules that give the desired end results in terms of specific attribute increases. To my knowledge these schedules and this concept in this thread are light years ahead of every other approach to training in terms of results, and also in terms of empowering people to achieve the desired results. It is a simple premise, but it takes into account every single essential detail not explained to FM users, and it constantly looks out for information regarding every other possible detail. You are more than welcome to pose questions to me, and ask questions of this training premise, but if you are going to regularly pose questions in a completely vague and uninformative manner, based on an idea long rejected by me, then you are going to have to produce evidence of end results. That is all training is about. It is not about bar charts or theories or overall workload limits or numbers. It is about getting the ideal attribute increases. I am proud of the precise attribute increases seen in these schedules, and I can explain to you in exhaustive detail precisely why they occur. If you are capable of equivelant end results via a completely different method then I am all ears. If you are not capable then you are not capable and it should not be up to me to explain this to you. Training Levels correspond to Category data. Marc Vaughan says exactly this himself. Identical and maximum Training Levels for all Categories means maximum and identical levels for each Category. Crucially however each Category does not contain the same amount of attributes, and the attributes contained in each Training Category are a mixture of attributes from different Attribute Profile Panels. Maximum Tactics Level and Maximum Strength Level means that the Categories are being Trained at the same Level. Strength contains 3 trainable attributes, two of which are Physical Attributes. Tactics contains 5 trainable attributes, all of them are Mental Attributes. In a 19 year old player, where Physical Attributes naturally improve rapidly and Mental Attributes naturally struggle to improve, the Strength Category will not only have a 3:5 advantage over Tactics in terms of individual attributes, but an additional advantage in terms of improvement rate. Strength Attributes will go through the roof, Mental Attributes will barely budge, despite both Categories having the same Training Level. I am not going to go through the rest of your post. I have explained all that is necessary in the post, and this thread as a whole contains just about everything you could wish to know. Your idea is superficially flawed because you fail to produce superior end results, it is fundamentally flawed because you fail to take into account how the game functions.
  9. 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 increases. The bar graphs have always been a huge bone of contention when it comes to Training, and attempting to figure out what exactly they mean has lead to all manner of weird and not-so-wonderful Training theories that simply don't produce the desired effects. In my personal opinion they are supposed to be useful for comparing input and end result, but they are completely useless because they fail to take into account the different numbers of attributes in each Category, and so do not explain to anyone how attributes themselves are improving, only how Categories are improving. There is definately information to be taken from these Bar Charts, but first of all we need to find out how to go about designing even roughly accurate schedules before we can go about interpreting Bar Charts that fail to take into account key information, and fail to inform the player to consider that information. The only way to do that is to ignore superficial information that may very well be misleading, and go directly to comparing schedules to attribute improvements. Or indeed by designing schedules to improve each attribute in each category by a specific amount.
  10. 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 design players yourself. It would be a mistake to force players to learn attribute weights in order to carry out training. It is a completely unrealistic mechanic used only to balance the game. Making it an integral part of training rather than designing code to hide it from gameplay would significantly negatively impact the game.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 later. Both peak levels of increase are the same, but when Mental reaches its peak, Technical Attributes will be declining. So in young players Passing will go up faster than Creativity. In older players Creativity will go up faster than Passing. Both attributes are in the exact same Category and it is not possibly to specifically train one more than the other. What you can do however is train the Category at a certain age. If you want to favour Passing, train Attacking at a young age. If you want to favour Creativity, train Attacking at an older age. It is absolutely key to understand that the Three Attribute Panels in the Profile Screen are what changes in rate of increase/decrease with age. These are the ones that matter, this is where to look for information. Physical peaks earliest, then Technical, then Mental. They all peak at the same rate of increase, but they peak at different times and so they increase or decline more rapidly at different ages. Take the Strength Category as an example. Strength, Stamina, Workrate. Workrate is a Mental Panel attribute, the other two are Physical Panel attributes. Workrate will increase faster than the other two when a player gets beyond 24-26. Before that Age it will increase slower than the other two. During a particular season you will see Workrate and the other two attributes improving at the same rate, as Mental Attributes improve their increase rate and physical attributes get worse at increasing, so both panels meet up, then one moves away from the other in terms of increase rate. Three graphs with the same start, peak and end levels but reaching that peak at different ages. Three different curves starting and finishing at the same point with the same peak level, but that peak level comes at different ages. That also means that the pattern of improvement and decline is different. I know Prozone is good at graphs. Are you around and able to produce something that looks like what I mean here? My paints skills are legendary in their failure.
  13. 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 account for Age which will only increase the bias in favour of defending. To get equal Training between Aerobic and Defending each notch of Defending training must be multiplied by just under 2 for Aerobic, and your players must be young. To get a bias in favour of Aerobic you are looking to multiply each Defending notch by 3 to 4 for Aerobic, and your players must be young. If they are between 22-26 then it becomes 4-5x Aerobic notches for each Defending notch. If we take the lower end of the scale to try and avoid injuries at the risk of inferior training results, then your young players might be on Defending Notch 6. This means Aerobic must be on notch 15 to see a small bias in favour of Aerobic. If Strength is on notch 9 then this slight bias will be spread between Aerobic and Strength. I would suggest you look for Prozones explanation of FOCUS in this thread, and design a schedule with AEROBIC FOCUS +1 or 2 minimum for young players compared to all other Categories. FOCUS +3 or even +4 would be ideal, but with Aerobic you quickly run into high injury risk zones.
  14. 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 will produce attribute growth we have not accounted for. Equal category growth for Tactics and Attacking could well produce 3x more Attacking attribute gains than Tactical gains, when we were actually hoping for equal gains. As Prozone described: This would give us a Training schedule giving every attribute the exact same quantity of Training, and would be a perfectly balanced schedule. It would be a low intensity schedule, and because it is low intensity it will: 1: Reduce the CA this player can gain through Training. 2: Reduce the quantity of CA being moved between attributes that we have direct control over through training. Higher intensity schedules will allow us to: 1: Increase the quantity of CA this player gains through training. 2: Increase the quantity of CA being moved around that we can directly control through Training. Ofcourse there are penalties for high intensity schedules. These are: 1: Increased injuries. 2: Lowered Condition Recovery. 3: A minor but regularly applied negative morale penalty. For each schedule you wish to design upon these rules, you must consider a "Focus" for your players, which is precisely a focus on certain attribute categories. Training itself is limited by the maximum number of notches for each Category, and so in the case of Tactics which has 5 attributes and only 25 notches in the slider, you can only give each attribute 5 notches of training. This means that only a maximum "Focus" of +5 for Tactics is possible. Here we have a schedule where we are training each Category by "one notch per attribute" so each attribute in all categories is receiving the same quantity of training. We have decided upon a "Focus" for Tactics. The 5 Tactics attributes are now receiving "five notches per attribute" for an overall ratio of 1 of everything else to 5 tactics. Every increase of all other attributes should now be met with 5 increases for each tactics attribute. This is the "Focus". 5xTactics for 1xEverything else. Now remember that these are not "Category improvements". It is not 5x Tactics Category improvement, it is 5x EACH Tactics Attribute compared to other attributes. Tactics as a category has 12.5x more Training than Attacking, but it has 2.5x more attributes than attacking. These are the basic rules to be used for designing schedules. There are other vitally important rules to take into account, but they apply to players themselves. Players To design good schedules you must take into account the behaviour of players attributes. General Attribute Rules The general rule of thumb with player attributes is that each Category of Attributes on the Player Profile screen, Technical-Mental-Physical, have different rates of growth and decline depending on a players age. Technical Attributes plot a generally steady course and are the "guide" for the other two categories. Technical Attributes start off slightly difficult to increase in very young players, become increasingly easier to increase as a player approaches late 20's and then get tougher to increase as the player approaches 40. Mental Attributes start off very tough to increase in youngsters and get increasingly easier to increase right up untill a player is around 40, when they will drop rapidly. Physical Attributes start off tough to increase in very young players but rapidly accelerate in their "ease of increase" and peak around the early twenties. After this they will start to slowly decline, and around Age 33-34 you will fighting an uphill battle to prevent their decline. Specific Position Rules I will be completely honest here, this area requires a lot of investigation before anything concrete can be defined. In practical terms, these issues seem to make little difference to Training but erring on the side of caution and increasing key Position Categories seems to produce the best results. This implies two things: 1) The underlying mechanics of these issues are attempting to make them irrelevant for general gameplay like Training. 2) The underlying mechanics are slightly out of balance (and were possibly changed for 10.3). 3) The underlying mechanics are complex. Do not be alarmed here. In my experience it is completely uneccesary to work with these issue through Training, although erring on the side caution if concerned or not receiving the ideal results is advised. I will explain how to err on the side of caution and how to work with these "unknown details" in my worked example to follow. Do not panic. Worked Example The good old worked example is always useful. In this example I will use the Centreback, as they are the Position with least "opinion" and personal flavour, and least "distractions". The Centreback is a nice, simple player to Train and it would appear that my Centreback schedules are the ones producing the best results. So here I will explain how I design a schedule for the simplest and most robust of positions, and hopefully explain to you how to go about designing your own schedules for all other positions. The Young Centreback This is the player we wish to design a training schedule for. A very good Centreback that my coaches tell me "would be a leading star for most Premier League sides". The very first, absolutely fundamental thing to do is to study his profile and work out what we wish to see occur. Jonny Evans Jonny Evans is an excellent Mental and Technical Centreback, he has quality levels for all Technical and Mental aspects of the defensive game, including First Touch and Passing. His key strengths are most certainly in reading the game and dealing with threats early, but he has an unfortunate lack of Physical Ability, and his key Mental and Technical Strengths are not high enough to deal with the best players and best sides in the game. My coaches also tell me that he is "close to his PA" so I will not be getting many more "Free Attributes". Any improvements to this player are very likely going to have to come at the expense of other attributes. So my judgement and design is crucial. It is fundamentally necessary for me to look at this player and understand what his future potential can be from where he is now. Jonny Evans is 22. This means his Physical Attributes have a few more years of relative ease of improvement before their decline, while his Technical and Mental Attributes have yet to reach peak levels of improvement. In 5-6 years time his Physical Attributes will start to decline and will migrate to his Technical and Mental Attributes. In 10-12 years time his Technical Attributes will start to decline and migrate to his Mental. His Mental game "could" reach extra-ordinary levels of ability, at the cost of physical and technical ability. By the time he is 26 he could have Vidic or Ferdinand mental ability. By the time he is 32 he could be getting close to Cannavaro levels of mental ability. However this is all going to come at the cost of Physical Attributes. If his Mental Attributes reach Cannavaro levels he will not need much in the way of Pace and Acceleration. Neither his pace and acceleration and jumping, nor Strength is particular good for a Centreback. Crucially however his Strength Attributes are closest to being quite high, Aerobic will not be necessary, and Strength Attributes require less Training and have Fewer Attributes. I could sacrifice Aerobic not only for Strength Improvements, but also for Improvements in other areas. Unfortunately his PA is too low to allow him to progress much in terms of overall improvement. He will never become a Ferdinand or Cannavaro in terms of all round ability. But we can instead train him to become an absolute specialist in the Mental and Technical aspects of defending. We should forget about Aerobic, Ball Control, Attacking Shooting, Set Pieces and Focus only on Strength, Defending and Tactics. Ofcourse we dont want Ball Control, Aerobic, Attacking to completely plummit, but we are willing to sacrifice them. The ideal overall Focus might be something like the following: STR: 4 AER: 2 GK: 0 TAC: 4 BAL: 2 DEF: 4 ATT: 2 SHO: 2 SET: 0 However we know that in the immediate short term we are running out of time to improve Physical Ability, and it will be atleast another 5 years before Mental reaches its peak gain. If we go with the current Focus then Strength may not improve by much, while Mental slowly grows then accelerates away to daft levels. We also know that his Technical Defending skills do require improvement and although they have a longer time to develop they will still decline before Mental where Evans is clearly already the strongest. Our second worked Focus might be this: STR: 6 AER: 2 GK: 0 TAC: 3 BAL: 1 DEF: 6 ATT: 1 SHO: 1 SET: 0 The problem here though is that our Strength Category is getting into the realm of injuries, and we might be encouraging rapid drops in highly useful attributes that we wish to see slowly decline rather than plummit outright. So we adjust our Focus again and decide upon the final focus of: STR: 5 AER: 2 GK: 0 TAC: 4 BAL: 2 DEF: 6 ATT: 2 SHO: 2 SET: 0 For a schedule like this: We may have to accept the sacrifice of key Strength gains for this player, but we have the option to increase the Focus of Strength if we do not see the gains we wish. Hopefully this schedule will work for us in the near future, but if after 6 months we are not seeing what we expect we can knock down Tactics and Defending and go Whole Hog on Strength with a Focus of 6 or 7 or even 8 if we have the cahones. That is the crux of my own released schedules. A major aspect of Injuries was the miscount of attributes, but the second major aspect was my "erring on the side of caution" when it came to attempting to ensure gains of physical attributes. You either gain Physical Attributes rapidly and early, or you struggle for the rest of a players career. Anyway, I hope his helps.
  15. 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, then increased further to 4 to provide a specific impetus to those categories. For positions and Ages where I have decided upon a particularly intensive Focus on specific categories I have raised those to "Focus" 5. I am sure you can see that my original schedules are haphazard in these respect, and that with the new "Focus" perspective on Categories it should be much, much easier to design, test and amend both schedules and assumptions on Focus level. There are several components to this issue, and Phnompenhandy raises one of them, newgen Attribute Creation and Development. The first component to this issue is that players of X position generally start with a high distribution of CA in those attributes. These particularly key positional attributes invariably start relatively high across the board, albeit with some vast bugs such as Decisions 1 or Anticipation 2 in a newgen Central Defender with otherwise decent defensive attributes. I hope this is what SI have fixed. These attributes starting so high initially point to the second component. How age modifies CA gain/loss independant of CA weight. Tackling and Positioning do not increase at the same rates at the same age, and neither do Finishing and Off-The-Ball. For a youngster Tackling or Finishing can shoot up dramatically while Positioning or Off The Ball is difficult to raise, then as the player ages it becomes easier to improve Positioning or Off The Ball. So while in theory you could turn a good Centreback into a brilliant Striker, it would take you the players entire career to turn a poor distribution of striker attributes in a good Defender into a top quality Striker. The third component is Training itself. Finishing and Tackling are in different Categories so you can either train one at the detriment of the improvement of the other, or train both at the detriment of the improvement of some other category. You cannot train both with no negative impact on other training improvements. Altogether we have a player that starts off with a decent spread of attributes for a particular position, who can only improve certain components of his attribute table best at specific ages, and for whom decisions must be made as where to improve him. Attempt to turn a decent defender into a striker and it will take you many years to reach a sufficient level of striker attributes, and by this time it is likely some of his other key Striker attributes will begin to decline. In short, what you are given is the best place to start. It is the easiest to improve as an overall player in the stages that development occurs, and it gives you maximum opportunity to achieve the best "peak" spread of attributes before degeneration of attributes. Average spread of attribute weights means average rates of increase of key attributes and average rates of increase of non-critical attributes when a player is at the age where particular attributes are accelerating in their improvement. A particularly "heavy" attribute in terms of CA simply means it requires more CA to improve. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that "Heavy" attributes improve quickest and decline quickest at certain ages, and it is very likely that Position Preference not only determines the CA Weight of attributes but it also determines the pattern of Increase Rate and Decrease Rate according to Age. Whether this is the same mechanism, or whether this is two different mechanisms working together I do not know, but it seems absolutely clear to me that it is going on. It is one of those areas of Training where we can "assume" its function and get good results, and backup our assumptions with observation, but requires further investigation to actually define properly. It doesn't mean much for the schedules themselves as "Attribute Progression Rates" were worked into my schedules only in the most general of terms, with the schedules covering large age groups and applying biases to generic categories. The schedules are quite simply not "clever" enough in detail to suffer from changes such as these. What we should see though is either superior improvements over time or inferior improvements over time for key position/age attributes and this will help refine the schedules.
  16. 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.
  17. 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 other training schedules will be A: completely random in their effect and B: completely erratic in their scale. It would be possible to see apparently balanced schedules containing 7:1 ratios of improvement in favour of Attacking attributes versus Aerobic. Prozone this simple and clear explanation of the relationship underlying these schedules could be easilly used to define "half increases" for example 2.5 : 3 or 4 ratios of improvement, and should make the whole thing easier to use and discuss. I heartilly approve of any attempts by you to construct any excell based application for constructing balanced schedules, and would certainly like to find a way to format these ideas and explain them clearly to readers of this thread. As for the issue of Attributes involved in Training, I have recently come to know specific information on certain types of issues that was completely unknown to me before but that we both discussed between ourselves as being vital information and the "next step" of investigation to clear up a great deal of training issues. This information I will not be releasing to the public directly but I will be using it. I can say that Natural Fitness, Reflexes, Flair do not require CA in an outfield player and are not involved in Training. You are completely on the right track with your comparison of attributes to categories and this I have done myself, but the Training attribute display is at best "untidy" and at worst misleading. These are all great points and I will return to this thread and these points very soon. I shall first have to go and consider what can be done with this new, and excellent, perspective.
  18. 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 multiple of 5 increase, reduce the schedule by 1. ----------------------- If possible, I would appreciate feedback on the above changes before I develop the new set of schedules. I would appreciate knowing A: if the "re-count" is accurate and B: what the overall impact on the attribute redistribution is like. I cannot be one hundred percent sure on all attributes, so the more information on these changes, the better the next schedules can be. ------------------------- I am sorry for the lack of updates so far and I cannot give an accurate date for the next set of updates. The feedback here has been immensely useful, but it was never my intention to get involved in a micro-managed set of training schedules. That said I am willing to update them and I plan to update them, but most certainly any "willing volunteers" would be most appreciated. And unfortunately everyone waiting for new schedules is going to be subjected to my "FM bug" and will have to wait untill I roll up my sleeves and get stuck in. I am sorry if you are disappointed, but I hope most of you either receive good results from the schedules or find the necessary information in this thread to design better ones that actually work as you wish.
  19. 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. If his CA improves they should go up dramatically. If they are dropping then he is either not playing enough games, or the games he has been playing for the last few months are not at a high enough level for him to maintain his current CA level. I notice that your player has played 8 games in the league in the 2.5 months since season start. This should be enough to prevent a drop in CA through Match Experience. However, your player is Romanian and has played 5 International matches since the generation of a "new season" by the game, i.e. since around June/July. He has played 5 games for the International side since June/July, scoring 2 goals, creating 2 goals, 1 MOM and with an average rating of 7.38. I assume you have just recently gone through a period of intense International matches, Euro 2016 Qualifiers I imagine? Your player has played extremely well in these matches, and has very likely received a CA boost due to his International Team Reputation, International Tournament Reputation, and his personal performances in those matches. Your player has since returned to your club and failed to perform, therefore his Peak CA achieved during International Competition has dropped. Training Schedules are not responsible for either dramatic declines or dramatic improvements in attributes. This is a result of improvement or decline of CA, which Training has no part in. Others producing schedules may take credit for 8+ green attribute arrows in a screenshot but they are misleading people that use those schedules. Likewise schedules cannot be blamed for 8+ downward arrows unless a player has been injured during training. Either your player has been unlucky and has lost enough CA in those 8 attributes to register a downward change before enough CA has gone into his other attributes to register a positive increase, in which case you need to wait a while to see the corresponding improvements, or your player has lost CA. I would not take credit for 8+ upwards arrows and these schedules cannot be responsible for 8+ downward arrows in a fully fit player. The game simply does not work that way. Judging by what you have posted here, I would suggest that you need to find a way to get much better performances from this player, as his performances during International Matches is boosting his CA and then being lost when he returns to your club. No problem, thanks for the feedback. What the Veteran schedules actually do is slow down the decline of physical attributes so it takes much longer to register a negative change, while putting that free CA into positional key, much CA lighter, much easier to impove attributes. There is no improvement to your players CA, and it is probably declining, but the schedule is fighting against a rapid physical decline while putting that free CA into easy to improve Mental attributes. Each point in your players Physical Attributes contains alot of CA, so a reduction of say half an attribute point wont show up, but is enough to boost multiple other attributes by a point or so. The exact amount of CA your player has at any one time depends on multiple factors that have nothing to do with a training schedule.
  20. 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 them. If anyone wishes to lend a hand, my PM box is always open.
  21. 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 to increase the quantity of CA being gained by Set Pieces. Secondary effects will depend upon the precise mechanics of Overall Training Workload. For example Catafan showed that increasing Overall Training Workloads corresponds to an increasing, small quantity of CA gain. Higher Overall Workloads would produce a very small increase in CA gain. However it is also possible that Overall Training Workload, or indeed Overall Training Progress, corresponds to the quantity of monthly CA shifting that is controlled by Training Schedules. In other words someone doing "Light Training" workloads would shift the same quantity of CA between attributes each month, but a much smaller proportion of that CA would be shifted according to the pattern of the Training Schedule, with the rest following "Natural" progression patterns. Conversely someone doing Intense Training workloads may see all of their monthly shift in CA alter according to Training Schedule Patterns. This would be very important information to find out. However there is no "need" to compensate for the workloads in my schedules as yet. You may do so if you wish but I have made no account for those issues yet. A key factor in CA development is Club Reputation. To achieve maximum CA growth in your players you would wish to have the maximum possible Club Reputation. Otherwise that sounds like a very interesting test scenario. It would be interesting to read your feedback on the rates at which your players progress, and ofcourse on how you think the schedules are doing in terms of the quality rather than quantity of attribute redistribution. Injury rates can be tweaked through adapting the schedules, but first it is important to know if the basic premise is accurate and what other errors exist within the schedules. Important for me that is, ten players on the physio table is a lot more important for you. Hopefully the reduction in Strength and Aerobic now I have accounted for my counting errors should reduce the rates to a more manageable level for you, and also produce far better and more logical and desireable improvements.
  22. 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 reducing these large margins of error should have a very positive impact on the unfortunately large quantities of reported injuries. I should really try and get around to releasing my second set of schedules asap. If anyone has any suggestions for the pattern of schedule types they think would be useful, please let me know. I am currently considering schedules based on all Natural Positions in the game, with schedules for Mental, Technical and Physical development per Natural position. EDIT: Just had another read through your graphs lch and they are absolutely brilliant. There are some interesting details regarding Winger versus DC Physical Attribute graphs. From what I understand of Attribute Weights and what you have shown here of Attribute Distribution, to me it looks very much like that individual Positions (individual Attribute Weights) have an individual rate of Physical Attribute Growth/Decline.
  23. 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.
  24. 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 scale feedback across multiple different test situations. A read through this thread shows two things clearly: 1) They are test schedules with some fundamental problems requiring attention. 2) They are well received in general and produce results that seem to be a cut above most or all other takes on Training. The feedback from this thread so far has been just about as good as I could hoped for. The schedules are in general well recieved and applauded, which is great, but most importantly the problems that have been described perfectly fit my personal errors in either calculating ratios which others have brought to my attention, or my personal preferences for design. This makes me completely confident that I can refine these generic schedules to solve many of the problems users are experiencing with a second version of these schedules. This second version should then hopefully bring to light issues regarding "Notch Intensity" factors, the basic "notch per attribute" theory I am working by, and any other possible factors producing variations or anomolies. Ofcourse this is for FT schedules as you say. Once the FT schedules are ironed out, with subsequent feedback looked at and studied for additional factors of influence, a set of the principles governing ideal FT schedules can then be applied to PT schedules to study the variation and understand the key differences. I do not imagine that this will be a short process irrespective of the accuracy of my schedules, and ofcourse if any spanners show up in the works then the entire process will become elongated. This is why feedback is so vital, as ultimately feedback accelerates the process, and ultimately I have no wish whatsoever to see imperfect schedules and Training theory posted for posterity in my thread. This may be a tough ask, but if you are interested in seeing PT schedules developed to a high level of quality, could I ask you to assist me in refining the FT schedules to a level that is complete in terms of results versus theory? When that is achieved then the baseline exists for adequate judgement of PT issues. Untill that exists there can be no accurate basis for accurate comparison. As a note: I do not do much testing when I have free time, I tend to play the game according to my understanding of it. So my second set of improved schedules is unlikely to produced for another few weeks as I complete the final third of the season of my current career save. That does not mean the information produced in this thread is ignored, quite the contrary as I take it onboard and plan my second set of schedules based upon that feedback. It does mean however that I am likely to take my time. This thread is ultimately as much a source of information for me and the improvement of my game, as it is a source of information for others and the improvement of their game. The more others can contribute, the better.
  • Create New...