Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SFraser

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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 of a zero physical/dribbling ability player that is ten years ahead of Paulo Maldini and Nesta when it comes to reading the game. When it comes to constructing schedules, I personally find that the further you get away from defensive players, the more options you find yourself considering for role and style and attributes. A physical giant of a Centreback you are training intensely in Mental Ability can make up for a lack of Ball Control, Attacking, Shooting, Aerobic through the tactical detail of having an easy "out-ball" to the goalkeeper or a fullback or DMC when he wins the ball. Attacking players on the contrary have to not only defeat players but defeat systems. They require immense levels of Physical Ability, immense levels of Technical Ability, immense levels of Mental Ability, and you generally need multiple numbers of these working together to defeat teams. Ofcourse certain opponents allow you more space than others and so if you are heavy underdogs you only require a battleaxe of a pacey forward ideally supported by a battleaxe of a technical AMC, but when you play at the top levels of the game you need to find players capable of defeating top quality defenders in order to simply play the next pass, let alone construct defence destroying moves. The game itself is balanced in accordance with tactical and football issues. The Attacking Category of Passing accuracy and Creativity or "Vision" is the one Category that is most easy to bias and can be biased for improvement more so than any other Category. That bonus comes with the penalty that it is the hardest to balance accurately, the hardest to judge, because a misbalanced schedule of +1/-1 to Aerobic can mean an equivelant misbalance of +3/-3 to Attacking. Add to that the fact that FM players have a tendency to strive for simple and effective defensive setups, while pouring all their imagination and creativity into attacking patterns, and the end result is that a functional and solid, and slightly misbalanced defensive schedule becomes the creme de la creme of community desire, while even the most perfectly balanced Attacking schedules simply do not cut the grade for the vast varience and individuality of attacking play. With defensive players you can match their position to the relevant schedule and get something very close to the desired results. For attacking players however the quantity and depth of variation means you have to look at the "mould" set by the attacking schedule types and choose which "mould" you wish to apply to each player, and even then you may not be happy. I hope that the community, or atleast those regularly posting in this thread, would assist in developing these highly varied schedules. In my initial post I spoke about how I would like to see a "library" of schedules developed by all those wishing to take part. I cannot design all possible schedules for all possible players and development desires, but we can each design schedules for our own players according to our desires of change, and we can each post these schedules and describe the purpose and point and ideas behind those schedules. I could design several different improving "versions" of some quality basic schedules and take most of the plaudits for doing so, but this would never achieve the same level of overall quality and usefulness to everyone as a library of community designed schedules.
  4. 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 Training. It also helps to explain the additional bias towards physical improvement that people seem to be reporting. While I have favoured a bias towards Aerobic in youngsters and Strength in older players as a matter of personal opinion on longterm development trends, I do think they are producing excess results. A miscount of one attribute in Strength for example would mean every 3 "group" improvements would produce an additional and undesired "group" improvement. For Aerobic it would slightly higher, with every four or five producing an additional group improvement. Again this explains the additional improvement in Strength Attributes compared to Aerobic. Taken altogether, each schedule is likely to have it's Strength and Aerobic Categories unbalanced according to the desired balance. There is likely to be atleast one and possibly two additional "group improvements" compared to the desired balance for the Physical Attributes. The positive here is that each schedule does not have to reworked from the ground up in terms of basic idea in order to achieve better end results and low injuries, they simply have to be tweaked to a more accurate balance. Trial and error, testing and feedback, and discussion of these points are all highly useful in recognising the basic issues and the extent of the consequences. This thread has done in weeks what would have taken me individually months to spot. I concur. I also have a much greater understanding of the basic Positional Attribute Weights for players, i.e. what Positions the game works by and what those relative attribute weights are like. My next set of Schedules should more closely relate to actual positions used by the game. I think there is a "niche" for a fourth type of Positional relative schedule. Rather than Developing, First Choice and Veteran, I could build Developing, Rotation, First Choice, Veteran, or even go for Positional Physical, Mental, Technical, General development. Or perhaps a combination of those ideas such as Developing, Physical, Mental, Technical, General, Veteran. This is where others could help me out by suggesting the kinds of Schedules they wish to see, or even assisting me to build them if I give out the basic Position template I will be working from and what biases I would prefer to see per Schedule Type. It would be benificial in the sense that it would remove Intensive Physical Training with the risk of injuries from mid-season Training and place it firmly outside of the Season proper. The downside would be the relative lack of time a player would get to spend on the schedule, combined to the invariable lack of Match Experience, combined also to the already high risk of Injury that comes from poor Condition during the off-season. The other benefit ofcourse is that with a Physical Intensive Pre-Season schedule, the drop in CA that comes from low Match Experience would be off-set by the high Intensity Physical Training a player is doing, so the end result might be more of a negation of Physical Attribute drop rather than any Physical Attribute gain. Worth looking into. The more I think about Pre-Season schedules the more I can see possible benefits from having them. There are essentially two issues at work here. The first is a Practical issue and the Second is more of a theoretical issue. 1st) As I said above I have made errors in counting the number of attributes in each Physical Category that actually receives CA. This means I over-estimated the Intensity required to achieve a certain result, and therefore over-estimated the results that are being achieved. The other aspect of the practical issue is that I cannot design schedules that are going to be perfect for all players. I can only design schedules that have a certain "shape" in mind as an output and let the user judge whether he wishes to apply that "mould" to his players. 2nd) The theoretical issue is twofold. First is that fact that Physical Attributes become increasingly resistant to improvement and are the first to start to decline, while Mental Attributes are increasingly easy to improve but are the hardest to improve to start with. Second comes the fact that the exact rate and timing of these changes is unknown to me. I know that players experience a Physical "growth spurt" in their youth, followed by a period of slow mental maturity, followed by a period of physical decline and rapid mental growth, followed by a final period of complete decline in all attributes. I do not know precisely when these things occur, nor at the precise rates at which they change. Therefore I develop Schedules for Youngsters that largely bias Physical Attributes knowing that excessive Physical Growth can be reduced or halted and ultimately swapped for Mental Attributes while the converse is not possible. Between the Ages of 25 to 30 you can increasingly easilly swap Physical Attributes for Mental Attributes, while swapping Mental Attributes for Physical Attributes becomes increasingly harder and eventually impossible. For older Players I take note of the fact that Stamina is an integral Attribute in recovery and maintainance of Condition, that Condition determines how regularly and for how long a player can play, and that how regularly and how long a player plays for determines whether his CA improves, maintains, or declines. Thus in older players, a low level of Stamina will produce an inability to achieve enough Match Experience to maintain CA levels, which will result first and foremost in an increased decline in Physical Attributes. Thus my Veteran schedules are designed primarilly to fight against Stamina decline as much as I think is possible without running the risk of injury or excessive unbalancing of the general player. So while you are observing dramatic increases in Physical Attributes, remember two things. 1; the Categories have been miscounted slightly, and 2; you will not see this continue at the same rate and it will eventually halt and then reverse course with age. It is my opinion to overcompensate for Physical Attributes in youngsters as that can be fixed, while undercompensation cannot be. This would be an example of where the Schedules were designed for my players, namely Rooney and Macheda, and my personal usage of the Centreforward role as a role that can perform the triple functions of Winger, Playmaker and Striker. I happen to play against the type of defences that require the ability to cope with all kinds of Physical demands, and I play a formation that requires individuals to be capable of adapting to and performing in all types and styles of forward play. My young Centreforwards require a crash course in the physical aspects of football as a matter of course. That is where I must make a judgement based on averages or playing the numbers game. Some CM's might be Free Kick specialists, but in general they do not require training in throw-ins, penalties, corners, crossing, and few will require Free Kick Training. A set piece specialist CM might be better off Training in the Fullback or Winger schedules. The CM schedule for me was designed solely on the basis of command and excellence in the middle of the pitch. This is one of the reasons I am so keen to explain the thinking behind my schedules and explain to others how to develop them along the same line of thought for their own players. If I had your particular savegame then I could design schedules fitting your particular players, but I cannot do this for everyone. Thank you for the feedback. It is really good to know that despite the errors and flaws and mistakes that I am aware of in the schedules, that they are still producing results that are positive and on the right track for the most part. I cannot design schedules that everyone agrees with in terms of ratio and balance, and I have also made a few fundamental errors in counting attributes and planning "mould" shapes. Likewise I have failed to account for inferior Training Facilities and the unique demands of particular Training setups and seasonal demands on players in other clubs. Despite this the signs exist that the basic foundation of these schedules is sound, and can be improved to either produce excellent schedules, or can be explained to others so that they can produce as close the ideal schedules as is currently possible with known and publicly available data. I especially appreciate you taking the time to alter the basic schedules according to your own needs and according to the basic rules I have set out. This above all else will tell me whether I am on the right track, and at the same time provide you with the best possible schedules. I would appreciate any and all feedback you have on your endeavours designing your own schedules based upon my rules.
  5. Thank you all for the positive response. It is especially pleasing to see people happy with the pattern of gains rather than just seeing plenty of green arrows in useless or irrelevant attributes. Improving players does not just mean gaining CA, it also means putting gained CA or existing CA into the right attributes for your players. In the next few weeks I plan to go through the entire set of Schedules and retweak them all for better results based on what I have learned from this thread so far, perhaps even rebuild an entireally new set of Schedules from scratch. I would appreciate any feedback people could offer me on designing these new schedules. What particular types of schedules you would like to see, do you want Pre-Season schedules for Intensive Physical and reduced Physical Training throughout the season, do you have any particular set of Positions you wish to see included, or do you have any particular schedules of your own that you have developed and would like to see included? I cannot promise that these updated schedules will be better, but they will atleast give me an opportunity to measure my ideas for redevelopment and improvement. Hopefully they will surpass what has already been produced but if they do not then it will good learning process. So if you have any suggestions, ideas, or feedback you wish to raise and discuss, then by all means please do so. I would appreciate the involvement of the community in designing them, and we could perhaps design several different packages of entire schedules for different types of clubs and different styles of football and management.
  6. The injury routines are kind of "added-on-extras" that have not been fully developed, but there is a point to them. Short Term Injury is for players that get knocks or bumps and bruises and is intended to recover condition quickly when a player returns to Light Training without distriburing much of his current attribute shape. Players should be on it untill they recover a high level of condition. Long Term Injury is for players that have been out long enough to have 0 match practice. Because their match practice is so low they will lose CA. This CA will often come out of Physical Attributes and those attributes are hard to improve, impossible to improve if the player is at a certain age. This Schedule is designed to hugely bias physical attributes in Training to make sure the CA loss is primarilly coming for other attributes that can be recovered. Players should be on this schedule after a long period out untill they recover a high level of Match Experience, and so gain CA or at least no longer lose CA.
  7. No you are quite correct. There several of these kinds of issues around training and my schedules. This is one of the major reasons I am looking to involve other forum members in designing and testing schedules, to find out how many attributes should be accounted for and which attributes apply where. For example Strength has 4 Attributes for outfield players but I am pretty sure Natural Fitness cannot be trained therefore the strength balance may be slightly off. You have raised the point regarding reflexes and again it is quite possible that the Aerobic Category may be off by one notch per "group increase". This helps to explain why my Goalkeeper schedules are very good at raising Stamina and Strength. There are several other issues as well that are completely display oriented. For example the Goalkeeping Category contains Composure and Concentration for Goalkeepers but they do not appear in any outfield Categories. However they do exist in outfield Categories it is just that SI forgot to show them in the category display. Concentration exists in the Defending Category although it cannot be seen while Composure exists in the Shooting Category although it is also absent from the display.
  8. I have not been able to get to my computer for the last week or so and have been unable to respond to your posts. There is quite a lot to deal with here and I will try and get to the important points without this post getting too long. Injuries Quite a few of you are reporting lots of injuries, while myself and a few others see no noticeable injury problem while using these schedules with top quality sides. Indeed it was Manchester United with their facilities that these schedules were first developed for. This does not mean that the schedules are "overly physical" or are not contributing towards increased injuries, because there is no "one shoe fits all" solution to training. What this means is that when using these schedules some combinations of players, coaches, facilities etc. are producing more injuries while other combinations are producing less. If we can find out what these combinations are and how they are working to determine injuries then it will be possible not only to fix the problem but to understand the problem in such a way that the best solutions can always be taken for every club and every player. In the short term the best solution is to switch a player to a less physically intensive schedule if possible, and if not possible then try and cut each Category Intensity by one-third to one half. This will not be easy as it will require a lot of juggling and tweaking. Simply reducing physical categories or knocking everything down to "medium" will destroy the balance of the schedules. In the long term it is essential to get detailed feedback on injuries so that we can find out exactly what the factors are that are producing excess injuries in a club. The high levels of physical training are not producing the same levels of injuries for everyone so they must be working with other factors to produce different levels of risk. Consider for example how weather, a very physical game, and high levels of Injury Proneness produce greatly increased risk of injuries during a match. A similar process will be at work in Training. High levels of physical training combined to poor facilities combined to poor coaches combined to high "hardness of training" in coaches combined to Injury Proneness in players will be producing a certain level of injury risk. The next time anyone receives an injury in training, could you please take note of as much of the following information as possible, and post it here. I would be most appreciative. Type of Injury Received in Detail Level of Training Facilities Time of Year Players Injury Prone Attribute using FMScoutGenie Star Quality of Coaches taking Physical Training Coach Level of Physical Training Attribute Number of Players Training Physical Categories Number of Coaches in each Physical Category Coach Workload in each Physical Category "Hardness of Training" Coach Attribute for each Coach taking each Physical Category using FMScoutGenie Players Match Exercise and Fitness on day of Injury using FMScoutGenie List of Players Physical Attributes Any Particular Injury Trends at your Club Schedule the Player is on I understand that this is a large list and do not expect anyone to post it in full detail. As much information as possible is ideal and certain information is more useful than other information, such as injury trends, training facility level, coach hardness of training etc. For example: My training facilities are level 20. I have had very few injuries overall. Most of my injuries occured during Pre-Season or the start of the League when players had low physical fitness. Most of my injuries are Aerobic based injuries of twists, pulls, strains. My Aerobic Training Category has 32 players on Intensive, a Light Coach Workload, 4 coaches involved in some way and a 4 star rating. My facilities are unlikely to be the problem, my Intensive Aerobic for 32 players has only produced 4-5 injuries in several months, most injuries occured when players were unfit. Of the 4 coaches involved in Aerobic Training one is a Fitness coach that is my primary Aerobic coach and takes no other training. He is rated at 4 stars for Aerobic. He has 17 for Fitness Attribute. He has Hardness of Training 10. He is unlikely to be the problem here. My 2nd coach is a general purpose Fitness Coach. He is taking both Aerobic and Strength. He has a rating of 3 Star for Aerobic. He has 12 for Fitness Attribute. He has Hardness of Training 17. This guy could be the problem. My 3rd Coach is my Assistant Manager who is involved in all categories. He has a rating of 3 stars for Aerobic. He has Fitness Attribute 20. He has Hardness of Training 14. He is very unlikely to be the problem. My 4th Coach is my Reserve/Yth team manager. He is rated 1.5 for Aerobic. He has Fitness 2. He has Hardness of Training 12. He might be the problem. Of the players that got injured during Training, one is 19 year old AMC with injury proneness 9, is on Intensive Aerobic, played 513 minutes in 4 months, and the other player on his schedule is 22 and was injured at game start. The next is 18 year old ST with injury proneness 3, is on Intensive Aerobic, has played 369 minutes in 4 months and there are no others in his schedule. The next is 18 year old CF with injury proneness 3, is on Intensive Aerobic, has played 261 minutes in 4 months and the other player on the schedule is 29 and has never been injured. The next is 22 year old WF with injury proneness 7, is on Intensive Aerobic, has played 546 minutes in 4 months and the other player on the schedule is 24 and has never been injured. The next is 34 year old RB with injury proneness 15, is on Medium Aerobic, has played 154 minutes in 4 months and there are no others on his schedule. The only other Training Injuries in 4 months was a damaged foot which is a collision injury and cannot be determined as to cause (possibly defending or ball control), and a strained neck caused by Jumping to Catch a Ball which is not an Aerobic Injury but a Goalkeeping Injury though you can be forgiven for making the mistake. Now we could immediately jump to conclusions and state that Aerobic Training is far too high and is causing injuries to players. That arguement would probably be accepted in many other places but it wont be accepted here because the game is not that simple and the arguement does not fit the available evidence. What does fit the evidence is the arguement that Young Players are suffering from Injuries under Intensive Aerobic training, and old players that are Injury Prone are suffering under Aerobic with only Medium Intensity. Five players out of 32 is approximately 1/6th of those being Trained and there is a clear pattern to the problem here. Young and old players exclusively are being injured and young and old players have the exact same feature, a lack of Stamina. If we put together all the evidence then the pattern, causes and issues are completely obvious. A lack of Stamina combined to Hard Training combined to Intensive Aerobic Schedule is causing Aerobic based injuries. Some players cannot keep up with the Intensity of the Training Schedule under a particular coach and are being injured because of it. That is the source of the problems at my club. I will either move low Stamina players onto a less intensive Aerobic schedule when they are under peak condition or remove my Hard Coach from training Aerobic. Now you can choose to ignore this level of advice and detail and knock down your Schedules to medium or whatever you think is sufficient, but I would like to investigate this issue thoroughly to find out not only what is going on at my club, but what goes on at all clubs and with Training in general. If we can work together to find out what particular issues may be affecting your particular club, we can piece together information and ideas and tests to find out the precise conditions that affect injuries, rates of changes etc. and find out what is necessary to know in order to effectively manage the Training of players at clubs. Keep in mind that the obvious, stand-out trend is rarely true or false just like with tactical issues, but is often a symptom or indictor of something a bit more complex and bit deeper seated. It may not be that complex an issue but we cannot know that untill we find out the precise details and reinforce or discard potential causes. Keep in mind also that what I have written here for my club is highly unlikely to apply to your club. The "example" above, like my tactics, is a situation caused by the particular features of my club and these will not be the same as many others.
  9. If the Training Arrows are weekly and Training Progress is monthly then yes that could mean they are ultimately identical, but the question is what do they mean? If they are identical but training arrows are weekly while progress is monthly, this still leaves the issue of accurately understanding what either of the two mean. Does Training Progress indicate actual attribute progress, or does it indicate what the schedule is doing independant of Age and Position? A schedule might pump heaps of CA into a players Physical Attributes but if that player is old he might still lose CA in his Physical Attributes. Likewise we have discussed the effect of specific games on player attributes. Do the Training Arrows take this into account?
  10. Hi, thanks for the input. A high rate of injuries has always been a worry of mine with these schedules and if possible I would like to take those issues into account when designing future schedules or explaining how to design them. If at all possible and you are not too busy could you follow the instructions in the following quote and get back to me with what you find? Answers to the following questions would be a great help to me. It would be a huge help if you could give me this information.
  11. My thoughts exactly. To be fair though I remain unconvinced by my own explanation of the Training Arrows. The Training Arrows do not directly correspond to anything easilly observed though there are similarities and patterns, and this would suggest that the Training Arrows describe something different and more complex than the rest of the Training information, including attributes changes. For example the pattern of the Training Arrows follows the same pattern as Training Progress from month to month, but crucially the magnitude of Progress change is not replicated exactly in the Training Arrows. An attacking player with a small increase in Tactics Progress, a negligable increase in Defending Progress and a large increase in Ball Control Progress may show identical low magnitude green Training Arrows. This suggests that the Training Arrows take into consideration Position Attribute weight while Training Progress does not. It's great to know what the differences between two displays are, but if you don't know exactly what either display is actually showing then knowing the difference between them is of very little use. This is where I could use the help of other people playing the game. I could produce theories all day long and make a lot of sense while being reasonably accurate, but to actually nail down final details so that Training screens and schedules can be used as gameplay instruments rather than testing grounds requires either a quantity of testing I don't have the stomach for, or the assistance of people that contribute here and are interested in finding the same details. The notch system I am using here is still a theory, but it is one on based on a good foundation of counting attributes and building schedules based on attribute numbers. It cannot prevent Position Bias or Coach Bias or Age Bias, which is why I released Position schedules with 4 different age groups per position, but it can show whether basing schedules on the impact each Training Notch has on individual attributes is worth persuing. So far the results, minus my errors in balancing ratios for age and position, seem to show this line of investigation is worth the effort. A year ago who would have though that such radically unbalanced schedules in terms of category notch positions would produce such balanced and predictable gains in players? A year ago the prevailing idea was that a single notch position for every category for every age group for every player at every club in every league would produce the exact same results. An idea so prevailent that it has become the stickied Training explanation in most FM forums despite the fact that the very existence of PA means it cannot work. How can you possibly have a schedule that has +1 for every attribute over X period of time when a player can no longer gain CA? The point of this thread is to try and explain my own thinking behind the Training system, and to encourage people to take this information and develop their own schedules based on these principles, and give feedback on the results. I may have a decent understanding of how players work but that does not mean I am any good at designing Schedules for players. If the information and ideas in this thread turn out to be accurate then everyone reading this thread can help me by designing awesome schedules and putting them up here for me to download. Everyone wants the greatest possible Training schedules for their players. As for missing details, I would be surprised if there were not any in this thread.
  12. You already have that information in the Notes section of the savegame I sent you. I did send you a link to my savegame right? I thought I did but I can't remember for sure.
  13. I am so glad you spotted this because I have seen the very same thing happen and when I wrote about it in the Training thread I got into this intense arguement with some other guy over whether it occured or not. I told him that players would improve drastically in certain attributes after particularly good performance in really tough games, and he was adamant I was seeing things and that it didn't occur and was down solely to the luck of the right attributes going up coincidentally at the same time as a decent performance. What you have said here is something I have long believed to be true in the game. Players that regularly score from Free Kicks will gain Free Kick attribute points whether they are training Set Pieces or not. Now I couldn't tell you for certain how it works, but if I was to try and imagine how it does work I would say that certain combinations of Match Events and Player details triggers a one-off attribute change, in much the same way that disciplining players can provoke a change in Determination etc. So imagine perhaps a young striker with CA very low compared to the reputation of the opponent. If he bangs in a few goals or the match winner then that will trigger an event to boost his Composure by 1 point. Keep your eyes peeled for more of these events. I have seen a few in youngsters taking Set Peices or playing well against tough opponents. If you have spotted some aswell then there are probably quite a few of these "events" kicking around in the code. That is the million dollar question. Almost all testing has been done on a season holiday basis yet everything I have seen has come from normal gameplay where I pay a lot of attention to lots of information. What I have seen is a pattern of dramatic improvement coming when tough matches are combined to a good run of player form, and minor declines when a series of "easy" games is combined to a poor run of player form. The form factor may be irrelevant but to me it seems pretty clear that the better the opposition is, the better your players develop. Likewise youngsters that maybe don't play against tough opposition but do play well can also be considered prime candidates for a CA boost. Get them playing regularly, get them playing well and get them playing tough opponents and that should be you squeezing the maximum rate of development out of them. Like Cleon said, while Coaches only do impact "velocity" of CA change, the very fact that one Coach taking one Category is moving CA slowly while another Coach taking another Category is shifting CA quickly means there is a discrepancy in the rate of change which essentially looks ingame like better or worse coaching. This leaves the manager with a few possibilities. You can get plenty of awesome coaches or one coach to do all Categories and then fiddle about with the differences in Schedules yourself, or you could hire one single excellent Coach for one Category and be confident that he will "unbalance" the speed of CA change and effectively make one Category dominate the others for CA gain. That would only be useful though if your entire squad was deficient in one key area.
  14. My apologies guys for not explaining the different schedules. Please keep in mind that they cannot ensure you have made the right choice for your player, they can only attempt to mould players into a certain shape. If you want your young Centreback to improve his Technical ability and Passing skills then the Developing CB schedule is not for him as it trains players intensively in Strength, Aerobic, Tactics and Defending. Keep in mind the further points that A: these are based on the number of attributes per category and not on individual categories B: they are based on my choice of shape for a position C: some may not be very well balanced D: large increases come from playing regularly when you have more CA gain, schedules only shape players according to the quality of your Training facilities and Coaches. GK Schedules:- Obviously for Goalkeepers. I think the Strength training for these schedules may be slightly off so for each GK Schedule knock Strength down by 4 notches and Ball Control down by 2 notches and increase either Aerobic or Tactics by 6 notches, if you are unhappy with the results. CB Schedules:- For Central Defenders or anyone you wish to train intensively in Strength, Aerobic, Tactics and Defending. The Developing Schedule should see the greatest improvement in defending attributes. The 1st Choice Schedule should see small changes and may be unbalanced. If you are unhappy with the 1st Choice Schedule decrease Ball Control by 5 and Shooting by 3 then increase Tactics by 5 and Defending by 3. FB Schedules:- For Defensive Wide Players. This Schedule is Aerobic Intensive and aims to produce well rounded speedy wide players. Again these Schedules may be unbalanced so if you are unhappy with the results reduce Ball Control by 5 and Shooting by 3 and increase Tactics by 5 and Defending by 3 for all Schedules. CM Schedules:- Central Midfielder Schedules based on Physical Attributes and Tactics, i.e. quite defensively minded for the central position. The Developing Schedule is based on Physical Attributes first with all others getting a smaller equal share. The 1st Choice and Veteran Schedules are based on Strength and Tactics. 1st Choice is the Schedule Mascherano was on in the screenshot and seems quite balanced to me, although you can easilly do several things with it. Reducing Ball Control by 5 notches and increasing Defending by 3 and Attacking by 2 should produce a Schedule more like one for a DM. AM Schedules:- Perhaps one of the more controversial sets of Schedules. These Schedules essentially attempt to mould general purpose Creative Attacking players and follow the tendency for Creative Attacking players to often start wide as Wingers and move infield as they Age. Think of the kind of players Arsenal use, or players like Modric or Kaka. True Attacking Central Midfielders, say players like Gerrard and Aquilani may be better off on the CF schedules or CM schedules. WF Schedules:- Wing Forward or in todays money Inside Forward. This is a Physically Intensive Wide Striker Schedule and moulds players for whom a physical, direct wide game is their forte. Ronaldo, Nani, Valencia, and even some actual Strikers that combine wideplay roles into their forward game such as Agbonlahor etc. These Schedules will not develop clever players, they will develop direct, Technically skilled, Powerful wide forward players. CF Schedules:- Centre Forward Schedules but not the old English Centre Forward, rather instead the modern day version of a powerful, clever, dangerous deep lying player. This Schedule is also designed for the modern Targetman, Peter Crouch for example that combines Strength with Technical Ability, Intelligence and a dangerous Finish. These guys are not so much playmakers as they are the Intelligent Central version of the Inside Forward. Tevez, Rooney, Crouch, Ibrahimovic, Dzeko. ST Schedules:- A pure Striker schedule based on Acceleration, Pace, Agility, Ball Control, Intelligence and Finishing ability. This is for the Torres, Eto'o, Defoe of this world. Players that terrify defences by the sheer thought of them getting the ball under control, let alone their goal tally. These Schedules could be a good idea to place your Developed WF on once they have achieved excellent direct qualities. Think the development of Cristiano Ronaldo versus Ryan Giggs. Both started as rather decision making lacking fullback destroying Wingers whereas one developed into a Creative AM while the other developed into perhaps the most fearsome Striker on the planet. The number of positions and varieties of players covered by these Schedules is by no means comprehensive although the depth for each individual position is very comprehensive. This is why I require your help to construct more and better Schedules. If you wish to tweak these Schedules then by all means do so but please follow these rules when doing so as the quality of the schedules depends on it. Only increase or decrease a Category by the numbers of Attributes in that Category. Use the Test Schedule to find out the exact number of notches to increase or decrease each Category by as SI have missed some attributes in the display. This means 4 for Strength, 6 for Aerobic, 5 for Tactics and Ball Control and Set Pieces, 3 for Defending and Shooting and only 2 for Attacking. The reason for this is to make sure each attribute is recieving the required increase or decrease and not the entire set of attributes in a Category. If you want to double the amount of training going into Aerobic compared to Defending there is no point increasing Aerobic from 0 to 6 and Defending from 0 to 3 because the six Aerobic attributes are gaining the benefit of six notches of increased Training while the three Defending attributes gain the benefit of three notches of increased Training, meaning that although Aerobic is twice as intensive as Defending, each attribute in both categories receives the same level of training. If you put Defending at notch 3 and want to double the amount of Training each Aerobic attribute receives compared to defending, you need to put the six Aerobic attributes at notch 12. Also pay attention to the levels of increases between categories. Do not increase Tactics by 10 notches without considering how many times more training that means compared to the other Categories. Use the Test Schedule as the basis for your new Training Schedules and increase each Category according to it's size and according to how many times more Training you want in relation to others. If you want Aerobic to go up 4x faster than Defending you need to put Defending at 3 and Aerobic at 24. If you put Defending at 6 you cannot get Aerobic 4x higher than Defending because Aerobic would have to go up to 30 and there are only 25 notches in the any Category. Even seemingly huge differences between Categories only amount to small differences in the overall amount of Training for each attribute in a category. Aerobic at notch 24 and Attacking at notch 4 means each Aerobic attribute is only getting 2x more training than each Attacking attribute. Pay attention to these details when making your own Schedules. Use the Test Schedule as your basis. That depends on what is happening. If something drops that is not supposed to then it is pretty clear there is a problem in the Schedule and the player should move onto a better one. If something doesn't increase very quickly then that doesn't say much outright. You would need to test for a while to see the impact on multiple attributes. If I was making or testing a Schedule I would give it a long run. If I was playing the game and Training players I would have limited patience for lack of results, but unless you test a schedule over a long period of time you cannot be sure whether what you want is actually happening or whether another schedule is better. That is good to see. Keep in mind that the previous schedule will have just "filled" all the attributes you saw rise before so this slightly reduced schedule will have to start from the bottom of the next Attribute increase and will also be filling it up slower. The problem with Vela is that Aerobic and Strength are huge attributes for an AML/R and Forward. You will have to pump lots more additional CA into these attributes anyway to see a rise equal to his other attributes, while at the same time the 1st Choice Schedule was favouring his Tactics and Ball Control ahead of his Aerobic. That would be a big stunt in the growth of his Aerobic for him, compounding the low rate of increase with even lower share of CA, which is why so many of his other attributes went up. It is essentially a juggle between heaps of Technical and Mental or a few Physical plus a few others. Look at the Carragher screenshot compared to Mascherano. That is the rough trend you will always get in Training. Every time a player gets injured two things happen. First he loses Match Experience and his rate of CA gain goes down. Second he stops Training so the force of the schedule pushing on certain attributes stops. It also takes time to build up the "push" on attributes when Training. You don't get maximum effect from a schedule untill a month or two full Training. Little knocks here and there are clear evidence of the Injury Prone attribute. I did some experiments and wrote a post a while back that said that Knocks and Bumps are a result of the Injury Prone attribute working like a dice roll every time a player comes into contact with another player. Injuries like muscle tears and ligament damage etc. are not caused by the Injury Prone attribute at all but come into consideration whenever players are exerting their physical attributes, such as sprints, high speed turns. These injuries are especially prevailent if a player is moving at high speed and fails to anticipate a tackle and has low agility or balance. These players may have Injury Prone 1 but if they are tackled when moving or turning at high speed with low Agility/Balance they are incredibly vulnerable to serious injuries, like broken legs or ruptured ligaments etc. I had a look at Walcott and he is a Natural Striker compared to Accomplished AMR. This means his Shooting Attributes require more CA to increase than other players, so he may be better off on the ST Schedules to improve these attributes. However these Schedules lack Crossing Training so you may want to do some tweaking of your own to develop the perfect schedule for this guy. I hope I don't come across to badly when I say this, but that is some of the best Goalkeeping improvement I have seen, not just scale but distribution aswell. Like I said before I think Strength Training is too heavy for Goalkeepers and it would be worthwhile reducing Strength and Ball Control and increasing Aerobic or Tactics. As for your player and question in particular, it depends on whether you think 16 Agility and 14 Jumping is good enough for you. Goalkeepers are notoriously difficult to tire out and I have never seen Condition problems in Goalkeepers playing regularly no matter the schedule. The Developing Schedule would have aimed to improve his Aerobic further but likewise you would not have seen such rises in his other attributes. The Schedule he is on looks to be doing excellent stuff, and because his Jumping is increasing then his Aerobic should not be too low to provoke a slow decline. Having said that he may be gaining CA so if he stops gaining CA he may see a slow decline in Aerobic for increases in his Tactical and Goalkeeping attributes. I would suggest you keep an eye on this and if you see anything that looks like a slow decline in Aerobic, seriously consider dropping Strength and Ball control by 4 and 2 and cranking up Aerobic another 6 notches. Could you tell me if the injuries occur in Training or in Matches, what kind of injuries you are seeing (is it pulls/strains/tears or bumps, bruises, knocks), and could you also tell me whether you are during the Pre-Season, Start of the Season, Mid Season or End Season? I would also appreciate it if you could tell me what level your Training Facilities are, and if you do not have a problem using FMScoutGenie could you fire it up and look at your coaches and tell me what their Hardness of Training attribute is at and what Categories they train? If you can give me this information in detail I should be able to tell you exactly what the problem is and how to fix it.
  15. Thanks, and that is some impressive improvements. However I don't know about you but I would be hoping to see some of those stat increases going into Physical Attributes as he is a bit lightweight in that area for a 20 year old. They might be improving but not going up visibly and they may improve much more over the rest of the season, but I think that schedule may be unbalanced though I could be jumping the gun. If you like it though no need to change it. Depends on his stats. If he is lacking in some key areas for his position then stick him the developing schedule for a while as they should try and intensively build up key areas of his game. If he is quite well balanced already and looks like a couple of points all over would do the trick then stick him on the 1st Choice. That has been a common problem in FM for a while now. High potential Regens always seem to have atleast one profound flaw, like Decisions 1 or something daft. I have never seen a single regen with the basic stats to turn into a Fabregas or Messi or Ronaldo or Rooney etc. let alone four of them in the same year. Getting this guys Strength up to Premiership standards should be possible but not easy. 9 is a good start for a 17 year old but you are looking at another 6-7 points minimum for a top PL Centreback. You will have to do the majority of this work before he is 25 so that is around a point per season. His Concentration starts lower but will be easier to raise for a lot longer. I would say another 7 to 8 points minimum for a top PL Centreback but you can aim this for his mid to late 20s. Still I would be intensively training this guy in key defensive attributes as early as possible for as long as possible, and get him mentored well to make the process and final product smoother. If any of you guys have suggestions for improving these schedules that would great. I might give you a bit of time to test them first though.
  16. It doesn't pass but it doesn't have to have an affect on players. Unhappines with heavy Training is a constant small negative Morale modifier. If you left them on it and nothing ever happened at your club ever then they would eventually get really low Morale because of it. If something bad happens to your club like some poor results or dressing room issues then this will compound the problem and make your players unhappy quicker. If everything else at your club is going great then just ignore it as every win you get will put them all back up to Superb or high Morale. Heavy Training at a club winning everything is fine. Heavy Training at a club where everyone is depressed will only make things worse.
  17. Don't expect drastic changes early on unless something happens to your players CA, like breaking into the first team or breaking a leg. Give it a season or so and you should see the players attributes altering pretty decently. If you are going to play as Milan make sure you make liberal use of the Veteran schedules
  18. SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10 Despite writing at great lengths about the topic of how players work and how training works I have never released any Training Schedules to the wider public. This is partly because I do not believe that "one-shoe-fits-all" schedules exist, partly because I had never taken the time to develop a broad range of general schedules that could be used by other people, and partly because I did not know enough detail about certain key aspects of Training and player mechanics to produce what I would consider accurate schedules. While the first remains true the latter two have changed and I am now confident of releasing a comprehensive set of powerful and accurate schedules for community use. More than that however I would like to encourage and engage the community to assist me in developing these schedules further, in greater depth and detail, and in fine tuning the basic underlying principles. Should you download these schedules you will be a guinea pig, but do not be alarmed for I have already received very positive feedback and observed some very impressive results already from these schedules. However I do not simply wish to release a bunch of schedules for your use, I wish to get your help to further explain the details of training, further improve and develop superior schedules, but also help users to construct their own ideal individual player schedules based on what is understood about training and player mechanics, and based on the underlying premise of these schedules. The following screenshots are the kind of results you can expect after a year, under ideal conditions, and with a well balanced schedule. However I will be the first to admit that not all the schedules are well balanced and this is where I need your help. I need your help to design and test better balanced versions of these schedules, indeed to design and test whatever schedules you can think of for players. To do this you will need to understand the rules I am following when designing these schedules, understand the key factors to pay attention to, understand the ratios I am working from, and hopefully you will also pop up with some new and more accurate information of your own. The now 32 year old Jamie Carragher has improved in almost everything except his Physical Attributes and his Physical Attributes have not gone down. Atleast that is how it looks on the surface. Underneath all this his Physical Attributes have gone down but not by enough to register a change. The schedule predicts this and trains him intensively in Physical Attributes so as to slow down the rate of change while at the same time favouring Tactics and Defending slightly more than Ball Control, Attacking and Shooting to receive the lost CA. The schedule also anticipates that his Ball Control Attributes and Shooting Attributes will require less CA to go up than Tactics and Defending, and so we have a near perfect spread of small increases in his Technical and Mental attributes while his Physical attributes barely change. Looking at this screenshot perhaps I should have reduced his Ball Control and favoured his Tactics or Attacking more but then this is where I need your help to test the balance of these schedules on different players and make suggestions for improvements to the balance, or even design your own superior schedules based on the information I will give you. Now lets take a look at the 25 year old DM/CM Mascherano. This 25 year old powerhouse midfield destroyer has improved his Stamina, Strength, Teamwork, Decisions and Concentration. How is that for some Central Midfielder training? A 25 year old clearly improving his physical attributes is not something you see very often, and to improve the key physical attributes at the same rate as his other vital positional attributes are improving is something I am sure everyone wants to see in their own players. Why is his Composure bouncing around? Because there has to be concessions made and for this schedule the concessions are unfortunately in his Defending, Attacking, Shooting and Set Pieces. No free lunch I am afraid. Do you want to change this balance? I will tell you how to do so. The Schedules Before I give you the link to download these schedules it is important to explain how they work, how to tell if they are working for you, and to tell you how to change them as you see fit. As we can see from the screenshot above, these do not in any way follow the "Number Line Theory" of Training you can read about in certain training threads or in other forums. This "Number Line Theory" suggests that if you place one slider at precisely a certain notch, 7 I think, then those attributes will not change. Likewise if you place the slider at notch 18 or 19 or something then those attributes will increase. Well that's rubbish. Take a look at Vidic, Ferdinand and Brown. They are all fit, at 100% match experience and they are all on the same schedule with huge variations between sliders. Yet for some reason they are not all behaving exactly the same, and for some other reason that shoots the "Number Line Theory" out of the sky, all of them are powering through Shooting Training which is at notch 9 while barely making a dent in Tactics that is at notch 20. The only guy improving his Tactics is Vidic. So what is going on in this screen? Well a number of things are going, you just can't see all the individual details so it makes it hard to figure out what the arrows mean. Wes Brown and Ferdinand are both at 100% Match Experience and have been at that level for a while and they are both at or close to their PA. Ferdinand cannot gain any more CA so his attributes cannot go up unless CA is removed from other attributes. Ferdinand is also a Centreback and this means that certain attributes go up faster or slower for the same amount of CA. For Ferdinand his Age, CA/PA, Match Experience and his particular Attribute CA needs means that this schedule is almost perfectly balanced to do nothing. The amount of CA being shared by this schedule between his Strength, Aerobic, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending and Attacking is exactly enough to prevent any change while he is at 100% Match Experience. However we are not training his set peices and his Shooting Attributes dont need much CA to improve because he is a Centreback. This means that while his other attributes stay the same, his Shooting Attributes are improving. Yes you read that correct. His Strength, Aerobic, Tactics, Ball Control, Defending and Attacking Categories are all perfectly balanced for his Age and his Position. Vidic is not only younger which changes the balance for him, but he has also just reached 100% Match Experience after being injured. He will have lost a small amount of CA when he was injured and will now be gaining all that CA now he is at 100% Match Experience. So ontop of his zero Set Piece Training freeing up CA for his Shooting Attributes to improve, he is also gaining CA which means all of his other attributes instead of being perfectly balanced to do nothing, are perfectly balanced to increase at the same rate. This 1st Choice CB Schedule is designed to "Maintain" Centrebacks that are near to their peak Ability level while favouring only minor increases in key attributes. Composure in this case because in my first attempt at a CB schedule I forgot to consider Composure and Concentration in my schedule (thank you for the omission SI) and lo and behold down went Ferdinands Composure after a months training. The above schedule for a Centreback that is close to their PA and not yet suffering from heavy Age penalties is very close to a perfect "Maintain" schedule. It wont prevent CA from going up or down or shifting around during a season, but it wont speed up or slow down these naturally occuring changes. The Developing CB and Veteran CB schedules above and below this one are completely different. For each position their is an U-17 Schedule, a Developing Schedule, a 1st Choice Schedule and a Veteran Schedule. The U-17 Schedule emphasises key attributes for the position at the expense of any nonesense young players do not need to learn. The Developing Schedules are for players between 17 and 24 or those than need a crash course in the Senior Basics. They are Physically Intensive and they focus again on vital areas of the game for that position. The 1st Choice is generally a more rounded, more "Maintain" Schedule aimed also at reducing intensity and maintaining condition and Morale. The Veteran Schedule is aimed purely at players who are starting to decline Physically. It attempts to halt the destructive drop of Stamina while channeling Aerobic CA into Mental and Technical attributes in order to build a Maldini or Giggs. The exact shape of the schedules for each position is my own view on what the position should look like and how best to deal with different ages. They may be far from your own liking and may also be poorly balanced in certain respects. The exact design of each schedule is based on two fundamental ideas. Designing Category intensities based on numbers of attributes contained within each Category and designing Relative Category Intensities based on ratios. Let me try and explain for you clearly. Strength has 4 attributes in the Category, Aerobic has 6 attributes in the Category. Therefore to train Strength and Aerobic equally I place Strength at notch 4 and Aerobic at notch 6. Attacking has only two attributes so to train attacking equally with Strength and Aerobic I place Attacking at notch 2. If I want Attacking to receive twice as much Training as Strength I place Attacking at notch 4, the same as Strength. Strength has 4 attributes while Attacking has 2 attributes, so now each Attacking attribute should receive twice the CA as each Strength attribute. The complicated part comes from the fact that certain attributes require more CA to improve than others, based on Age, Position etc. There are some rough and ready rules but no exact figures so there can be no exact science to training. The Strength and Tactics Categories for a Centreback will require more CA to increase than the Ball Control Category. If he is young then his Strength Category naturally receives more CA anyway, if he is old his Strength Category naturally tries to shed CA. This means that you will always have to consider Strength Training much higher than others to achieve the same rate of increase, but this is not true when a player is very young nor very old. I have developed a Test Schedule containing the basic ratios of a balanced schedule independant of Position and Age. This Test Schedule (ignore Vidic here as he has been on it 5 minutes) is the basis on which all my schedules are designed and you will find the Test, GK Test and U-17 Test schedules in my schedule pack. To avoid overcomplication all schedules have been kept precisely to these ratios. There are no half Strength increases, only an increase or decrease by 4 every time I wish to increase Strength training by "a balanced notch". A Centreback Schedule may for example increase Strength by 4 "notches" to position 16, Aerobic to 24, Tactics to 20, Ball Control to 10, Defending by 4 to 12, Attacking to 4, Shooting to 6. Once this achieved, a rough pattern for the shape of a Centreback's Training of important attributes 2x less important attributes, you will then have to take Attribute Weights and Age into account, so perhaps Increase Strength by another 4, Tactics by another 5 and Defending by another 3. These schedules seem to work and seem to work well, although there are plenty of rough edges and areas that could be much better balanced. I would appreciate as much feedback on these issues as you can give me, and as much feedback on any others issues as well. Download Link http://www.mediafire.com/?z2ftnmzazmm
  19. The first two posts in this thread provide a comprehensive arguement backed up by test data that CA and Attributes do not change at all significantly through training. As CA is simply a measure of the quantity of points distributed into attributes there is little point in drawing a distinction between the two. The most significant factors in an increase of CA is Personality and Match Experience, as shown by the tests above. Attributes obviously cannot grow past the level of CA present in a player nor drop below the level of CA. Understanding the relative weights of attributes alone is of limited utility ingame. Understanding that CA increases or decreases according to Match Experience and Personality, and that attributes themselves have a changing affinity towards CA increases or decreases according to Age is of most relevance. Training provides a negligible source of CA gain, while high levels of Professionalism, Ambition and Match Experience provide the greatest gain of CA. As is also shown in the thread above these gains of CA can be dramatic, for example 39 CA in 6 months under ideal conditions. The poster Riz Remes may be correct in principle in what he says but he is saying it in a way that is misleading. Attributes may grow according to their natural affinity for CA brought about by age combined to slider positions on the training schedules, but it is personality and match experience that will determine the exact extent of the gains or losses. By implying that Training raises Attributes which in turn raises CA he is contradicting a huge amount of detailed test work and basic trends that can be easily observed ingame just by playing a season.
  20. Just to add my 2 cents here. In the table quoted above, the Attributes with weight zero are not Free Attributes, they are attributes that do not change. During gameplay, CA will not be distributed into these attributes nor will CA be removed from these attributes. They are CA independent attributes that can only be altered by mentoring or particular ingame events. The table certainly looks accurate but it raises the question of whether or not some other vital pieces of the puzzle are missing, as Age certainly seems to have an impact on the growth of attributes, while the table would seem to imply that either a defender would naturally evolve into a striker and vice versa or that acceleration and pace are the easiest attributes to develop. Neither of which seem correct. I have long held the suspicion that attributes themselves have a particular affinity towards CA that is modified by Age, and that player Position is a modifier of this affinity. I do not doubt the accuracy of the table, but it certainly seems clear to me that some other vital mechanic is being missed. If I was to theorize I would say that the table represents multipliers for CA per attribute per position, with the attributes themselves having a particular affinity for CA that changes with Age. For example if Acceleration at Age 18 has a natural positive affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would gain a 6x multiplier to Acceleration gains at Age 18. If Acceleration at Age 30 has a natural negative affinity for CA, then a Right Winger would be fighting against a 6x multiplier for CA loss at Age 30. The size and type of this natural affinity, i.e. large increase - large decrease / small increase - small decrease would depend upon the natural attribute weights and age. As it stands, the table on it's own provides expected weights but an illogical explanation for their function. Central Defenders do not naturally evolve into Technical and Creative Set Piece experts, nor do they gain 6x Acceleration compared to Creativity throughout their careers. They do however go through an early phase of dramatic Physical Attribute increases and a later period of Physical Decline coupled to Mental Improvement. I would be looking to investigate the role of Age as a modifier of these Attribute weights. I would expect to find that a low age acts as a positive modifier for Physical Attribute weights, with increasing age making this 6x attribute weight increasingly negative. The weight of the attributes would not change, but the function of these weights as positive or negative modifiers would change with age. For example age 18 might be 6x(1), age 20 might be 6x(0.5), age 24 might be 6x(0.1), age 26 might be 6x(-0.1), age 28 might be 6x(-0.5) and age 30 might be 6x(-1). The relationship should look something like a quadratic curve. I don't have the mathematics background to produce an example of the equation but I can see the possible relationship as something like a quadratic curve. Food for thought anyway.
  21. I have not found a correlation between low skills and a refusal to train PPM's, but I have found a correlation between number of existing PPM's and refusal to train PPM's, and there is potentially a correlation between position and refusal to train PPM's. There may also be a correlation between certain hidden mental stats, i.e. professionalism and the refusal to learn/unlearn PPM's. I cannot get my professionalism 12, sportsmanship 8, temperament 8, 21 year old CM to learn any PPM's despite the fact he currently has none. Likewise Wayne Rooney (professionalism 13, sportsmanship 10, temperament 5) refuses to unlearn "Argues With Officials" and "Dives Into Tackles". Personally speaking, with a quick look through FMScoutGenie, if I had to select one attribute that most closely corresponds to my success or failure at getting players to learn PPM's it would be Professionalism, as sorting by descending professionalism (high to low) places the players with the highest rate of success at learning PPM's at the top and the players with the lowest, or zero rate of success at learning PPM's at the bottom, with the "50/50" or "maybe" players sitting right in the middle. It would seem to me that the cut-off point or the point of below 50% success rate given all other positive factors is 15 professionalism. Age matters, as does number of PPM's and perhaps so does position and personality for certain PPM's, but ultimately it appears to me that Professionalism is possibly the important statistic for determining whether a strong candidate for a new PPM accepts or refuses. Obviously this is a casual observation and has not been tested but I would suggest the Professionalism is a strong candidate for an important factor in learning PPM's. Every other hidden mental attribute shows no correlation whatsoever while Professionalism appears to match directly my ingame observations of who will and who will not learn PPM's.
  22. Not to derail this thread but in your opinion WWFan is Creative Freedom an offensive bias or a perception/technical difficulty bias? I have been playing around with Maximum Creative Freedom and it seems to me that events allowed through Maximum Creative Freedom are not inherantly riskier yet seem more aggressive. I have seen some audacious means of maintaining possession in tight areas and offensive moves that were far less risky in their apparent nature than less creative moves in the same context. From what I have seen Creative Freedom is not necessarilly offensively oriented untill coupled with offensive instructions, though no doubt there is a definate element of risk in high Creative Freedom. I would appreciate your opinion on this.
  23. Perhaps if you had given him Maximum Creative Freedom, Neutral Passing, Neutral Mentality and Neutral Player Instructions then your fantastic player would take the perfect option? What you think is "on" is irrelevant. Each player has their own mental attributes and their own ability to read the game. You either understand how they see the game rather than how you see the game, and how tactical instructions apply to them rather than you, or you do not see these things. When you apply tactical instructions it is not you that makes the critical decisions on an event by event basis. It is the player. If he does not choose the obvious pass then either he cannot see it, or your instructions are forcing him not to choose it.
  24. You think he has options. This is not the same as putting yourself in his shoes and understanding the effects of his attributes and his instructions. He cannot see multiple moves ahead. He cannot see how the AMC and AML and MC will offer him a pass after he has dribbled forward. He can dribble forward, yes, but his appreciation of the situation may be that he does not see this opportunity, or that he does not weigh it to be very beneficial or successful. Your mentality setting for this specific player mean that not dribbling forward and doing something else is better than dribbling forward, for him. If he is closed down then his decisions are impacted by composure. Ontop of that his passing range may be below the distance to the MC. Likewise the ball from the fullback to the MC may be a throughball, cutting out the closing down player. No matter the situation, his mentality forces him to balance all choices equally. The problems are that you have given him a neutral mentality while telling him to run forward, and you have given him short passing and no through balls. This instructs him to make the shortest and safest pass possible, and to run forward as often as possible but only when it carries no risk. His Creative Freedom settings not only allow him to choose no alternatives, but may even remove his ability to choose to dribble forward. His settings may make some kind of objective sense, but you have to apply these to a specific content of player attributes and situation, and you have to alter your settings according to this scenario. The greatest assistance you could give your fullback is to increase his passing range to neutral and give him TTB Mixed. This will allow him to try passes that are slightly less risky than the dribbles you want him to attempt. You could also increase his mentality to encourage more risk taking behaviour, but above all else you could provide this player with greater numbers of better passing options through his passing settings and the positioning of players around him. Just spotted this and Amen.
  25. The twisted logic is that if his only option other than clearing the ball is taking on the opponents entire flank untill help arrives within 2 metres and in acres of space, then he needs an attacking mentality that makes Ghengis Khan look like a coward.
  • Create New...