[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Can't be arsed to search through all forums, but got a stupid question!

How the hell do you set up PLAYER PREFERRED MOVE?! I can't find the way to set it up -.-.

Through player interaction...

And player may pick up PPM's through tutoring too...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Sorry for going way off-topic but i was wondering if someone found a skin/modification that allows numbers on the training sliders since this would be quite helpful, looked on the skinning forum but couldn't find any.

Been using these schedules for a while and they are awesome, what's even better is that with the baseline that Sfraser gave us you can really shape your players to the way you want them to be, awesome work!

There's one thread on this so far...

Unfortunately the skin guys haven't figured it out so far, seems really tricky to do...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

So this business of 'baseline x focus' goes out the window.

Adhering to the 'baseline x focus' makes creating schedules very difficult as it allows little flexibility in terms of creating a balance of training among different categories while fitting it into a reasonable workload.

Adhering to the rule that focus should be an integer (1.0 ; 2.0 ; etc.) goes out of the window...

Well, in fact it does not as it was never within the windows (?)...

The term focus is very valuable as it allows for comparisons between two different training schedules. No one has stated that this focus should be an integer at all times.

In fact, just as you've stated above, focus is influenced by a player's age, a club's coaching staff, and most importantly a manager wanting to improve certain attributes more than other ones.

[Quickfire Questions and Answers Thread (Tactic and Training Questions Only)]

Not so much a stupid question, more just a question for the moderators of this forum.

I wondered if it might be quite a cool idea to have a thread on here devoted to the World Cup and, specifically, analysing the matches tactically and talking about how such tactics might be implemented in FM. It could be a bit like the Zonal Marking website or the Football Lineups one, or whatever.

In fact, with the European Champions League and the Europa Cup finals coming up, plus plenty more domestic football at the business end of the season too, it might also be worth having a general real life tactics thread.

For each real life tactic, posters would be encouraged to post up the team line-up, formation and so on. Then they could give their observations and opinions on the tactical aspects of the match, e.g. player roles, team instructions and so on. Following that, they would need to talk about how to implement the tactics in FM, either using the creator or using the classic mode.

Any takers for this idea? Could bring the tactics forum alive and show people how real life tactics can be represented in the game.

Cheers for this excellent idea...

Besides the things mentioned above by SFraser, this type of thread could also serve to bring up ideas for future development of FM as the reaches of the current tactical form of implementing tactics in FM are stretched and tested to the limit...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

The whole point of this thread was to make your own based on his theory, I suggest you download Prozone's tool earlier in the thread and make your own as it's just as fun to mould a player into what you want not what SFraser neccessarily wnats for his veteran's, developing players etc.

Exactly!

The essential point of this thread is to come to grips with the process of how training influences the distribution of CA growth that is generated by your players playing matches and developing over time under the influence of their professionalism, ambition and determination.

The major point being that training does not (in truth: for a very small amount) improve your player in terms of CA. What it does is determining the chance that a particular category of attributes will improve compared to the other categories.

Training does that mainly in the way that your sliders are set up. However, do not look at the actual slider position. Rather look at the slider position divided by the amount of trainable attributes in that category. ProZone successfully launched the term Focus for this artificial training category weight.

Furthermore, you should realize that younger players (16-23, but mostly between 18 and 21 years of age) tend to develop physical attributes more than mental attributes. Generally, both physical and mental attributes will rise in a player increasing in CA; it's just physical attributes developing faster when given the same focus compared to mental attributes.

In older players (30 years or over, also depending on stamina), mental attributes tend to develop faster than physical attributes. Many of these player have a constant or a declining CA and therefore see their physical attributes declining, while their mental attributes may rise.

Finally (well, in truth maybe more applies, but a summary is a summary) a part of the CA rise is distributed by match events, independent of training sliders.

Again, courtesy of SFraser, aided by ProZone's invention of the term Focus...

So, and that's why I started typing, in line with what Jenko_EFC stated above.

The challenge is to open a player profile, spot the attributes that need improving over other attributes and create a schedule with the above mentioned principles in mind. Check after a few month if you get the results you had in mind and of not, adjust accordingly. Play and learn...

Meanwhile, SFraser, ProZone and myself are working on some Excel based intelligence to aid in this process, simplifying both identification of which areas need priority improvement and translation of this priority in suggested slider positions...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Thanks everyone, I am now making schedules for almost every player and it is so much better shaping players your own way, I was a bit nervous at first as I didn't want them to go horribly wrong but I find it much better now. Am I right in thinking that Tactics with a focus of only 2 will not increase as much as Attack on focus 5 even though they are both on slider notch 10?

Yes you are, on a general principle. Other factors involved are coaches and player age (influencing the rate of development of physical and mental attributes).

And it's a good thing to notice that this thread and this tool enables people to finally shape their own players through training...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Results like these re-open the discussion for attribute weights being involved in some way in training, but clearly that impact is no greater than +/- 100% and certainly not the +/- 1000% you would expect to see from non-proportional CA gains.

Funny to see this coming from you, SFraser...

Weren't you a fierce opponent of the 'attribute weights influence training sliders' theory? Your previous evidence that this way accounted for behind the scenes was quite compelling at the time...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

...i wanted to improve his tec attributes.

In line with the example of ron.e's players a few posts before.

Step 1, choose the correct position, in this case it's easy: AMC.

Step 2, choose the correct career stage, in this case: developing.

Add user preferred focus values: in the case the categories containing technical attributes (like ATT, BAL, SET).

If the workload is too high for you taste, reduce all categories by a small focus of 0.2 or just how much you like to reduce the workload...

Et voila...

Good luck and let us know...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

That's great advice. But what do you mean by 'For now, in order to tune down the workload you might consider adding a small (f.e. 0.2 of 0.5) negative value into the user preferred focus box' and how do you do it? Thanks

This is simply meant as a workaround until ProZone and I will post an updated version with an option to tune down workload according to your personal preferences...

What I mean is that negative values are allowed in the user preferred focus box.

So if you think that your preferred focus of +1 STR, ATT, BAL and DEF (like in the previous example of ron.e) adds too much workload, you might wanna enter +0,5 STR, ATT, BAL and DEF and -0.5 for all other categories... In other words, reduce all categories by half a focus point or so...

Hope this clears things up...

Ok facman, you just beat me there... But you're right, except that I'd reduce all categories by the same amount in order to maintain balance...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

My preferred focus is exactly what you've suggested. I didn't think of combining sfrasers schedule with my own focus as well.

Are you saying to keep Sfraser's base schedule but just up the training in the areas that i want him to improve? Thanks

Well, that explains the difference i guess...

For everyone looking to modulate training schedules in order to prioritize training certain attributes, just follow the steps like explained above with the player from ron.e's example.

Indeed keep the base schedule intact and add in your own preferred focus values.

I put this into the spreadsheet but the overall workload is 'very heavy'. The overall workload is '127' surely that's to high for a developing player right? Also, even though he is 19 should he be on first-team instead?

This is why ProZone has termed this tool a very much simplified version of what we're developing at the moment. In the future these type of tools will contain an option to modulate the workload of the training scheme without disturbing the intended balance.

For now, in order to tune down the workload you might consider adding a small (f.e. 0.2 of 0.5) negative value into the user preferred focus box. Just a work-around for now...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Well, let me try and reproduce what you've got here...

This guy's trained as an MC (so far there's no DM SFraser focus values entered in the tool).

He's trained as a developing player regarding career stage.

This leaves you with a balanced schedule like this:

STR x 4

AER x 4

GK x 0

TAC x 3

BAL x 3

DEF x 3

ATT x 3

SHO x 3

SET x 0

You then add in the user prefered focus, which would be +1 for STR (to increase strength attribute), +1 for ATT (passing), +1 for DEF (tackling) and +1 BAL (heading). Finally, as his corner stat is at 15 already it seems worthwhile to maintain or develop this by adding f.e. 2 focus value to SET.

This leads to this set of focus values:

STR x 5

AER x 4

GK x 0

TAC x 3

BAL x 4

DEF x 4

ATT x 4

SHO x 3

SET x 2

The schedule in your screenshot looks like this:

STR x 5 (baseline 3 -> slider at 15)

AER x 2 (baseline 5 -> slider at 10)

GK x 0

TAC x 3 (baseline 5 -> slider at 15)

BAL x 2 (baseline 4 -> slider at 8)

DEF x 4 (baseline 3 -> slider at 12)

ATT x 4 (baseline 2 -> slider at 8)

SHO x 2 (baseline 3 -> slider at 6

SET x 2 (baseline 5 -> slider at 10)

So, one or more of my assumptions above regarding how you've built up your schedule are not correct. Is he not on trained as MC, not in developing career stage? Or is you user preferred focus different from what I've suggested?

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

That tool is excellent! Thanks guys I think I'm getting my head around it now so say I have a player who I want to train more on say shooting I'll take shooting and times it by 8 which = 21 so I then go onto the game and do 21 clicks on shooting, is that right?

Not that simple.

As that would depend on the players age, amongst other things.

Simply ramping up shooting would lead to an imbalance.

Well, as far as this version of the tool is concerned, Jenko_EFC is right.

First assign the correct position and career stage for your player. This will render a training schedule proposal based on these two things. Second, enter a number in the purple 'user defined focus' column and change the 'include in schedule' box to yes. You can start by entering for example 1 and see what happens, try entering 2 and see if it suits you.

So yes, the schedule will be slightly imbalanced, but if the purpose is to try to {quote} "train more on say shooting" {end quote} the resulting schedule will always be imbalanced, favoring this category over others.

Bear in mind though that each category combines different types of attributes (technical, mental and physical). Based on players age these types of attributes have different growth rates. As a general principle it seems that physical attributes are easier to improve in younger players and mental in older players, while technical attributes hold a quite steady line as players age.

So, more focus on shooting training will lead to a higher rate of improvement of long shots (technical), finishing (technical) and composure (mental). Depending on the position of the player, these attributes will rise at a higher or lower CA cost. Therefore, more effort going into these attributes will not always be represented as a faster rise of the attribute as shown in the game.

The age of a player plays an important role here too. More focus on shooting training in an old player will favor improvement in composure (mental) over improvement in long shots and finishing (technical).

These factors all modulate what happens to the attributes shown in the game. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the net result of your training schedule. What might help is to consider the build-up of this tool and think in terms of focus. This increases the insight in where your training schedule puts extra (or less as you may also enter negative user defined focus values too) emphasis on.

Hope this helps to increase the insight in the complicated world of FM training schedules...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

If you really want to train attributes at the same level, I don't think looking at the rudimentary numbers of how many attributes are within a training category is good enough. I believe weighting the training according to the weights of all skills in each training category as they are for each position will work better. These can be found here http://community.sigames.com/showpost.php?p=3275601&postcount=670.

While theoretically I can follow your thoughts on this one, experiments to back this up are not around. Are you aware of any?

My own attempts at working this weighting into the schedules have proved far inferior to SFraser's 'number of attributes per training category' approach...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Son of a Gun:

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

Alot of injuries any suggestions in changing anything?

Hey Kevinmatt, nothing's wrong with our hormones I guess, but we're not your personal librarians...

No offense intended, but I would suggest some scrolling in the upward direction next time before posing your question... Oh yeah, and when upward scrolling does not come up with an answer, there's probably a previous page that does...

In the meantime I've quoted dfgrigg again, this time for your convenience. Hope this helps you out!

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

After implementing your schedules and followed the prgression on the player attributes screen. I found out that reflexes are trained for Outfield players. I found out when I shorted on Aerobic category of the attributes history screen. Several of my outfield players had a rize in the reflexes attribute. The Aerobic category should there for have 6 notches as a starting point to keep the schedules balanced.

Be aware that a rising attributes is not proof of training effect. There are more non-trainable attributes that may change over time, f.e. due to in-match events...

So, while you did observe a trend of improving reflexes in your team, this does not automatically mean that this trend is training related!

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

Son of a Gun:

SFraser made a slight miscalculation with the Strength and Aerobic training category: it appears there are actually only 3 Strength attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Strength category (rather than 4); and there are only 5 Aerobic attributes that can be trained for outfield players in the Aerobic category (rather than 6).

SFraser will be releasing updated schedules at some point soon. In the meantime though you should reduce the Strength and Aerobic training for all outfield schedules. To do this, work out how many notches the schedules are currently using, then divide it by 4 (for Strength) and 6 (for Aerobic). Then reduce the slider notches by the number you've calculated.

This should reduce the number of injuries you get as the workload will be lighter.

hi sfraser

thank for the training but the only problem am havin is my players are gettin injured, what should i do

thank you

You can start by reading this thread. This issue was addressed before. It's only 3 pages long anyway.

am sorry but i did ask that to sfraser not to you sehns

Master kool B, even though you did not intend to ask your question to anyone but SFraser, I'm still going to provide you with an answer, or perhaps, more of a return question.

First of all, I assume that you've seen the statement made by dfgrigg which I've quoted above, in response to a previous question regarding injury issues in relation to these training schedules...

Then, did the suggested improvement help reducing your injury frequention and/or severity? Is it a problem far a particular section of your squad (U17, first team, veterans) or players in a particular position? What type of injuries do you see mostly? And do they occur in match or during training? And during what type of training, strength or aerobic related?

Would love to hear you specify on this so we could try to help you on this one...

BTW: in case you would just want SFraser to answer, his PM box is open 24/7...

[SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10]

I will take responsibilty for producing an Excel based 'Training Design Tool' of some sort. It will probably look like the demonstrator I posted earlier but I could build in the Overall Workload contributions I solved for FM2009 if you remember those.

Should you need some help of any kind, please just let me know...

Some weeks ago I've chatted with SFraser about the possibility of creating this kind of 'all encompassing' training tool, kind of in line with the Team Talk Optimizer (shameless plug ) that I've launched before!

It's good to see this thread really forming the thought process on this approach to composing training schedules now. Big thumps up for all contributors for holding onto a 'focussed' discussion...

Anyway, just let me know if you need a hand on this one...

Would be a waste of time to compose the same kind of tool independent of each other...