Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
SFraser

SFraser's Training Schedules for FM10

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do players' positions decide which attribute to be improved? Which one to work on?

Centre backs' composure attributes rise but finishing and long shots don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So do players' positions decide which attribute to be improved? Which one to work on?

Centre backs' composure attributes rise but finishing and long shots don't.

Yes - positional weightings. Read the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna start using this probably, but should I put the injured players in the schedules during their injuries or for 1month after their injuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Those are not the correct attribute weights, and from my investigations into training and discussions with other people about training I have found no evidence that attribute weights are actually involved in training.

Attribute weights seem to me to be like CA and PA values. Important "under-the-hood" values with minimal gameplay involvement. The fact that a Centrebacks Tackling attribute takes up 10x more CA than his Finishing attribute is completely irrelevant from a gameplay point of view, and rightly so.

The only time attribute weights have any relevence is when you are using editors to design players yourself.

It would be a mistake to force players to learn attribute weights in order to carry out training. It is a completely unrealistic mechanic used only to balance the game. Making it an integral part of training rather than designing code to hide it from gameplay would significantly negatively impact the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are not the correct attribute weights, and from my investigations into training and discussions with other people about training I have found no evidence that attribute weights are actually involved in training.

Attribute weights seem to me to be like CA and PA values. Important "under-the-hood" values with minimal gameplay involvement. The fact that a Centrebacks Tackling attribute takes up 10x more CA than his Finishing attribute is completely irrelevant from a gameplay point of view, and rightly so.

The only time attribute weights have any relevence is when you are using editors to design players yourself.

It would be a mistake to force players to learn attribute weights in order to carry out training. It is a completely unrealistic mechanic used only to balance the game. Making it an integral part of training rather than designing code to hide it from gameplay would significantly negatively impact the game.

Totally agree - there's no way in hell that they would expect people to try and work out weightings for players. It IS however completely realistic for them to expect people check how many stats are in each category (and then how important they are for the player you are trying to train). Also, how exactly would you work the weightings for players who can play in alot of different positions i.e. gerrard???

Keep up the good work SFraser et al - doing some testing with these schedules myself with some good results so far :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are not the correct attribute weights, and from my investigations into training and discussions with other people about training I have found no evidence that attribute weights are actually involved in training.

Attribute weights seem to me to be like CA and PA values. Important "under-the-hood" values with minimal gameplay involvement. The fact that a Centrebacks Tackling attribute takes up 10x more CA than his Finishing attribute is completely irrelevant from a gameplay point of view, and rightly so.

The only time attribute weights have any relevence is when you are using editors to design players yourself.

It would be a mistake to force players to learn attribute weights in order to carry out training. It is a completely unrealistic mechanic used only to balance the game. Making it an integral part of training rather than designing code to hide it from gameplay would significantly negatively impact the game.

I second this!

Furthermore, the link posted is by Jumbalumba is misleading. The numbers in that table are the weighting RANKS not the weight values themselves.

SFraser, have you checked your email recently?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To know the good training schedule for each player, there is only ONE solution :

- Put the sliders of every area training in the same position. For full time player, it's 12 or 13 notches. After two or better three months

of training and complete match practise, you will see that the training graph for each area is not at the same height, some are high, some are low, some are in the middle. As you know that your slider are in the same position (so same intensity), you can conclude logically that each graph reflect the possibility for your player to train in this specific area. So now the only thing to do, it's to adjust slider in the same way that the graph show the difference between areas. After adjustment finished, you can increase if you can each slider of 1 or 2 depending on the general load of training, you want to give...

I think it's the only way to find accurate training for each player without need to imagine what we can't know from SI developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry, this just isn't true.

The graph you are referring to represents the training intensity modified by the quality of your coaches and the personality of the player. It is not an indication of how training should be set up.

If you do this you will most likely see players developing positionally undersireable attributes. I know this because I have trialled the exact method you have described myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No sorry, this just isn't true.

The graph you are referring to represents the training intensity modified by the quality of your coaches and the personality of the player. It is not an indication of how training should be set up.

For myself, i think It's not the training intensity, but the training "reaction" of the player to the intensity (mixed with quality of coach and personality)...that's why, if the graph in a specific area is low, it means that you will never gain some attribute in this area even if you put the load to heavy position. So why loose "load space" in an area who never increase better to use the load to another area who can be developed !!!

Example : I put all sliders to 13 notches that it means a load of training for each area to a possible gain of attributes. How do you explain that after three months of training and match exercise without injury for a player, graph area for defense is at the bottom ? because he didn't react with defense training. So you can put heavy load on defense, he will never train more on defense. So it's a waste of time. It's better to put more load on a training where he react good.

And you talk about undesirables attributes, but I think it's not good to think like that. Perhaps all attributes count for a player during a match....you can't imagine that the Match engine only used the 7 or 8 attributes that you can see in the tactic view....All attributes is used in the multiple formula to translate how is going the player in the match engine...

To resume, even Defense training is useful for an attack player or a midfield....

For me position training is not the good thing to maximise chance to develop your player to his best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For myself, i think It's not the training intensity, but the training "reaction" of the player to the intensity (mixed with quality of coach and personality)

Yes, well I think we're saying the same thing. A player's personality and the ability of your coaches are involved in determining the 'response' to the training intensity you set.

Example : I put all sliders to 13 notches that it means a load of training for each area to a possible gain of attributes. How do you explain that after three months of training and match exercise without injury for a player, graph area for defense is at the bottom ? because he didn't react with defense training.

This example is indicative of a poor personality, most likely unprofessional. I don't have too much experience with these player types as I usually try and rid my squad of them asap. I have never seen a situation like the one you describe, I'm sure you've checked that you have a coach assigned to the Defending category and that he is not overloaded.

And you talk about undesirables attributes, but I think it's not good to think like that. Perhaps all attributes count for a player during a match....you can't imagine that the Match engine only used the 7 or 8 attributes that you can see in the tactic view....All attributes is used in the multiple formula to translate how is going the player in the match engine...

To resume, even Defense training is useful for an attack player or a midfield....

For me position training is not the good thing to maximise chance to develop your player to his best.

Set Pieces are of no use to a DC, as an example. And I would imagine that these are never used in the ME unless you assign your DC to take free kicks or corners. Furthermore, the knowledge we have is that a position and age based approach is a good starting point for training schedule design. Then there is scope for adding a few additional flavours to these baselines.

I wouldn't be comfortable in assigning individual schedules based on the player's own response. In essence the player is telling you how to train him whereas, as the manager, you should be giving the instructions based on how you wish to see him perform in your tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This example is indicative of a poor personality, most likely unprofessional. I don't have too much experience with these player types as I usually try and rid my squad of them asap. I have never seen a situation like the one you describe, I'm sure you've checked that you have a coach assigned to the Defending category and that he is not overloaded.

Yes but how can you explain that he got high graph in ball control for example ? If he have poor personality and unprofessional, he would get low graph on all area.. For me, he got high graph, cause he has big possibility to increase in ball control... Tonite, I will upload some screen shot from my training to show you.

For set pieces, you take a bad example cause it's a specific training who is often at low load cause I agree he is used a little during match...And I think it's current to have a DC who take Set Pieces if he got a good long shot with strength.

And to conclude, I agree with you for Age. I forget to talk but after sliders adjustment, you need to adjust one more time sliders with age of the player : Young with more Strength and aerobic than technical training, middle age with more technical training and old players with low aerobic, a good strength and high technical you want to maintain or compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SO here is my training for one of my player :

354522schedule.png

and the result after 3 months of complete match without injury :

850246levels.png

You can seel all the difference levels between training area ??? that is I call reaction from the player to training.

So now, I will adjust training sliders like to have a copy of the graph difference between area.

In my example, You can train shooting with heavy load, the player will never train more than what you see on this graph.....

but perhaps, someone else can explain why there is difference on the different graphs ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO here is my training for one of my player :

354522schedule.png

and the result after 3 months of complete match without injury :

850246levels.png

You can seel all the difference levels between training area ??? that is I call reaction from the player to training.

So now, I will adjust training sliders like to have a copy of the graph difference between area.

In my example, You can train shooting with heavy load, the player will never train more than what you see on this graph.....

but perhaps, someone else can explain why there is difference on the different graphs ??

What position does he play in? How old is he? What are the levels of all your coaches? Which coaches are assigned to each category? What is the "hardness of training" of these coaches?

If you're gunnu post "evidence" you really need to give every1 the whole story...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What position does he play in? How old is he? What are the levels of all your coaches? Which coaches are assigned to each category? What is the "hardness of training" of these coaches?

If you're gunnu post "evidence" you really need to give every1 the whole story...

There is only one specific coach for each area. All coaches work with light charge. Levels of coach doesn't change the quality, it's only about speed, so if coach are 5* or 2*, it's the same. For example, my attack coach is 2.5* only, but if I look to another player, attack level is higher than the first one :

with same training shedule than first player, i get that training levels :

437749other.png

to compare, I put again the first player levels :

850246levels.png

I don't want to give "evidence", but just to show how is possible to find what is the best balance between training area for each player....After finding the balance, you can adjust training area sliders following age of player, or position or everything you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim I am not sure what you are saying here, but I can see that you are working with Categories and not taking into account the impact on individual Attributes.

Any schedules you design based on Training Levels and Training Progress will always fail to account for the fact that there are different numbers of attributes in each Category. The bar graphs do not take into account the number of attributes in a Category, and while I am sure they are supposed to show useful information, I am not convinced they are of any real use when it comes to getting the desired end results in terms of Attribute increases.

The bar graphs have always been a huge bone of contention when it comes to Training, and attempting to figure out what exactly they mean has lead to all manner of weird and not-so-wonderful Training theories that simply don't produce the desired effects. In my personal opinion they are supposed to be useful for comparing input and end result, but they are completely useless because they fail to take into account the different numbers of attributes in each Category, and so do not explain to anyone how attributes themselves are improving, only how Categories are improving.

There is definately information to be taken from these Bar Charts, but first of all we need to find out how to go about designing even roughly accurate schedules before we can go about interpreting Bar Charts that fail to take into account key information, and fail to inform the player to consider that information. The only way to do that is to ignore superficial information that may very well be misleading, and go directly to comparing schedules to attribute improvements. Or indeed by designing schedules to improve each attribute in each category by a specific amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we know for certain that the 'experience' points gained from competitive matches are distributed evenly prior to training affecting the allocation? I have no idea, I'm just asking. Could it not be that a Fullback (for example) would have CA points distributed more heavily to the attributes he uses in match (tackling, dribbling, stamina etc) rather than attributes he is not using but is training in? So if I was training him like a striker (for some crazy reason) but was playing him as a Fullback in matches, would I still see most improvement in the typical 'Fullback' attributes and not much in Finishing etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, I will adjust training sliders like to have a copy of the graph difference between area.

In my example, You can train shooting with heavy load, the player will never train more than what you see on this graph.....

Could you try this then? There must be someone in your squad who has a low level in a certain area on the graph that contains attributes you want him to improve, so you can change them to training intensely on one category and a couple of notches less than normal for all other categories without damaging their progress.

If after a few months the bar graph is about the same as it was before doing the change, your theory is probably correct. Before that I'll struggle to accept it since it does seem to be counter intuitive that no matter how much you train a player in certain areas, he will never improve much beyond his current level, particularly since in the database, there seems to be no "attribute cap" (for want of a better phrase) anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the alterations, I have calculated the changes regarding the mis-count of Strength, Aerobic and Ball Control for outfield players. Am I right in presuming we need to do the recount for short and long term injury schedules?

Also, I then noticed this post which I must have missed before:

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.

From what I can tell, the FB changes create a slight WB/FB divide, so could be seperated into two schedules, and likewise the CB changes seem to take it more away from a ball playing defender and more towards the limited defender, so again could be split into two schedules quite easily.

Would these be reasonable assumptions for creating the mentioned schedules?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, thanks for your reply. I don't know if we can continue to talk on your topic because I don't want to disturb your training schedule topic, perhaps can I open a new topic for training talk....just tell me.

What I say from training didn't come from my imagination but from what you can read of the Marc Vaughan hints & Tips dated 2007 when they introduce the training like we can see in FM2010...here is the link to download guide in Word format : http://www.sigames.com/downloads.save.php?id=379&file=471

Here is some extract :

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

Whats a sensible training level?

The ‘safe’ level for training players at varies according to the player in question, generally speaking players who have high stamina and natural fitness can handle more strenuous training regimes than players who don’t.

There are exceptions to this though and it is best to learn about your squad by setting them initially to a safe level (high levels are shown by being to the right of the bar on the area where you set the training intensities) and tweaking things for a few players at a time and seeing whether they appear to be handling the new regime safely or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm...does this mean the theory of how many attributes in a category determines how many notches should be added, mentioned all along in this thread is wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's interesting to read one more time Hits from Marc Vaughan, you can find also this explanation :

It should be noted that training ‘shapes’ a player over time, as such there is no ‘maximum’ gain that a player can acquire from training in an area beyond that that his potential allows – HOWEVER past a certain point his gain in that area may be given because he is lacking focus elsewhere (ie. He will be losing attribute points in another area).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I say from training didn't come from my imagination but from what you can read of the Marc Vaughan hints & Tips dated 2007 when they introduce the training like we can see in FM2010...here is the link to download guide in Word format : http://www.sigames.com/downloads.save.php?id=379&file=471

Jim, is there a 2010 version of this guide?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I can recall, little - if anything - has changed within the training module of the game since it was implemented. Therefore Hints and Tips for Football Manager 2007

by Marc Vaughan & Nick Habershon, should still be relevant.

Here's the full section on training from that publication.

Training

Basic Overview

Training in FM 2007 is far quite simple to use – push the sliders on a schedule around to ensure that it concentrates upon the areas which you feel are more important for the players who are upon it.

The initial default schedule which outfield players start upon is aimed at being a balanced schedule which will generally maintain all attributes - you can increase the workload of this schedule, but you will tire the players out more and increase the chances of them getting more training injuries.

Divide your players into schedules based on areas of their game that they are lacking on. You may decide to have 3 or 4 basic schedules focusing on improving fitness, ball control, etc. Alternatively you could create a custom schedule for each player as no two players are alike and each may require individual training.

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

The values in the Training Levels graph map roughly on to the Attributes graph. His attributes for that training category do not change at the same rate as each other - for example, if the Attacking bar increases by 10% on the Training Levels graph, it might mean that his Creativity increases by 12% and his Passing by 8%.

The coaches

If the training process ends with fitter, better players then it starts with getting your coaching set-up right. Look at their attributes to determine their proficiency in each of the training areas and allocate them to routines that suit their skills. Clearly, if you are at a smaller club, you may not have the resources to fund a range of coaches. But, regardless of your current set-up, it pays to understand how coaches work and how their ability to improve your players can be hampered or improved.

The ideal setup is to have 5 star ratings in each training category (see Training, Coaches accessed via the left-hand panel in your Squad menu), reflecting the fact that you have a top coach in each discipline. A very good coach who is assigned to just the one category will give you 5 stars if his coaching rating is high in that area. The more categories that he is assigned to, the lower his rating will be for each category. For example if you have a coach with a rating of 20 for attacking coaching, you will get a 5 star rating for Attacking if he is assigned only to this category. If you assign him to 2 categories you may only get a 4 star rating. If you assign him to all of the categories, you may only get 1 or 2 stars.

You also need to make sure the workload isn't too high otherwise players will suffer from not getting enough attention.

The players

It takes around 2 months generally for most players to receive the full effects from starting a balanced normal training regime after a period of inactivity (ie. Coming back from holiday).

When players improve during their developmental years to reach their potential, their training schedules are looked at to determine the areas in which they improve most on. These changes are more permanent than the simple training levels. Thus the longer you keep players on the same schedules, the more their abilities will stick to the new values.

It should be noted that training ‘shapes’ a player over time, as such there is no ‘maximum’ gain that a player can acquire from training in an area beyond that that his potential allows – HOWEVER past a certain point his gain in that area may be given because he is lacking focus elsewhere (ie. He will be losing attribute points in another area).

Spotting the potential for a player's improvement is a fairly tricky calculation that you can't do by a quick flick at his attributes. His professionalism, current morale, jadedness, work rate, and determination are all used to decide what level he can reach. The calculation also uses the club variables like the training facilities and quality and workload of the coaches.

Heavily training players can make it harder for them to stay fully fit and ready for matches. If you have a key player who is struggling to cope with the repeated demands of matches during a season consider lowering his training regime slightly.

You might find he loses his edge slightly because he’s training less, but that’s better imho than him not being fully fit.

What affects what?

The following table lists what attributes are affected by each of the various training categories which you can modify in a training schedule. This should help you decide which areas require intensive training and which can be left low.

Category---------Attributes Affected

Strength---------Natural Fitness, Stamina, Strength, Work Rate,

Aerobic----------Acceleration, Agility, Balance, Jumping, Pace, Reflexes

Goalkeeping------Aerial Ability, Handling, Kicking, Throwing, One on Ones

Tactics----------Anticipation, Decisions, Positioning, Movement, Teamwork, Command of Area

Ball Control------Dribbling, First Touch, Technique, Flair, Heading

Defending--------Tackling, Marking, Concentration

Attacking--------Passing, Vision, Shooting, Finishing, Long Shots, Composure

Set Pieces-------Crossing, Corners, Free Kicks, Penalties, Long Throws

Whats a sensible training level?

The ‘safe’ level for training players at varies according to the player in question, generally speaking players who have high stamina and natural fitness can handle more strenuous training regimes than players who don’t.

There are exceptions to this though and it is best to learn about your squad by setting them initially to a safe level (high levels are shown by being to the right of the bar on the area where you set the training intensities) and tweaking things for a few players at a time and seeing whether they appear to be handling the new regime safely or not.

Retraining players for position

You can find the option for retraining a player for a specific position in the ‘training’ section of a player’s profile.

Players tend to be more likely to progress with position training if they are young than when they are old. Exceptions to this do exist, notably for hard-working players moving into more defensive positions as they get older, however these are fairly rare.

The likelihood of a player retraining for a position is dependant upon his preferences and abilities; a defender with a 1 finishing and no interest in attacking is thus unlikely to be particularly motivated to retrain as a striker whereas his brother a fellow defender with 8 finishing and 8 off the ball will probably be very interested in retraining in that position.

When retraining a player, if successful, you will find he moves through a series of stages towards being ‘Accomplished’ in this position. A player can never be trained into being a ‘Natural’ in a position, it’s something you’re either born to be or not.

The various stages of development for a position are listed below in order of rank (ie. First is the best possible):

Natural

Accomplished

Competent

Un-convincing

Awkward

Ineffectual

Can a player learn a position by simply playing in that position

A player cannot learn a position simply by playing there in matches, but if he is training in that position then playing there during matches does complement his positional development.

If you think about things logically this makes a fair amount of sense, a match is merely 90 minutes a week whereas the player is training for 20+ hours a week and so on its own a match will not be enough to fully train a player for a new position.

The only thing that's changed a little is the "star" rating system for coaches, to better take into account their "key" attributes for different training areas.

Without a doubt, because of the slider system for intensities of training in each field, there's obviously a lot of scope to tailor a regime for each and every player. Clearly though, the reaction to any training regime is more down to how the individual responds. It's with this in mind that I would point to the following quote from that guide:

The ‘safe’ level for training players at varies according to the player in question, generally speaking players who have high stamina and natural fitness can handle more strenuous training regimes than players who don’t.

I would also add some of the hidden attributes to that, such as the obvious "professionalism".

Therefore, "blanket" training schedules or the default "general" schedule, will still increase players attributes within their CA/PA boundaries. How "well" they progress in training, is entirely down to the individual.

Essentially, you have the freedom with the current system and tools available, to be as detailed as you want to be. The extreme not only being position specific, but player specific. You could, given the right assessment of an individual player's needs, make a stand-alone training schedule, unique to a single player.

How many people would actually devote the time to tailor a unique regime for each of their players, is debatable. This would be the "best" way to maximise growth of a player though.

There's simply that many variables at play with training, that this is perhaps why I've never delved too deeply into it seriously, taking the "easy" route with a more "blanket" option. Likewise, my usual "merry-go-round" transfer policy, means I would only see the benefits with just a few key players over the course of a number of seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, from what I understand by reading the comments in this thread, the strength, aerobic and ball control schedules seems to be slighty miscalculated. Changed them by myself in my training schedules, but dont really see much improvement at any players except those on the WF, AM and GK schedule.

Those of you who report with great success.. Is that using the original ones or did you tweak yours, just like I did, or at least tried to do :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, from what I understand by reading the comments in this thread, the strength, aerobic and ball control schedules seems to be slighty miscalculated. Changed them by myself in my training schedules, but dont really see much improvement at any players except those on the WF, AM and GK schedule.

Those of you who report with great success.. Is that using the original ones or did you tweak yours, just like I did, or at least tried to do :)

The tweaked schedules should lighten the workload and try to help the number of injuries people were experiencing. They wont improve the player more, but they will make the category training more even. Before there was a slight bias towards the str, aer and ball control categories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SFraser, thanks for your reply. I don't know if we can continue to talk on your topic because I don't want to disturb your training schedule topic, perhaps can I open a new topic for training talk....just tell me.

What I say from training didn't come from my imagination but from what you can read of the Marc Vaughan hints & Tips dated 2007 when they introduce the training like we can see in FM2010...here is the link to download guide in Word format : http://www.sigames.com/downloads.save.php?id=379&file=471

What you have read from Marc Vaughan and invented based on that information is irrelevant. We have all read these tips. What matters is end results. You have shown zero end results. You have no screenshots of improvements and no explanation for improvements. You have only an idea that you should base training off of Training Level bar charts.

Everyone has had that idea, everyone has failed to achieve either desireable end results or a desireable level of understanding of the entire training system based on that idea. The information given by Marc Vaughan is vague, it is open to interpretation, and it tells everyone very little. Not only is it vague, but much of the detail is wrong. Indeed the attributes Marc Vaughan said are trainable are attributes I assumed were trainable, and then through this specific thread and the discussion it has generated, discovered they were infact incorrect.

This thread is a not an FM10 manual paragraph written to appear friendly and funny and provide a rough overview of training. This is a deeply serious training thread attempting to explain, or discover, the fine details of training through study, analysis, experimentation and discussion of fundamental game mechanics. This thread is the culmination of over a years worth of direct community effort to look into the basic function of all game mechanics relevant to training, and many more years of indirect effort.

The bottom line though is end results. The bottom line is being able to judge and design schedules that give the desired end results in terms of specific attribute increases. To my knowledge these schedules and this concept in this thread are light years ahead of every other approach to training in terms of results, and also in terms of empowering people to achieve the desired results. It is a simple premise, but it takes into account every single essential detail not explained to FM users, and it constantly looks out for information regarding every other possible detail.

You are more than welcome to pose questions to me, and ask questions of this training premise, but if you are going to regularly pose questions in a completely vague and uninformative manner, based on an idea long rejected by me, then you are going to have to produce evidence of end results.

That is all training is about. It is not about bar charts or theories or overall workload limits or numbers. It is about getting the ideal attribute increases. I am proud of the precise attribute increases seen in these schedules, and I can explain to you in exhaustive detail precisely why they occur. If you are capable of equivelant end results via a completely different method then I am all ears. If you are not capable then you are not capable and it should not be up to me to explain this to you.

Here is some extract :

Understanding the graphs

The new training overview screen (accessed by clicking on a player and then selecting the option from the left-hand panel) is a godsend for those who have feared tinkering with their regimes in the past, though few people understand the proper meaning of the Training Levels graph. It's actually dead simple...

The graphs represent the current training levels of the player, not the training improvement. If a bar is at the highest point, it means that he has reached his maximum limit in that category. If the bar is at the lowest point, it means that he cannot get any worse from training.

Between the highest and lowest limits, there is a range of 4-6 ability points depending on which player you are looking at. Players with high professionalism and work rate will keep themselves in shape more than other players so will have a lower range of possible attribute values.

Training Levels correspond to Category data. Marc Vaughan says exactly this himself. Identical and maximum Training Levels for all Categories means maximum and identical levels for each Category. Crucially however each Category does not contain the same amount of attributes, and the attributes contained in each Training Category are a mixture of attributes from different Attribute Profile Panels. Maximum Tactics Level and Maximum Strength Level means that the Categories are being Trained at the same Level. Strength contains 3 trainable attributes, two of which are Physical Attributes. Tactics contains 5 trainable attributes, all of them are Mental Attributes.

In a 19 year old player, where Physical Attributes naturally improve rapidly and Mental Attributes naturally struggle to improve, the Strength Category will not only have a 3:5 advantage over Tactics in terms of individual attributes, but an additional advantage in terms of improvement rate. Strength Attributes will go through the roof, Mental Attributes will barely budge, despite both Categories having the same Training Level.

I am not going to go through the rest of your post. I have explained all that is necessary in the post, and this thread as a whole contains just about everything you could wish to know. Your idea is superficially flawed because you fail to produce superior end results, it is fundamentally flawed because you fail to take into account how the game functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The tweaked schedules should lighten the workload and try to help the number of injuries people were experiencing. They wont improve the player more, but they will make the category training more even. Before there was a slight bias towards the str, aer and ball control categories.

Alright, just seem to be getting lesser results after my tweaking. Unless im mistaken, I am supposed to knock down str, aerobic and ball control by 1 for each focus right? 16 str goes down to 12, 24 aerobic to 20, 15 ball control to 12 etc.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SO here is my training for one of my player :

354522schedule.png

and the result after 3 months of complete match without injury :

850246levels.png

You can seel all the difference levels between training area ??? that is I call reaction from the player to training.

So now, I will adjust training sliders like to have a copy of the graph difference between area.

In my example, You can train shooting with heavy load, the player will never train more than what you see on this graph.....

but perhaps, someone else can explain why there is difference on the different graphs ??

What you have read from Marc Vaughan and invented based on that information is irrelevant. We have all read these tips. What matters is end results. You have shown zero end results. You have no screenshots of improvements and no explanation for improvements. You have only an idea that you should base training off of Training Level bar charts.

Everyone has had that idea, everyone has failed to achieve either desireable end results or a desireable level of understanding of the entire training system based on that idea. The information given by Marc Vaughan is vague, it is open to interpretation, and it tells everyone very little. Not only is it vague, but much of the detail is wrong. Indeed the attributes Marc Vaughan said are trainable are attributes I assumed were trainable, and then through this specific thread and the discussion it has generated, discovered they were infact incorrect.

This thread is a not an FM10 manual paragraph written to appear friendly and funny and provide a rough overview of training. This is a deeply serious training thread attempting to explain, or discover, the fine details of training through study, analysis, experimentation and discussion of fundamental game mechanics. This thread is the culmination of over a years worth of direct community effort to look into the basic function of all game mechanics relevant to training, and many more years of indirect effort.

The bottom line though is end results. The bottom line is being able to judge and design schedules that give the desired end results in terms of specific attribute increases. To my knowledge these schedules and this concept in this thread are light years ahead of every other approach to training in terms of results, and also in terms of empowering people to achieve the desired results. It is a simple premise, but it takes into account every single essential detail not explained to FM users, and it constantly looks out for information regarding every other possible detail.

You are more than welcome to pose questions to me, and ask questions of this training premise, but if you are going to regularly pose questions in a completely vague and uninformative manner, based on an idea long rejected by me, then you are going to have to produce evidence of end results.

That is all training is about. It is not about bar charts or theories or overall workload limits or numbers. It is about getting the ideal attribute increases. I am proud of the precise attribute increases seen in these schedules, and I can explain to you in exhaustive detail precisely why they occur. If you are capable of equivelant end results via a completely different method then I am all ears. If you are not capable then you are not capable and it should not be up to me to explain this to you.

Training Levels correspond to Category data. Marc Vaughan says exactly this himself. Identical and maximum Training Levels for all Categories means maximum and identical levels for each Category. Crucially however each Category does not contain the same amount of attributes, and the attributes contained in each Training Category are a mixture of attributes from different Attribute Profile Panels. Maximum Tactics Level and Maximum Strength Level means that the Categories are being Trained at the same Level. Strength contains 3 trainable attributes, two of which are Physical Attributes. Tactics contains 5 trainable attributes, all of them are Mental Attributes.

In a 19 year old player, where Physical Attributes naturally improve rapidly and Mental Attributes naturally struggle to improve, the Strength Category will not only have a 3:5 advantage over Tactics in terms of individual attributes, but an additional advantage in terms of improvement rate. Strength Attributes will go through the roof, Mental Attributes will barely budge, despite both Categories having the same Training Level.

I am not going to go through the rest of your post. I have explained all that is necessary in the post, and this thread as a whole contains just about everything you could wish to know. Your idea is superficially flawed because you fail to produce superior end results, it is fundamentally flawed because you fail to take into account how the game functions.

This was exactly my point a couple of posts ago - saying things like "How can you explain..." and then giving absolutely NO information whatsoever about the player and coaches in question is completely useless and misses the point of this thread entirely. If you guys are going to turn up at the end of a 4 page thread and basically say "This 3 year old information says your wrong" (when that's not even true) and then give absolutely no evidence to counter the pages (literally) of pictures and numbers that others have posted as proof/research then frankly I'd rather you don't bother posting - it's clogging the thread up (much like the various replies already posted asking you to provide proper information).

I'll say it agan - keep up the good work SFraser - theorycrafting rocks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because result prove nothing....as if you read all forums about FM2010, you will see that everybody have increase their player even with the most stupid training. You will find lot of screenshot with green arrow everywhere but it cannot prove that the training is the most accurate for the player and that he gain all the CA capacity.

You ask me "how can you explain", I can only reply that I read Marc Vaughan Tips about training and do what he told us....

I don't say, that SFraser training is bad or not, I just post my method to show how I find which area need to be train for each player and ask how do you think of that to know if someone find that my method is logical. But everybody attack me like If i said that Sfraser is the devil.....So be lucky, I will stop to post.

but before retirement I have just one question : At first page, we can read : Designing Category intensities based on numbers of attributes contained within each Category....

What are the "scientific" elements in the game that prove intensities are based on numbers of attributes contain in each category ? or can you find us a document from developers who said that intensites are base on numbers of attributes ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because result prove nothing....as if you read all forums about FM2010, you will see that everybody have increase their player even with the most stupid training. You will find lot of screenshot with green arrow everywhere but it cannot prove that the training is the most accurate for the player and that he gain all the CA capacity.

You ask me "how can you explain", I can only reply that I read Marc Vaughan Tips about training and do what he told us....

I don't say, that SFraser training is bad or not, I just post my method to show how I find which area need to be train for each player and ask how do you think of that to know if someone find that my method is logical. But everybody attack me like If i said that Sfraser is the devil.....So be lucky, I will stop to post.

but before retirement I have just one question : At first page, we can read : Designing Category intensities based on numbers of attributes contained within each Category....

What are the "scientific" elements in the game that prove intensities are based on numbers of attributes contain in each category ? or can you find us a document from developers who said that intensites are base on numbers of attributes ?

I think you may be missing the point slightly. Plenty of people have tested these schedules and found the specific attributes that they targeted have increased considerably over a period of 1-2 seasons which is what we are after. You could leave all the categories on 0 and still see green arrows because of the influx of CA gained from match experience etc, its just that it will be spread among all the attributes without any focus.

When people on here are asking for results, they dont just mean green arrows or that shooting has increased by 5 for a CB, they are talking about specific gains in attributes that were targeted.

Unfortunately there arent any 'scientific' or 'definitive' elements as such as training is probably the least explained facet of the game and SI have said very little, which is why this thread has come about as at the moment this is the most logical, most understandable 'theory' that has provided the best results. I think everyone who has contributed to this thread or others like it would love to know the exact details on training but sadly they are not available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retraining players for position

You can find the option for retraining a player for a specific position in the ‘training’ section of a player’s profile.

Players tend to be more likely to progress with position training if they are young than when they are old. Exceptions to this do exist, notably for hard-working players moving into more defensive positions as they get older, however these are fairly rare.

The likelihood of a player retraining for a position is dependant upon his preferences and abilities; a defender with a 1 finishing and no interest in attacking is thus unlikely to be particularly motivated to retrain as a striker whereas his brother a fellow defender with 8 finishing and 8 off the ball will probably be very interested in retraining in that position.

When retraining a player, if successful, you will find he moves through a series of stages towards being ‘Accomplished’ in this position. A player can never be trained into being a ‘Natural’ in a position, it’s something you’re either born to be or not.

The various stages of development for a position are listed below in order of rank (ie. First is the best possible):

Natural

Accomplished

Competent

Un-convincing

Awkward

Ineffectual

I thought this particular theory had been debunked some time ago, or am I mistaken?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this particular theory had been debunked some time ago, or am I mistaken?

I too have come to believe, from a number of threads, that you can indeed train a player as natural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those are not the correct attribute weights, and from my investigations into training and discussions with other people about training I have found no evidence that attribute weights are actually involved in training.

Attribute weights seem to me to be like CA and PA values. Important "under-the-hood" values with minimal gameplay involvement. The fact that a Centrebacks Tackling attribute takes up 10x more CA than his Finishing attribute is completely irrelevant from a gameplay point of view, and rightly so.

The only time attribute weights have any relevence is when you are using editors to design players yourself.

It would be a mistake to force players to learn attribute weights in order to carry out training. It is a completely unrealistic mechanic used only to balance the game. Making it an integral part of training rather than designing code to hide it from gameplay would significantly negatively impact the game.

I'm not saying that weights affect training. However, we are trying to find the best or optimal training schedule and I do believe, because CA is limited and attributes have their weights that make up CA, that taking into account how weighty attributes are is the best way to go. I view CA as the overriding factor and I view training as a way to mold CA into attributes. Without taking into account the weights of attributes, how can one optimally mold CA into attributes?

You stated in the OP that individual attributes do have their complications based on position (as well as age):

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.

So apart from these complications, you assume that attributes have exactly the same weight with regards to training. Is there any basis for this assumption? This is much the same in comparison to "Number Line Theory" proponents who assume that each training category is weighted equally.

With that said, I do recognise that those aren't the actual weights but are rather the rankings of weights. However, there must have been a way to get those rankings which would be from some sort of raw data closely related to actual weightings. In fact, actual weightings are unnecessary in this study. What is required are relative values to give us an idea of the proportions to make an ideal schedule.

In any case, rankings still gives us a better idea of which attributes the game deems important to the positions. Which attributes are important are a necessary consideration for any schedule rather than a rudimentary schedule based on how many attributes are in each training category. I do recognise that you have made adjustments based on importance of attributes but a less arbitrary study on this is valuable in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too have come to believe, from a number of threads, that you can indeed train a player as natural.

you can indeed train a player to be natural, i once trained modric from accomplished LM to natural LM, and same for valencia. it took about a season and a half for modric, and 2 seasons for valencia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought this particular theory had been debunked some time ago, or am I mistaken?
I too have come to believe, from a number of threads, that you can indeed train a player as natural.

Debunked

I've done it multiple times in FM10, most recently with Axel Witsel at MR (He started at only competent). It may not be common, but it is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When people on here are asking for results, they dont just mean green arrows or that shooting has increased by 5 for a CB, they are talking about specific gains in attributes that were targeted.

Okay Sorry, I don't know that the goal of your training was to gain in some attributes that you target...

For me, a training schedule must be a training where the player increase to his best possibility and to perform at maximum during match....

So sorry, we don't talk about the same thing.

You can understand that individual training is time consuming but it's the best way to improve your player to his maximum even in a 5* club that in a lower league one.

If you put players by training group, I can't see how you can adjust training to have a perfect match condition for each player...as Mark Vaughan said, each player is unique and have unique training area performance....and i don't need to remember you that perfect match condition with perfect match exercise are a guarantee that your player will play at 100% of his attributes during match and perform well in training.

Training is so complex that we, users of FM2010, can't imagine. That's why, SI create the training level graph to make the things as simple as possible. Marc said that too in his tips.

The training schedule you build, can not tell you if you get the best from your player at training but also during match performance. You feel to have good result but you don't know if you could get better......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been using these schedules for my younger players and has got good results. I want to create a schedule to boost aerobic and physical atributes. would it be best to put them on full and nothing else? but then other stats will decrease wont they?

or has anybody got one they can upload?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In addition to this,

What are the injury schedules for? I mean, During the injury or is it injury recovery?

Also what would you consider a long term injury and what a short term?

I'm gonna "up" this 'cause I've wondered the same thing for some time and never gotten a definite answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay Sorry, I don't know that the goal of your training was to gain in some attributes that you target...

For me, a training schedule must be a training where the player increase to his best possibility and to perform at maximum during match....

So sorry, we don't talk about the same thing.

You can understand that individual training is time consuming but it's the best way to improve your player to his maximum even in a 5* club that in a lower league one.

If you put players by training group, I can't see how you can adjust training to have a perfect match condition for each player...as Mark Vaughan said, each player is unique and have unique training area performance....and i don't need to remember you that perfect match condition with perfect match exercise are a guarantee that your player will play at 100% of his attributes during match and perform well in training.

Training is so complex that we, users of FM2010, can't imagine. That's why, SI create the training level graph to make the things as simple as possible. Marc said that too in his tips.

The training schedule you build, can not tell you if you get the best from your player at training but also during match performance. You feel to have good result but you don't know if you could get better......

The thing is very little CA is actually gained through training (as far as I know). The whole training mechanism is about shaping which attributes you wanted to improve through the CA gained from match experience etc. Theoretically you could leave all the schedules on 0 and a player would improve his attributes providing he played enough games with a decent enough reputation.

IMO it seems pointless to train fairly irrelevant attribute categories such as set pieces for centre backs. I dont you would see Sir Alex Ferguson getting Rooney to spend hours on defensive training. Thats not to say he wouldnt do some on occasions, but it would be completely outweighed by offensive and technical training. In terms of performance I would rather Rooney improve his shooting and attacking than waste pointless CA on tackling and marking better.

I know my training is working because the stats I wanted to improve have improved. The training graph doesnt tell me this and I think that is the point you are overlooking.

Having said that I completely agree that each player should be treated individually, especially with some of the attribute anomolies that have occured in previous patches! Sfraser schedules make it much easier to implement individual schedules that get the desired results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's working perhaps with Rooney because Rooney is a great player with lot of space to increase his attributes, and he is trained by a lot of very good coach in a very good training structure in a very good club and play big match in england and Europe...

But all player are not Rooney.

And even Rooney when he will reach his potiental in attacking will not increase any more even if you put shooting in heavy load...and all those informations, you get from the graph and not the attributes.....

so you lost load for other area...As it's a striker, there is a big chance that he will have capacity to increase perhaps in ball control or tactic and less chance to see capacity in defense.....

But to know where training area have capacity to increase and other less, you need to put the training sliders at the same position during 2 or 3 months. After you can study training level graph and adapt the training shedule to the graphs (with some variant according to age of the player). And you will see that for example a striker, have space to train in ball control, or attack or shooting but not in defense, because he is a natural striker....

Don't worry, you will never need to train in heavy load defense for a striker or attacking for a defender, cause naturally he will not have the capacity to train a lot in area that he doesn't used on the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So apart from these complications, you assume that attributes have exactly the same weight with regards to training. Is there any basis for this assumption? This is much the same in comparison to "Number Line Theory" proponents who assume that each training category is weighted equally.

With that said, I do recognise that those aren't the actual weights but are rather the rankings of weights. However, there must have been a way to get those rankings which would be from some sort of raw data closely related to actual weightings. In fact, actual weightings are unnecessary in this study. What is required are relative values to give us an idea of the proportions to make an ideal schedule.

In any case, rankings still gives us a better idea of which attributes the game deems important to the positions. Which attributes are important are a necessary consideration for any schedule rather than a rudimentary schedule based on how many attributes are in each training category. I do recognise that you have made adjustments based on importance of attributes but a less arbitrary study on this is valuable in my opinion.

It is you that is jumping to conclusions and making assumptions. You assume that it is important to know the relative weightings in order to make accurate schedules, but you have no evidence or arguement to back this up. It is a mere assumption based on the fact you are aware that attribute weightings exist.

There are many arguements against Attribute Weights directly factoring into Training.

1: If Training alters attributes directly rather than manipulating CA directly then Attribute Weights are irrelevant. CA will automatically redistribute into the improved or declining attributes according to Attribute Weights.

2: It is unrealistic gameplay for players to have to consider Attribute CA Weights when designing schedules, and it is nigh on impossible to discover this information through gameplay. If Attribute Weights are necessary information, Training is impossible without using editors.

3: Attributes do not increase through Training according to their relative Weights. If Attribute Weights were involved in Training then a Strikers Balance would always go up 7x faster than his Acceleration and this would not be alterable.

4: If Attributes went up according to their CA Weight then a Strikers Acceleration would have be trained 21x more than his Tackling for equivelant rates of increase. The entire scale of the sliders would have to be utilised simply to achieve equal rates of improvements in different attributes. Add to that the fact that there are 5 Attributes in Aerobic and only 3 in Defending, and it would be impossible to Train a Striker in his key attributes.

There is quite simply no way that Attribute CA Weights factor directly into Training. There are not enough slider notches to Train incredibly heavy attributes, and there is no evidence that attributes in the same Training Category from the same Attribute Profile Panel go up at hugely different rates. Once you actually try to factor Attribute CA Weights into Training Schedules, you find it is not possible to do so as the scale between CA weights is so vast. Training Schedule Sliders cannot handle attributes that must be trained 10x other attributes as a basic standard before moulding.

It is pretty obvious once you actually take the time to consider it properly. Even using "relative weights" and Training Aerobic at 6x Defending leaves you with only a maximum possible ratio of Aerobic 4:1 Defending if Defending is no higher than notch 1. If Defending is at notch 4, and you ignore the amount of attributes in each Category, then you cannot Train Aerobic any higher than 1:1 using Attribute Weights. If you take into account the numbers of attributes in each Category as well, you cannot favour Key Aerobic Attributes over Defending for improvements in a Striker if Defending is any higher than notch 1. If you use the actual Weights rather than the "Relative Weights" then Training Aerobic becomes impossible.

This is obviously not true. The screenshots in this thread prove that attribute weights do not factor into Training. The largest difference in improvement between attributes in the same Category in these screenshots is around 3:1, not 7:1. These differences can be accounted for by age. If you factor in Attribute Numbers, Attribute Weights, and Age then the differences should be approaching the completely rediculous levels of 50:1 between some attributes.

I will give you an example, Acceleration versus Teamwork in an 32 year old Striker.

To the best of my knowledge, the actual difference in CA Weight for these two attributes is 21:1. Acceleration requires 21x more CA than Teamwork in a Striker.

That is already an increase rate of 21x more Teamwork than Acceleration for the same CA.

Mental Attributes improve rapidly in older players, physical attributes naturally tend to decline. If I am generous and state that there as an Age factor of 2:1 in favour of Mental over Physical at Age 30, then that means we now have an improvement bias of 42:1 in favour of Teamwork.

Aerobic and Tactics both contain the same quantities of attributes. There is no additional bias caused by failing to account for attribute differences.

Our final, natural improvement bias between Acceleration and Teamwork for a 30 year old Striker is 42:1 in favour of Teamwork. By putting Tactics at notch 1 and Aerobic at notch 25 we should be able to reduce this by 24 to a bias of 18:1 in favour of Teamwork.

These are rediculous scales of difference. They are not even remotely accurate. Not only is it completely unrealistic to have Attribute Weights involved in Training from a gameplay perspective, factoring them into Training produces completely unrealistic predictions of end result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SFraser, this thread is top notch. I'm really enjoying the training discussion going on and it's helping me understand training a lot better. Thanks for taking the time to put all of this together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...