Training new position

[Dutchy1983]

Anyone had any luck? Any secret to it like training not much else maybe? I'm sure an AML or AMR shouldn't have too many probs improving familiarity as ML or MR... but none of my players after 18 months have changed. Anderson, Yarmolenko, Martins and Bergwijn. Also Lanzini as a false 9, and Declan Rice as a CM. Is there a bug or are we simply supposed to sell them and buy ready made players for positions?

[Miravlix]

If I understood SI feedback right, position training hasn't changed from FM18 to FM19.

 

What was added is a feedback system and that seems broken at the moment as I keep getting told a player that is natural in a position should stop training because he can only get accomplished and so the training and feedback system doesn't seem to use the same code to figure out what is possible.

 

Position training is not easy, so yeah an AML should have tons of problems training ML, might even be impossible, but zero progress if you set them to train ML->SomeRole isn't what I experience, but I have top training facilities and top staff, with fantastic players that may make things easier, my players can slowly train up to accomplished, but it's hit or miss if they can get to natural.

[Rooneye]

Yeah I've had a lot of luck training my players to new roles/positions. Braithwaite for Boro, trained him to play MR and a wide midfielder. He never used to show up when you click the MR position and pick a player, now he does and his position is now MR, AM(RL), ST(C). Also trained Tavanier to a ST. A few others too.

But yeah they're only accomplished so far, not sure if they'll ever get to natural. I hope they can, specially Tavanier, as his stats are more suited to a striker than a winger.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Rooneye

[Dutchy1983]

1 hour ago, Miravlix said:

If I understood SI feedback right, position training hasn't changed from FM18 to FM19.

 

What was added is a feedback system and that seems broken at the moment as I keep getting told a player that is natural in a position should stop training because he can only get accomplished and so the training and feedback system doesn't seem to use the same code to figure out what is possible.

 

Position training is not easy, so yeah an AML should have tons of problems training ML, might even be impossible, but zero progress if you set them to train ML->SomeRole isn't what I experience, but I have top training facilities and top staff, with fantastic players that may make things easier, my players can slowly train up to accomplished, but it's hit or miss if they can get to natural.

I think its definitely changed. I love 4-4-2, and I'd always have some success retraining the advanced wing positions to ML and R. And yeah I have noticed the feedback system seems flawed, not just with position training.

Surely a guy who is a natural AML Winger Attack, should in time be able to become a ML Winger attack, similar attributes are required. Obviously there are some differentials I understand.

Ill attach some screenshots of my players who haven't changed since the start.

[Caldwell]

It was actually weird for me I started training Diego Rico to become a LM for some versatility and his natural position is LWB and LB, I’m sure he was 3 stars but then at the back end of the season at LB he had totally regressed to a 1.5 star rating.

[Dutchy1983]

Obviously I am training them as Wingers on their preferred footed side. Not even sure a fuller green circle would equate to much difference on the pitch or not? I can only assume. Players seem familiar with their roles and duties

[Xeewaj Q.]

It depends on versatility (hidden) and common sense (full-back will unlikely accomplish striker position etc).

So far (7th FM19 season combined), retraining goes fairly well, players can even become natural in new positions if they play them in matches. However, that new "natural" may drop back even below accomplished (bug?).

For example, here 4 positions were trained in less than a year (WB/M), and soon he'll accomplish both AMs:

[Seb Wassell]

13 hours ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

However, that new "natural" may drop back even below accomplished (bug?).

Learned positions can be lost over time if not trained/played.

[Xeewaj Q.]

2 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

Learned positions can be lost over time if not trained/played.

Yes, I know. Thought it's not the case for natural positions, even if they were learned.

[Seb Wassell]

6 minutes ago, Xeewaj Q. said:

Yes, I know. Thought it's not the case for natural positions, even if they were learned.

Sounds reasonable for 'true' natural (20). Do you have an example of this? 

[Xeewaj Q.]

15 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Sounds reasonable for 'true' natural (20). Do you have an example of this? 

Yes, I do. (But can't check numbers as I disable the editor for non-experimental saves).

I have a youngster, he was by default natural at WB/R and had some kind of greens at D/R and M/R. I trained him for D/R and he became natural at it:

Then I started training M/R and natural D/R dropped below accomplished in about two weeks:

He plays D/R for the first team (sometimes) and for reserves (I use 4-1-3-2 DM Narrow and he can only play as D/R, not WB or M).

That's why I'm curious if it's ok when learned natural can be "unlearned" (it's not completely senseless, maybe he's not that versatile etc) or I should report it as a bug.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Xeewaj Q.
typo

[Seb Wassell]

Just now, Xeewaj Q. said:

Yes, I do. (But can't check numbers as I disable the editor for non-experimental saves).

I have a youngster, he was by default natural at WB/R and had some kind of greens at D/R and M/R. I trained him for D/R and he became natural at it:

Then I started training M/R and natural dropped below accomplished in about two weeks:

He plays D/R for the first team (sometimes) and for reserves (I use 4-1-3-2 DM Narrow and he can only play as D/R, not WB or M).

That's why I'm curious if it's ok when learned natural can be "unlearned" (it's not completely senseless, maybe he's not that versatile etc) or I should report it as a bug.

To make "room" for the new position a previous position can indeed be forgotten. If you open up a bug post for us, including that save, we can have a look to see if it is working as expected here.

[Xeewaj Q.]

1 minute ago, Seb Wassell said:

To make "room" for the new position a previous position can indeed be forgotten. If you open up a bug post for us, including that save, we can have a look to see if it is working as expected here.

Thank you for a quick answer, I'll create a bug post ASAP.

[iiMStevo]

I am yet to succsesfully train any player to Natural in any position. I am also yet to train any player to naturally play a new role in his given position. I'm in my fourth season, and a lot of training hasn't changed for the players still at my club.

[hogesar]

On 20/11/2018 at 15:59, Xeewaj Q. said:

Yes, I do. (But can't check numbers as I disable the editor for non-experimental saves).

I have a youngster, he was by default natural at WB/R and had some kind of greens at D/R and M/R. I trained him for D/R and he became natural at it:

Then I started training M/R and natural D/R dropped below accomplished in about two weeks:

He plays D/R for the first team (sometimes) and for reserves (I use 4-1-3-2 DM Narrow and he can only play as D/R, not WB or M).

That's why I'm curious if it's ok when learned natural can be "unlearned" (it's not completely senseless, maybe he's not that versatile etc) or I should report it as a bug.

More importantly, good team choice!

[Enos]

I've had little success retraining players to new positions, but I frequently play a central midfielder as a fullback.  His attributes are perfect for a fullback and he routinely gets 7s and above so I don't really know why I should bother.

[LukasZ_VCF]

Btw. If I have for example Box to Box midfield and he have PI that I can't change vs a Central Midfield that I will set the same instructions manually he will play 100 % the same? Or it depends of the role ? 

[xBarçax]

11 hours ago, Enos said:

I've had little success retraining players to new positions, but I frequently play a central midfielder as a fullback.  His attributes are perfect for a fullback and he routinely gets 7s and above so I don't really know why I should bother.

You should bother, cuz any time he wants he might become unhappy by being played out of position especially if he is not professional enough. But the ratings and form and the happiness that comes with help your case.

[Seb Wassell]

21 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

I am yet to succsesfully train any player to Natural in any position. I am also yet to train any player to naturally play a new role in his given position. I'm in my fourth season, and a lot of training hasn't changed for the players still at my club.

Getting a player from 0 to Natural (18-20) is very difficult, I would argue correctly so. Accomplished is much more achievable and is only marginally below Natural when it comes to on-field impact. Attributes are king here. The younger, more suited attribute-wise and more versatile the player the more likely they are to learn a new position.

Training a player to "natural" in a role is not a thing. Role suitability is simply a visual indication of how well a player's attributes suit a certain role. For this to change the player's positions or attributes need to change. It is not role familiarity.

[xBarçax]

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 14:43, Seb Wassell said:

Learned positions can be lost over time if not trained/played.

Yes but not in a matter of weeks like the other fella above supports. It should be months to year cuz it actually takes months to retrain a player. It doesn't feel rewarding this way. Do note though i'm not saying to stop playing the player in that position after he becomes natural to it, cuz then what would be the point.

What i'm saying is, we shouldn't have to play him more than what's needed(sparingly or even often) just enough to maintain it. Let's not forget the whole point of retraining him is to have more options, not just to have a player than can play in a different position.

 

Can you look into it and get back to us? If it is so, maybe you guys should consider what i said about the duration.

Edited January 16, 2019 by xBarçax

[Seb Wassell]

16 minutes ago, xBarçax said:

Yes but not in a matter of weeks like the other fella above supports. It should be months to year cuz it actually takes months to retrain a player. It doesn't feel rewarding this way. Do note though i'm not saying to stop playing the player in that position after he becomes natural to it, cuz then what would be the point.

What i'm saying is, we shouldn't have to play him more than what's needed(sparingly or even often) just enough to maintain it. Let's not forget the whole point of retraining him is to have more options, not just to have a player than can play in a different position.

 

Can you look into it and get back to us? If it is so, maybe you guys should consider what i said about the duration.

If you've an example of this working in what you consider to be an unrealistic fashion please do open up a post in a our bug forum and I'll take a look 

[xBarçax]

36 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

If you've an example of this working in what you consider to be an unrealistic fashion please do open up a post in a our bug forum and I'll take a look 

I do have a player right now that im retraining to mc(he is an amc natural) but he is at the process of becoming natural. So not there yet. I had 3 instances in fm18 where players were losing proficiency of the position(not in 2 weeks like in the persons case above but in like a month) even though i was playing them sparingly in that position(25%~ of games). And this mention sparked fear of the same happening with this version. I will let you know.

 

EDIT: Adding the player is 18 years old, versatile, star player and the difference between the 2 positions would probably be that his natural position(amc) is closer to goal than mc is. I have also played him in 25 games across 2 seasons in the position i currently retrain him at. So all in all there shouldn't be a problem.

Edited January 16, 2019 by xBarçax

[iiMStevo]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

Getting a player from 0 to Natural (18-20) is very difficult, I would argue correctly so. Accomplished is much more achievable and is only marginally below Natural when it comes to on-field impact. Attributes are king here. The younger, more suited attribute-wise and more versatile the player the more likely they are to learn a new position.

Training a player to "natural" in a role is not a thing. Role suitability is simply a visual indication of how well a player's attributes suit a certain role. For this to change the player's positions or attributes need to change. It is not role familiarity.

Thanks for the clarification... however it doesn't really work very well then, since Mbappe has insane attributes across the board, especially as a winger, yet he has like a 60% colour marker for his Winger role. He's a Natural in both RW and ST, and yet no role in the RW position is suitable... despite training specifically for the Winger role for the last 3-4 years, he's made no progress at all.

 

Edit: To clarify what I mean...
You can find a Natural RWer with the Winger role listed as 100% effectiveness, yet their attributes can be far inferior than Mbappe's attributes, so how is that the other player is considered 100% effective, and Mbappe isn't? I've attached screenshots... Mbappe vs Lopez. Lopez listed as 100% effective as Winger Support, Mbappe listed as about 60-70% effective as Winger Attack. 
So Mbappe's Crossing is 2 worse, but is equal or better in every other category required for the role... how is it (according to the GUI) that Lopez is more effective than Mbappe?

Edited January 16, 2019 by iiMStevo

[xBarçax]

4 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Thanks for the clarification... however it doesn't really work very well then, since Mbappe has insane attributes across the board, especially as a winger, yet he has like a 60% colour marker for his Winger role. He's a Natural in both RW and ST, and yet no role in the RW position is suitable... despite training specifically for the Winger role for the last 3-4 years, he's made no progress at all.

 

Edit: To clarify what I mean...
You can find a Natural RWer with the Winger role listed as 100% effectiveness, yet their attributes can be far inferior than Mbappe's attributes, so how is that the other player is considered 100% effective, and Mbappe isn't?

What wing do you retrain mbappe on? If you trying to retrain him on a wing opposite to his preferred foot ofcourse he is not gonna gain anything. Wingers need to be on their preferred foots flank not the opposite. Also is he versatile enough to be retrained there?

[iiMStevo]

1 minute ago, xBarçax said:

What wing do you retrain mbappe on? If you trying to retrain him on a wing opposite to his preferred foot ofcourse he is not gonna gain anything. Wingers need to be on their preferred foots flank not the opposite. Also is he versatile enough to be retrained there?

I'm literally just trying to get Mbappe to be an effective Winger, or Inside Forward... basically play at 90-100% effectiveness in the RW position to justify his wages and cost.

Also on another note; Mbappe's decline is unreal and occurs way, way, way too early. I'm constantly having to tell him to train harder, and his progress is poor, and he's predominantly getting worse despite good training performances (above 8.00 each week).

[HUNT3R]

2 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Thanks for the clarification... however it doesn't really work very well then, since Mbappe has insane attributes across the board, especially as a winger, yet he has like a 60% colour marker for his Winger role. He's a Natural in both RW and ST, and yet no role in the RW position is suitable... despite training specifically for the Winger role for the last 3-4 years, he's made no progress at all.

What do his attributes look like now though? He's lacking in some areas marked by FM as "key" and "preferred" for a winger.

His crossing as it is, isn't good enough. Passing, work rate and stamina are "preferred" and he lacks there too. I say lack, but it is still good, just not up there with the other attributes for his level. He'll be fine overall as a winger, but a winger should really have great crossing at least. Passing is a bonus for a Support player, of course, as well.

[iiMStevo]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

What do his attributes look like now though? He's lacking in some areas marked by FM as "key" and "preferred" for a winger.

His crossing as it is, isn't good enough. Passing, work rate and stamina are "preferred" and he lacks there too. I say lack, but it is still good, just not up there with the other attributes for his level. He'll be fine overall as a winger, but a winger should really have great crossing at least. Passing is a bonus for a Support player, of course, as well.

Aye, and why is that though? He's been training as a Winger, and playing as a Winger for 4 years... surely he should have improved in some way, but all he seems to do is decline after 22. With someone as developed as Mbappe from such a young age, he should be 100% effective in a large amount of roles and areas (since IRL he's very effective in playing multiple roles as a Striker, and a Winger)... I'm not sure why FM is limiting his capacity to only an AF in FM2019. If anything he should be an IF since that's where he mostly plays for PSG and France.

The new training system is great, for the schedule/calendar, but that's about it. Training players in this game doesn't seem to allow you to mould them at all. I've got some Central Midfielders also struggling with learning roles too. If playing those roles week in, week out for years isn't improving those attributes, there needs to be some form of the game saying "they're not going to progress anymore in that area".

[HUNT3R]

Just now, iiMStevo said:

Aye, and why is that though? 

Have you trained him in what he was lacking? Have you set schedules that will improve the attributes you want to improve?

[Seb Wassell]

28 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Aye, and why is that though? He's been training as a Winger, and playing as a Winger for 4 years... surely he should have improved in some way, but all he seems to do is decline after 22. With someone as developed as Mbappe from such a young age, he should be 100% effective in a large amount of roles and areas (since IRL he's very effective in playing multiple roles as a Striker, and a Winger)... I'm not sure why FM is limiting his capacity to only an AF in FM2019. If anything he should be an IF since that's where he mostly plays for PSG and France.

I'd very surprised if, outside of injury, Mbappe was declining at 22. Could you post an example of this in the bugs forum please and I'll investigate.

[iiMStevo]

51 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

I'd very surprised if, outside of injury, Mbappe was declining at 22. Could you post an example of this in the bugs forum please and I'll investigate.

I can send you my save file for you to review (I don't know if editor or tools allow you to look at previous values etc) but typically in the last season and a half, his attributes are typically declining until I question him about his development (which he either accepts or complains about me being too critical). That gives him a couple of weeks of improvement, before he starts declining again. His performances are becoming really suspect this season too - extremely inconsistent in performances. It's like he's 32, not 24 lol.

[Baodan]

Remember that learning a new position takes up PA and if a player doesn't have any free PA, then that might be why he isn't progressing in positional training.

[Seb Wassell]

20 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

Edit: To clarify what I mean...
You can find a Natural RWer with the Winger role listed as 100% effectiveness, yet their attributes can be far inferior than Mbappe's attributes, so how is that the other player is considered 100% effective, and Mbappe isn't? I've attached screenshots... Mbappe vs Lopez. Lopez listed as 100% effective as Winger Support, Mbappe listed as about 60-70% effective as Winger Attack. 
So Mbappe's Crossing is 2 worse, but is equal or better in every other category required for the role... how is it (according to the GUI) that Lopez is more effective than Mbappe?

Presumably this is because Mbappe's best role is actually up front, whereas Lopez's best role is on the wing. It's a relative scale.

[Seb Wassell]

18 hours ago, iiMStevo said:

I can send you my save file for you to review (I don't know if editor or tools allow you to look at previous values etc) but typically in the last season and a half, his attributes are typically declining until I question him about his development (which he either accepts or complains about me being too critical). That gives him a couple of weeks of improvement, before he starts declining again. His performances are becoming really suspect this season too - extremely inconsistent in performances. It's like he's 32, not 24 lol.

If you'd like to open up a post in our bugs forum along with uploading that save we can take a look 

You can view his attribute history under Development > Attribute Changes. Minor ups and downs are to be expected, but the graphs on that page should give you a better idea of the general trend.

[iiMStevo]

5 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

Presumably this is because Mbappe's best role is actually up front, whereas Lopez's best role is on the wing. It's a relative scale.

Right... and that therein lies the problem does it not? I mean typically Mbappe is a RW for majority of his game time at club and national level, why is he only 100% effective at being an AF when the majority of his playtime is out on the wing? I understand that Attributes contribute a lot to this role system, but if you have a player that smashes the required attributes out of the park, then they should be 100% effective at multiple roles in multiple positions (so long as the position is Natural). Now I'm not saying he should be 100% effective at being a Winger, because his crossing isn't that good... but as an Inside Forward, there shouldn't be any question of his effectiveness. He's supposed to be the best player in the game... yet his utilisation is that of a condom, you get a single use out of him.
To clarify, at least according to the visibly affected areas with Mbappe on the wing (in Tactics UI), he has less of an influence on the pitch than Lopez does because of the position effectiveness rating. Surely that's something in the game that's broken and needs fixing?
Also it doesn't really help explain players that have no 100% effective roles in their arsenal. If Role effectiveness is supposed to be judged on that individual players talents and attributes, then surely they should have one role in one position that they're the best at and can play to the best of their abilities?

I'm a little confused as to why the roles aren't given collective attribute targets for its main attributes. Say if Winger has 5 main attributes contributing to it's effectiveness, and in order to reach 100% effectiveness in that role, you need at least 65 attribute points from those 5... and then in the minor categories, if there's a further 8 minor attributes contributing to the role, you need a total of 96 attribute points to qualify for the 100% effectiveness of that role. Since just because one player dribbles better than another, and the other crosses better, it doesn't mean neither of them aren't 100% effective at what they're there to do.
That could be further expanded upon and have a crucial attribute that defines the role, and if the player doesn't have at least a 17/18 in that category, then they can't be 100% effective... bringing a better balance across players.

And then that leads back onto training... I'm not sure if I'm training people correctly because each training slot in the calendar typically breaks the players down into the three units (which is great)... but there are some training exercises exclusively for one unit... why can't we assign a secondary training task for the unused Units to help their development, rather than just saying "Just work on your own individual stuff that you complain about, because in your opinion you can't improve it anymore, then improve through regular training anyway."

 

EDIT: Added a screencap for clarity of what I'm on about. Felix is about 4* CA for Senior team, while Mbappe is 5* CA... so there's a significant difference between the two players in ability, and Mbappe is clearly the better player. Yet with this Tactical UI, the area of influence that Mbappe operates in is significantly smaller, and more concentrated when using the same roles which clearly shouldn't be the case since Mbappe can do everything Felix can do, and better.
(Mbappe screenshot is a slightly older one from yesterday but not a lot has changed in the values, despite his downward trend in the grab)

Mbappe over Felix attributes for Inside Support:
Major (Total): +9
Dribbling: +2
First Touch: 0
Passing: -3
Technique: +2
Off the ball: +3
Acceleration: +4
Agility: +2
Balance: -1

Minor (Total): +16
Finishing: +4
Long shots: +1
Anticipation: +3
Composure: +2
Flair: +3
Vision: -3
Pace: +6

So the above clearly defines that Mbappe can do everything Felix can, and better, yet the tactical UI shows he's less influential in the bigger space he needs to operate in. Mbappe also has the preferred move of "Cuts inside from both wings" whereas Felix does not... Yet Felix is more capable apparently of cutting inside it would seem? lol

Edited January 17, 2019 by iiMStevo

[Seb Wassell]

27 minutes ago, iiMStevo said:

Right... and that therein lies the problem does it not? I mean typically Mbappe is a RW for majority of his game time at club and national level, why is he only 100% effective at being an AF when the majority of his playtime is out on the wing? I understand that Attributes contribute a lot to this role system, but if you have a player that smashes the required attributes out of the park, then they should be 100% effective at multiple roles in multiple positions (so long as the position is Natural). Now I'm not saying he should be 100% effective at being a Winger, because his crossing isn't that good... but as an Inside Forward, there shouldn't be any question of his effectiveness. He's supposed to be the best player in the game... yet his utilisation is that of a condom, you get a single use out of him.
To clarify, at least according to the visibly affected areas with Mbappe on the wing (in Tactics UI), he has less of an influence on the pitch than Lopez does because of the position effectiveness rating. Surely that's something in the game that's broken and needs fixing?
Also it doesn't really help explain players that have no 100% effective roles in their arsenal. If Role effectiveness is supposed to be judged on that individual players talents and attributes, then surely they should have one role in one position that they're the best at and can play to the best of their abilities?

I'm a little confused as to why the roles aren't given collective attribute targets for its main attributes. Say if Winger has 5 main attributes contributing to it's effectiveness, and in order to reach 100% effectiveness in that role, you need at least 65 attribute points from those 5... and then in the minor categories, if there's a further 8 minor attributes contributing to the role, you need a total of 96 attribute points to qualify for the 100% effectiveness of that role. Since just because one player dribbles better than another, and the other crosses better, it doesn't mean neither of them aren't 100% effective at what they're there to do.
That could be further expanded upon and have a crucial attribute that defines the role, and if the player doesn't have at least a 17/18 in that category, then they can't be 100% effective... bringing a better balance across players.

And then that leads back onto training... I'm not sure if I'm training people correctly because each training slot in the calendar typically breaks the players down into the three units (which is great)... but there are some training exercises exclusively for one unit... why can't we assign a secondary training task for the unused Units to help their development, rather than just saying "Just work on your own individual stuff that you complain about, because in your opinion you can't improve it anymore, then improve through regular training anyway."

 

EDIT: Added a screencap for clarity of what I'm on about. Felix is about 4* CA for Senior team, while Mbappe is 5* CA... so there's a significant difference between the two players in ability, and Mbappe is clearly the better player. Yet with this Tactical UI, the area of influence that Mbappe operates in is significantly smaller, and more concentrated when using the same roles which clearly shouldn't be the case since Mbappe can do everything Felix can do, and better.
(Mbappe screenshot is a slightly older one from yesterday but not a lot has changed in the values, despite his downward trend in the grab)

Mbappe over Felix attributes for Inside Support:
Major (Total): +9
Dribbling: +2
First Touch: 0
Passing: -3
Technique: +2
Off the ball: +3
Acceleration: +4
Agility: +2
Balance: -1

Minor (Total): +16
Finishing: +4
Long shots: +1
Anticipation: +3
Composure: +2
Flair: +3
Vision: -3
Pace: +6

So the above clearly defines that Mbappe can do everything Felix can, and better, yet the tactical UI shows he's less influential in the bigger space he needs to operate in. Mbappe also has the preferred move of "Cuts inside from both wings" whereas Felix does not... Yet Felix is more capable apparently of cutting inside it would seem? lol

As requested, it would be worth posting your example in our bugs section please, we can investigate from there 

[HanziZoloman]

Hello @all,

still there is the question, why players take so long for improving new positions. Especially youth players who I want to shape for my tactics but also young players.

Some of the moderators said that the player needs to have the important skills for the role. Though I have to train them first? 
I’d like to know what I can do to improve training of new positions.

thanks much