Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Subject: percentage of training
give them all mid orders, play 5 in league game, then the other 5 in friendly / cup without using the first 5 in any other position ;)
you need 16 players minimum
1 k3=eeper, 4 defenderrs
1 striker
10 trainees.
do what above post says. (5 each week mid order)
if you want subs for friendly game you need more than 16 players
if you want to play different formation e.g 4.4.2 one of the PM trainees needs to be a defender with mid order
or trainee needs to be a PM trainee with mid order.
either way each week 5 MID order
if you train defenders in PM i dont think its as effective (only 50%), so MID order is a must
1 k3=eeper, 4 defenderrs
1 striker
10 trainees.
do what above post says. (5 each week mid order)
if you want subs for friendly game you need more than 16 players
if you want to play different formation e.g 4.4.2 one of the PM trainees needs to be a defender with mid order
or trainee needs to be a PM trainee with mid order.
either way each week 5 MID order
if you train defenders in PM i dont think its as effective (only 50%), so MID order is a must
what greg has said is "the difference between friendly and official game is smaller than the difference between playing 2 games in a week (100%) and only playing an official game.
Well, it is not an insight because the rules clearly state this fact
The differences in training effectiveness resulting from player’s appearances during the week are small. A player who played in one friendly only, will have only slightly less effective training than the one from the first team line-up. The difference is even smaller for a player that played in two games instead of just one.
Well, it is not an insight because the rules clearly state this fact
The differences in training effectiveness resulting from player’s appearances during the week are small. A player who played in one friendly only, will have only slightly less effective training than the one from the first team line-up. The difference is even smaller for a player that played in two games instead of just one.
well we can keep on guessing about numbers because i don't think the calculations are as linear as many would like them to be so treating the % which some user deducted as a certainty allready leads to new chaostheories lol
meanwhile i'm not even sure what 100% training would mean according to greg. maybe you can even get higher than 100%? because that's also possible if you take a different reference point :p
i've seen programmers deliberately mix up percentages and points before in games for example so unless you happen to be a brilliant mathematician you're not going to figure it out completely just by watchting some results because even those lack some of the info (in this case what we call sublevels).
for programmers it's just their way of saying: "try playing instead of asking".
meanwhile i'm not even sure what 100% training would mean according to greg. maybe you can even get higher than 100%? because that's also possible if you take a different reference point :p
i've seen programmers deliberately mix up percentages and points before in games for example so unless you happen to be a brilliant mathematician you're not going to figure it out completely just by watchting some results because even those lack some of the info (in this case what we call sublevels).
for programmers it's just their way of saying: "try playing instead of asking".
"more than 100%"
technically achieveing more than 100% makes this new value 100%, so the original values are just lower.
and indeed. its possible he just made 10 linear points from a match, 10 mins = 20% training 20 mins = 30% training 30 mins = 35% training, 40 mins = 55% training
values in random places sure. but doubtful. from what has happened in the game, we can tell greg is lazy and he took some exponent he did in uni or something which made sense to what he wanted.
as for values i do like those given on previous page
official 90%
friendly 70%
it doesnt comply with what greg said "difference between them (20%) is smaller than difference of playing one game and full 2 games (10%) although it depends how you interpret what he said maybe. i dont have the direct quote. mauser/langhe is needed for that i guess.
i always thought before it is ~70 friendly, 85 official.
friendlies to me have a clearly lower value than official games. or that was the case before this new talent system came into place.
and playing 2 games also has a clear benefit over just one game-even just 1 official game.
its why i think the values are so low, whereas much of the com thinks its like 90 friendly, 95% official.
(edited)
technically achieveing more than 100% makes this new value 100%, so the original values are just lower.
and indeed. its possible he just made 10 linear points from a match, 10 mins = 20% training 20 mins = 30% training 30 mins = 35% training, 40 mins = 55% training
values in random places sure. but doubtful. from what has happened in the game, we can tell greg is lazy and he took some exponent he did in uni or something which made sense to what he wanted.
as for values i do like those given on previous page
official 90%
friendly 70%
it doesnt comply with what greg said "difference between them (20%) is smaller than difference of playing one game and full 2 games (10%) although it depends how you interpret what he said maybe. i dont have the direct quote. mauser/langhe is needed for that i guess.
i always thought before it is ~70 friendly, 85 official.
friendlies to me have a clearly lower value than official games. or that was the case before this new talent system came into place.
and playing 2 games also has a clear benefit over just one game-even just 1 official game.
its why i think the values are so low, whereas much of the com thinks its like 90 friendly, 95% official.
(edited)
I also like this model the most, and it does comply with the rules.
"A player who played in one friendly only (70%), will have only slightly less effective training than the one from the first team line-up (90%). The difference is even smaller for a player that played in two games (100%) instead of just one (90%)."
The last sentence is not clear in English translation (as "just one" could be also friendly) but in Polish rules it states about official game.
There is another huge question about the training parcentage: how much is the general training compared to individual training? My calculations suggest something like 10%, maybe little less. AND, if a certain skill is trained individually for a given formation, it probably trains faster also for other formations (double?).
Example: I play only official game in a week. Individual training is set technique for mids. So mids get 90% of the maximum training in technique. They also get 9% of maximum training in defending (general = 10% x 90%), same other formations. But technique for defenders, strikers and gk trains faster, let's say double the general training so 18%.
I use this model for training purposes for a few seasons and from my observations the actual results fit quite well. Of course this is serious simplification but we will never know the actual formulas and, as someone wrote, nothing is linear, there is quite big random factor in everything. And this is good, as the game is supposed to be a football manager, not a arithmetics test.
"A player who played in one friendly only (70%), will have only slightly less effective training than the one from the first team line-up (90%). The difference is even smaller for a player that played in two games (100%) instead of just one (90%)."
The last sentence is not clear in English translation (as "just one" could be also friendly) but in Polish rules it states about official game.
There is another huge question about the training parcentage: how much is the general training compared to individual training? My calculations suggest something like 10%, maybe little less. AND, if a certain skill is trained individually for a given formation, it probably trains faster also for other formations (double?).
Example: I play only official game in a week. Individual training is set technique for mids. So mids get 90% of the maximum training in technique. They also get 9% of maximum training in defending (general = 10% x 90%), same other formations. But technique for defenders, strikers and gk trains faster, let's say double the general training so 18%.
I use this model for training purposes for a few seasons and from my observations the actual results fit quite well. Of course this is serious simplification but we will never know the actual formulas and, as someone wrote, nothing is linear, there is quite big random factor in everything. And this is good, as the game is supposed to be a football manager, not a arithmetics test.