Go to page 1, 2
| Forum » Doubts and questions » What is the real training equation? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
For anyone who knows the answer: We have been told in the FAQs that training is based on the following factors - Progression, Motivation, Coach Percentage and Training Selected. This means that if I have two similar players (same average) of known progression and motivation conducting the exact same training with the exact same coach, their training results should be predictable when compared to each other. Take a look at these two players (both forecasts are visible): http://en3.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=11411334 - trained .418 today using "Saves" http://en3.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=11462252 - trained .618 today using "Saves" There is a motivation difference and progression difference, but other than that they are very similar. Yet looking at the difference in training, motivation and progression alone don't account for the difference in training values. Before somebody mentions the recent temp promotion... you can tell from the training (no real leadership gain) that both received "saves" training - and since both of my coaches are 99%, it should only be a progression/motivation calculation as mentioned above. Here's my hypothesis... VERSATILITY IS A FACTOR IN TRAINING. If you factor in each players versatility as an inversely proportionate relationship (the higher the versatility, the less they train in any specific skill) then it brings the results to within an acceptable error, given that I don't know the full decimals of progression. Has anybody else noticed versatility effecting training, specifically for nearly identical players? (Dee and grantis, looking at you here to check my math) |
26/11/2012 04:09 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
What were their motivation percentages? I can't see them since I don't have pack manager. I'd also guess that age has something to do with it more than versatility. |
26/11/2012 04:59 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Can't see training results phaag... Also forecast and prog are not visible  Edited by @practicesquad 26-11-2012 06:29 |
26/11/2012 06:28 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
We'll call them player 1 and 2, in the order that I gave the links. Player 1 has a progression of 80, and had a motivation of 100%. Player 2 has a progression of 86, but a motivation of 85%. Both forecasts are now visible (thanks @practice - also, I put training results next to names in original message). Edited by phaag 26-11-2012 11:52 |
26/11/2012 11:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
age is also supposed to be a factor. | 26/11/2012 13:43 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Fiscal
3449 msgs.
Best scorer
|
Here's an image of their FC's overlayed. The blue line is the 80 prog 14 year old and the red line is the 86 prog 15 year old. It would appear to me that even though the 14 year old has 6 points less prog, his age helps him make up for a little bit of that difference.  |
26/11/2012 15:27 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1399 msgs.
International
|
i never noticed it but it seems like the case here.but some other factor may also be involved,may be a hidden stat.aint sure. | 26/11/2012 16:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
5633 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
Just to clairfy, Versatility has nothing to do with training results |
27/11/2012 01:07 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
700 msgs.
MVP of the game
|
@practicesquad said: Just to clairfy, Versatility has nothing to do with training results So what accounts for the fact that the math doesn't add up, then? Is there a hidden variable? (Which might explain the wide variety in shapes of projected training curves...) |
27/11/2012 01:44 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
412 msgs.
First-team player
|
phaag said: So what accounts for the fact that the math doesn't add up, then? Is there a hidden variable? (Which might explain the wide variety in shapes of projected training curves...) Look at your forecast arcs. Everything could be identical, but perhaps progression is allotted over time (ie: age). So players peak sooner or later than others. We might have two players identical in stats, but one reaches peak forecast at 22 and the other at 25. It would be assumed then that the training for the first would be greater than the second though eventually they hit the same mark. |
27/11/2012 03:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
Go to page 1, 2
1
