Go to page 1
  Forum » Doubts and questions » Leadership: What is it good for? Date
Fiscal
1819 msgs.
International
 Each day leadership is trained: The average of a player increases, but game performance does not.

1) If you train leadership, you are DECREASING that player's maximum shooting/dribbling/passing [or ball steal if that player is a defender] stats. This is called opportunity cost - you can't train everything all the time. Every day you train, the next day's maximum potential training% decreases slightly. If you train leadership, you are exchanging a forward's ability to put the ball in the net [shooting] for something that has much less marginal value.

If you train corner kicks, you are saying that for your forward, you'd rather have 84 shooting and 90 progression instead of 95 shooting and 30 progression. You cannot have both unless the player has 99 prog/99 FC and you have training days to spare.

2) Skill comes from game experience. The differential that leadership applies to the acquisition of skill is: Instead of 3.00 you get the first skill at 2.95. So the only actual difference comes during the EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL time differential between [2.95] when you get the skill with leadership applied... and when you would otherwise get the skill [3.00] with no leadership training performed!! That's a week - 3 games.

So, for a forward training corner kicks: You've exchanged the ability to have your player's shooting ability at 95 for 3 games of having his shooting at 84 plus the undefined shooting benefit of the shooting "skill".
After those 3 games, the forward with shooting at 95 would also have the shooting "skill". If skills increase stats based on a percentage, let's say 25%, then that player with 95 and the shooting "skill" has an actual rating of 118.75, and the player with 84 has an actual rating of 105. I know which one I'd rather have.

Friends don't let friends train leadership. 		09/03/2015 16:00
  ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr1
Fiscal
4210 msgs.
Best scorer
 I am interested in seeing your calculations and the observation data used to populate the calculations that led to your determination.
 09/03/2015 16:45
  FC need more holidays - Div3/Gr9
Fiscal
1819 msgs.
International
 None.

The problem being that getting 2 players with equal fc/prog/overall average/senior team coach% to run a legit experiment seems nearly implausible. You'd have to have 2 different teams running the experiment as well.. one with and one without CK's.. and how would you sync the training schedule with different training tasks? No matter how you schedule, the guy who includes CK's will be doing the other tasks that train forwards less frequently.

The framework of the analysis still holds, though:

We know when skills are achieved, that's a definition..
By how much time does leadership at 90/95% decrease the skill acquisition? How many games can be played with the added skill before the "expected" time of achieving that skill for the players both with and without leadership?

As well, I don't truly know the calculations behind skills.. is it actually a multiplication? It seems implausible that the player with the lower ranking in the thing being improved [eg, shooting] plus one skill would result in a better player than a higher-ranked player with the same skill.

The key insight is that after the zero-leadership player gets any skill, that player INCREASES his advantage on the "leadership"/ lower-ranked player.. because they both have the same list of skills, assuming both players choose correctly. The second skill means the gap is twice as big as it was the first time... and keeps getting bigger.

Even in thought-experiment-land, there's no result that ends up with leadership being a worthwhile long-term investment.

Edited by Buckeye623 09-03-2015 17:14 		09/03/2015 16:54
  ★★Dyslexia Untied - Div2/Gr1
Fiscal
4210 msgs.
Best scorer
 Your premise has a flaw - it assumes that training leadership is entirely exclusionary. Using Fwds, as in your example, crossing the ball trains nearly all attributes. It is second in speed, strength, technique, aggressiveness, and leadership. There are very experienced upper division managers who will tell you that aggressiveness is important for a striker so if I were training fwds, I many very well throw in one crossing the ball into my training, or put it in once every other training rotation, or train it one season on/one season off the same way some defender trainers train running with the ball for CDF's.

Since there is no math to argue, I'll simply say that anecdotally many managers will tell you that lesser average overall and lesser average specific attribute players with skills frequently beat higher average attribute players without skills. CF's with 80 speed but 5 points on running with the ball skating past 90 or 95+ speed defenders was likely one of the reasons the dev's made 3 skill points the max.

"The key insight is that after the zero-leadership player gets any skill, that player INCREASES his advantage on the "leadership"/ lower-ranked player.. because they both have the same list of skills, assuming both players choose correctly. The second skill means the gap is twice as big as it was the first time... and keeps getting bigger." - this only holds true assuming a one for one skill advantage AND a significant difference in attributes sufficient enough to overcome tactical/formation differences. In many cases, it is not one for one, there are players with significantly more skills with lower attributes as can be seen on the market. You also assume that the low leadership player always reaches the same number of skills, something I have seen to be valid.

A better question is to what degree does leadership increase experience so that skills are acquired faster? Is it proportional or are there base threshold increments, say x at 60% leadership or y at 75% leadership?

I will certainly agree with this - leadership trained very high to significant detriment of attributes is a disadvantage to a better trained player. That is a fairly agreed upon point. Absent a significant difference, you will find quite a lot of high attribute and high leadership players with many skills that are very costly because they perform very well. 		09/03/2015 18:06
  FC need more holidays - Div3/Gr9
Username
2968 msgs.
Best scorer
Buckeye623 said:
Each day leadership is trained: The average of a player increases, but game performance does not.

1) If you train leadership, you are DECREASING that player's maximum shooting/dribbling/passing [or ball steal if that player is a defender] stats. This is called opportunity cost - you can't train everything all the time. Every day you train, the next day's maximum potential training% decreases slightly. If you train leadership, you are exchanging a forward's ability to put the ball in the net [shooting] for something that has much less marginal value.

If you train corner kicks, you are saying that for your forward, you'd rather have 84 shooting and 90 progression instead of 95 shooting and 30 progression. You cannot have both unless the player has 99 prog/99 FC and you have training days to spare.

2) Skill comes from game experience. The differential that leadership applies to the acquisition of skill is: Instead of 3.00 you get the first skill at 2.95. So the only actual difference comes during the EXTRAORDINARILY SMALL time differential between [2.95] when you get the skill with leadership applied... and when you would otherwise get the skill [3.00] with no leadership training performed!! That's a week - 3 games.

So, for a forward training corner kicks: You've exchanged the ability to have your player's shooting ability at 95 for 3 games of having his shooting at 84 plus the undefined shooting benefit of the shooting "skill".
After those 3 games, the forward with shooting at 95 would also have the shooting "skill". If skills increase stats based on a percentage, let's say 25%, then that player with 95 and the shooting "skill" has an actual rating of 118.75, and the player with 84 has an actual rating of 105. I know which one I'd rather have.

Friends don't let friends train leadership.


I dont agree with anything you got here.

Leadership is very important especially on forwards for fast XP and skills.

If you train leadership on 90+ prog CF you will have like ~95 shooting and ~90 leadership if you dont you will have 97 shooting with 30 leadership.

But XP gain on CF with ~90 leadership is extraordinary HIGH and on 30 leadership is extraordinary LOW.

I had 2 CFs one very low leadership other very high,i can say that one with high leadership gain XP x2 faster than other.

XP from game depends from leadership,minutes played,shots,passes,goals and most important HAT TRICKs.

You can have 95% technique(speed with ball) on your CF but when you put RWB skill on other CF lets say 85% technique he would out run him with ball.

Skills are not added to stats they work separate.

Its best to train leadership when they are young so they can gain XP fast and with those early skills gained they will get other skills even faster(with net breaker,change of pace,RWB they will make more shots,goals,etc)
 09/03/2015 18:35
  FC Hrom - Div1/Gr1
     
Go to page 1
1