| Forum » General » longer player career or higher progression? | Date | |
|---|---|---|
|
Fast progression and short player life, or Slow progression and long player life?
|
||
|
Username
5205 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
my numbers are accurate  . I find it amusing you would think they aren't. I trained 2 CFs side by side with the same coach, the one that used to be 86% progression trained only .059, where the other one at unknown progression, average 45, trained .226. Same with an RM/LM, one at 35, the other at 45. They both had the same progression last season, same age, but one trained double the other with the same training, .134 versus .240. Motivation was the same, in case you're wondering. |
09/10/2011 06:36 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2737 msgs.
Best scorer
|
@CelloG said: my numbers are accurate . I find it amusing you would think they aren't. I trained 2 CFs side by side with the same coach, the one that used to be 86% progression trained only .059, where the other one at unknown progression, average 45, trained .226. Same with an RM/LM, one at 35, the other at 45. They both had the same progression last season, same age, but one trained double the other with the same training, .134 versus .240. Motivation was the same, in case you're wondering.sorry, i didnt mean it that way...i meant the interpolation that you made from the data you have is possibly inaccurate. You are saying you don't know the progression of your CF so you cant use that as a data point. Your RM/LM is 1 data point. I have been comparing the increases in training of my 8 junior wingers, all of whom i know the progressions of. This again leads me to say, linear increase in progression will not necessarily lead to a linear increase in training. I didnt want to give out too much information, but i think it will have sort of an exponential function or some other function where the second derivative will be positive for values more than 0. So a slight difference in progression within the range of 90+ prog for example will most likely lead to a big change in training value. Here is one example: This guy has a 2% more progression than the other winger http://uk.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=3186123 This guy has a 2% less progression than the other winger http://uk.strikermanager.com/jugador.php?id_jugador=925564 I dont see a decrease by 50% in this case. So, even if i am wrong with my previous calculations post...the training does not decrease by 50% for all players that go up from 40 avg to 50 avg |
09/10/2011 06:51 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
13 msgs.
Cadet
|
can any one tel me me what is this training facility for the coach.....i mean ther r 2 courses for the coach one is degree and the other ones a normal course, for degree course u gotta spend 100GB so whats the use of such course?? does it help in players progress??? and whats the exact difference between the degree and the normal course?? Edited by aamirbhaij9560 09-10-2011 07:40 |
09/10/2011 07:39 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
283 msgs.
First-team player
|
@CelloG said: 15/40, 16/47, 17/52, 18/55. 3 years to not get even an substitution for substitution place? Worst boo. This is like playing Fifa Manager one turn per day for 3 years. Or we could change the name of the game to SNAILMANAGER. |
09/10/2011 07:53 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
2960 msgs.
Best scorer
|
dont forget that u train only one position,what about others? i mix trainings and train all position(except GK)and i must say it will need very,very long time even if all my players are all high prog.dont know how managers with lower prog.players will stay in this game its very hard to build stadium now,u cant buy decent 60+ e.t.c |
09/10/2011 09:49 |
| Mr. Q17 - Div1/Gr1 | ||
|
Username
6256 msgs.
Golden Ball
|
I didn't think of that, imagine what this will do to inflation. And I'm glad I went stadium building mad last season. |
09/10/2011 10:12 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
59 msgs.
Rookie
|
You can't get decent players with mixed training any more. Before I would put careful planning into my training to give all my youths a future. The game is now more simplified because to improve a player at all significantly you have to stick to only the training that affects 1 type of player. |
09/10/2011 10:19 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
476 msgs.
First-team player
|
I appreciate that some adjustment needed, but not this drastic change which has taken away aspect of the game which managers like me looked forward to log in every morning to see the effect of the training. Training youngsters was the best aspect of the game last season. | 09/10/2011 12:06 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
59 msgs.
Rookie
|
I agree DaisyDoo, that aspect of the game is totally devalued. | 09/10/2011 12:29 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
|
Username
1835 msgs.
International
|
DaisyDoo said: I appreciate that some adjustment needed, but not this drastic change which has taken away aspect of the game which managers like me looked forward to log in every morning to see the effect of the training. Training youngsters was the best aspect of the game last season. Yep. Now its pointless. I'm not asking for last season's training just not the crap it is now. |
09/10/2011 13:58 |
| - Div/Gr | ||
6
