Estimate attribute growth

[Fabian Jonsson]

This might've been discussed somewhere else, but I couldn't find it anywhere so here goes. Looking through different threads here and elsewhere about youth development and training, I started to feel that I missed one crucial piece of information when signing youngsters and designing schedules. That information was the maximum attribute growth rate.

Example:

Let's say I find a youngster who has all the potential and attributes to become a great "Pirlo-type" deep-lying playmaker - exept one - he's got low creativity. What to do?

Answer:

Well it depends on how much you can expect his creativity to increase via training! If you crank attacking training up to max and keep it there for 5 seasons, would that be enough?

This sort of situation happens all the time, where you find players who have attribute distributions that don't add up to anything that really makes sense. When is it reasonable to think that you can get those missing pieces up to par, and when is it time to realize that they just won't become the type of players that you wanted them to be?

To answer these questions I decided to just look at some of the most successful youth development examples on these forums, and use them as benchmarks of the best possible attribute growth.

I had a look in Cleons thread "all you need to know ..." where a couple of high PA younsters are presented along with screens of their attributes year by year from they are 15 to 19. During those years, they're likely to develop faster than any other time (right?), and Cleon has done a great job at maximizing their development. Therefore, they should be a reasonable pick for benchmarking. From the screens I made a rough estimate of the avarage growth rate, and here are the results:

high workload in a particular training category: 1 point/attribute/year (on average).

medium: 0.5/attribute/year

low: <0.3/attribute/year

individual training focus adds about 0.5-1/year to that attribute.

Basically what that means is that if you have excellent traning facilities and coaches, positive player personalities, good tutoring and good match experience and a high PA youngster, this is the sort of growth rate you'd get.

Since I'm managing in a small country, albeit with relatively good facilities and staff, I most likely won't see that sort of development. Thus, if the player in the example above has 8 in creativity at the age of 17, he'd have at most 15 in creativity at 24 (probably more like 12-13). That is not enough for a playmaker (in my team at least), and most likely I'd be better off giving him some other role.

I don't know how helpful this is, but to me it was a bit of an eye-opener. I think it's useful to have a rough figure to help you see if it's even possible to turn that youngster into the beast you're imagining...

[Karnage94]

Very interesting to see this. Was always curious as to how much you could really develop a weaker area. I've turned down a couple of signings purely because they are short in 1 attribute and I felt that it would have required a lot of work to change that. I have a young striker coming through that I may want to train as an Inside Forward, but his finishing is poor. On the other hand, he does have a fair bit of potential to use so I feel it would be worth keeping him on and seeing what I can do

[Cleon]

Since I'm managing in a small country, albeit with relatively good facilities and staff, I most likely won't see that sort of development. Thus, if the player in the example above has 8 in creativity at the age of 17, he'd have at most 15 in creativity at 24 (probably more like 12-13). That is not enough for a playmaker (in my team at least), and most likely I'd be better off giving him some other role.

That's not true at all and he could possibly even have 18+ in the attribute. The thing is, each player is different and will grow at a different rate and improve at different rates. You can't really class all the attributes the same either as some are harder to improve than others due to the catergories they are in and match events not playing a part in attrbiute growth etc.

You can't really have a 'rough indication' of how much 1 attribute will grow and have to treat each player different. This is why I believe if you want to focus on player development and make the best player that you can and improve all the attributes you class as important, you have to use individual schedules. There is no other way at all because if you used position training rather than an individual tailored made schedule then you'd be wasting attributes spent in areas a player might not need improving in and so on.

[Seagullfan]

Interesting discussion but not sure how accurate you can be with this as I have just checked a few of my youngsters. I am playing FM10 and have adequate training facilities in Serie C/1B. A number of my youngsters have increased attributes by 2 and 3 points in 4-7 months. One lad increased an attribute 2 months on the trot. The ones I picked up on with my quick look were Strength, Decisions, OTB, Concentration.

These results offer me great encouragement but also do cloud the issue as I agree it is difficult to assess whether a poor attribute in a youngster is every likely to increase to the required level

[Fabian Jonsson]

That's not true at all and he could possibly even have 18+ in the attribute. The thing is, each player is different and will grow at a different rate and improve at different rates. You can't really class all the attributes the same either as some are harder to improve than others due to the catergories they are in and match events not playing a part in attrbiute growth etc.

You can't really have a 'rough indication' of how much 1 attribute will grow and have to treat each player different. This is why I believe if you want to focus on player development and make the best player that you can and improve all the attributes you class as important, you have to use individual schedules. There is no other way at all because if you used position training rather than an individual tailored made schedule then you'd be wasting attributes spent in areas a player might not need improving in and so on.

I always use custom schedules, that's not what I'm talking about. All I did was that I tried to figure out a reasonable estimate of how quickly a players attributes can grow. Nothing else. You are saying that there is no limit to this? A player can grow from 1 to 20 in all attributes in one day? No? Then there is a limit. How high? That's what I've been trying to estimate. An estimate is an estimate and an estimate is never exact... but it can still be useful. You might be the kind of person who goes by gut feeling (nah... I don't think he'll ever be a great finisher), well I'm not. I want to be able to put a figure on it. And I'm pretty sure you can. Like I said, it might not be 100% accurate, but if it's correct 95% of the times, I'm happy as Larry.

But if you know more about this than I do: why don't you enlighten me? Here are some questions I'd like the answer to.

1 - is there any connection between the growth rate in the attributes of the same training category - i.e. is "newly earned points" get distributed to categories and then attributes, or attributes independently of category?

2 - which attributes change the most when a player is young (say, under 19)?

3 - which attributes change the most when a player is in his prime?

4 - which attributes change the most when a player is getting old?

5 - what is the biggest increase in a single attribute you have ever seen, and how did you achieve that?

6 - what attributes are the easiest to change?

7 - what attributes are the hardest to change?

8 - are there inherent difficulties in some cases (for example is it harder for a short guy to increase jumping that for a tall guy, is it more difficult for a volitile player to learn composure, etc)? In that case, what are they?

There are a million more questions like that, but let's settle for those right now.

[Cleon]

I always use custom schedules, that's not what I'm talking about. All I did was that I tried to figure out a reasonable estimate of how quickly a players attributes can grow. Nothing else. You are saying that there is no limit to this? A player can grow from 1 to 20 in all attributes in one day? No? Then there is a limit.

The limit you have is PA. It's nothing complexed or anything, but if a player still has PA then his attribute can grow to 20 technically.

A player can grow from 1 to 20 in all attributes in one day? No? Then there is a limit.

That isn't a limit though is it. That's a time issue. It's not a limitation.

How high? That's what I've been trying to estimate. An estimate is an estimate and an estimate is never exact... but it can still be useful.

Not really when ever single player is different. Then how can you get an estimate? You cannot. You could do thousands of tests I suppose and get an 'average' over a certain period of time but even then it would still be flawed and not an accurate assesment.

I want to be able to put a figure on it. And I'm pretty sure you can.

You can't. But you'll not believe me, so good luck in your quest.

Like I said, it might not be 100% accurate, but if it's correct 95% of the times, I'm happy as Larry.

You fail to grasp that each player develops at a different rate and certain events can also play a part in this. The way you talk its as if every single player develops at the same time and same speed. The game doesn't work like that.

But if you know more about this than I do: why don't you enlighten me? Here are some questions I'd like the answer to.

I'll do it this once but you dismiss me in every thread and never believe what I say. But here goes;

1 - is there any connection between the growth rate in the attributes of the same training category - i.e. is "newly earned points" get distributed to categories and then attributes, or attributes independently of category?

Every single attribute in a catergory has an equal chance of changing. Some might seem to change more than another attribute in the same catergory but this could be to do with the .000's that you don't see. So if an attribute is at the beginning of the attribute, lets for arguments sake say 15 then it will take longer for it to become 16 compared to someone at the end of the 15 attribute.

Do you follow?

2 - which attributes change the most when a player is young (say, under 19)?

Again, training doesn't work like this. You might have a player who develops faster between 18-19 than the rest of his career. Then you might have anothe rplayer who develops 21-24 faster. So you can't pin it down like you are trying to. You have to take it on a player by player basis.

3 - which attributes change the most when a player is in his prime?

Again this ties in with the above and would depend on how much PA he has left and how you was distributing that via his training schedule.

4 - which attributes change the most when a player is getting old?

As a rule its normally mentals develop more with age.

5 - what is the biggest increase in a single attribute you have ever seen, and how did you achieve that?

I've highlighted some of these and shown examples in the thread you mentioned. So you can see for yourself some of the extreme changes.

6 - what attributes are the easiest to change?

7 - what attributes are the hardest to change?

Have a read of this http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/279009-FM2012-Training-And-Match-Prep-Masterclass

8 - are there inherent difficulties in some cases (for example is it harder for a short guy to increase jumping that for a tall guy, is it more difficult for a volitile player to learn composure, etc)? In that case, what are they?

Not really no. But to change a players so called ways you'd do that through tutoring and not training. As you'd try and make him more professional by altering his hidden attributes and improve his attitude that way.

There are a million more questions like that, but let's settle for those right now.

And all the above have already been asked and answered in various other training and development threads. It just takes a lot of reading that's all.

Once you accept and understand that you should judge players seperatley and not follow rules due to some players been late developers, some early developers and some what just become unluck then training becomes easier to understand. Too many people still think there is a theory behind training and their is a clicks to ratio method when in reality training is simple.

Look at a player and look at his attributes then devise a schedule to work on the attributes you class as important for the role he plays for you. Rather than looking at a player and thinking 'I had a player same as this and he developed quicker' blah blah. The player more likely had a different type of personality so his hidden attributes would have been different.

[Fabian Jonsson]

The reason why you feel I dismiss everything you say, and why I always get annoyed at you when you reply to my posts is because we think and express ourselves in VERY different ways, and as a result, you don't understand me and I don't understand you. Take this for example:

ME: "All I did was that I tried to figure out a reasonable estimate of how quickly a players attributes can grow. Nothing else. You are saying that there is no limit to this? A player can grow from 1 to 20 in all attributes in one day? No? Then there is a limit."

YOU: That isn't a limit though is it. That's a time issue. It's not a limitation.

In that quote I'm talking about the rate of change, or if you will, the derivative of an attribute as a function of time. This derivative must have some sort of maximum value, and it's that value I'm trying to estimate.

Basically, what you're saying is that I can not be sure that a player with 1 in creativity won't become the next Xavi, given that he has a high PA. I'm trying to say that he probably won't.

[furiousuk]

Basically, what you're saying is that I can not be sure that a player with 1 in creativity won't become the next Xavi, given that he has a high PA. I'm trying to say that he probably won't.

And you'd be spot on - he probably won't be a creative genius. But the point is, he could be.

There isn't some hard-coded value in the game that restricts him (I don't know this for sure but I've read some articles on the technical principles that SI use to guide the development of FM and it's pretty contrary to their beliefs about the structure of FM so I can be pretty damn sure there isn't a hard-coded value - which you're suggesting there is).

The game works on emergent principles rather than from pre-defined models. You can establish defined models (which form our belief systems about what works and what doesn't) but these aren't concrete methods - they are dynamic and subject to change. Computers and bad at this - humans are good. The fact that FM is good at this is incredible - good work SI!

There isn't a magic figure that defines training. Even if you don't believe that there isn't then you must see that no-one has found it. Exploits in the ME are discovered within a few days of release and a tactic will be released that exploits that flaw - no such training routine has ever been devised. There are aspects of the ME that must still be hard-coded to reduce it's complexity to allow SI to release the game at all but the training module is far less complex so doesn't have those restraints - hence it is a module that works on emergent principles and is far harder (or impossible) to crack.

If you want to talk about rough estimates on player growth then that is a great topic that'll help loads of people but you'll need to accept that the rough estimate could be way off track - you can't estimate with too much certainty. If trying to find a perfect number guides your search for estimates then fair enough but if all you're interested in is discovering the magic formula for all players then your search will be a long and increasingly solitary one.

In short, do what you do in real-life: make educated guesses.

[Cleon]

You cannot estimate the value though that's the whole point.

And just because someone has a low attribute at a very young age, don't underestimate it and write them off before the age of 22 at the very least. It could shock you at how high the attribute could get with the right training schedule etc.

I've got plenty more examples in my save where players have developed slower or even quicker. It just depends how intense I train them and how much gametime they see to free the CA so training can distribute it.

There is logic in the schedules I created and not only a case of 'this is the best for him' I put a lot more thought and effort into the schedules. So basing any studies on the players I develop would be flawed and inaccurate unless you know how and why I created the schedules and how I wanted to develop the player and at what risk I was willing to take in his development.

[Fabian Jonsson]

Just so you know, all sceens you've posted of players you've developed adhere to those figures. You might not see it straight away, but I've done the calculations - they do.

Your comments reveal that you keep on grossly underestimate both my intelligence and my understanding of the game. It's like trying to discuss astrophysics with someone that doubts that I understand what "space" is.

Let's just drop this, and I'll keep all my thoughts and ides to myself from now on.

[Cleon]

Just so you know, all sceens you've posted of players you've developed adhere to those figures. You might not see it straight away, but I've done the calculations - they do.

Your comments reveal that you keep on grossly underestimate both my intelligence and my understanding of the game. It's like trying to discuss astrophysics with someone that doubts that I understand what "space" is.

Let's just drop this, and I'll keep all my thoughts and ides to myself from now on.

The screens I've posted all should follow some kind of pattern because they were all involved in first team action. The players that weren't would differ as they are trained differently like I mentioned in the thread.

Plus you've not factured in tutoring and changing a players personality, how much game time they had, what kind of matches I allowed them to play and so on. All these impact the players development.

[Fabian Jonsson]

If you want to talk about rough estimates on player growth then that is a great topic that'll help loads of people

That is exactly what I do. Nothing else.

The screens I've posted all should follow some kind of pattern because they were all involved in first team action. The players that weren't would differ as they are trained differently like I mentioned in the thread.

Plus you've not factured in tutoring and changing a players personality, how much game time they had, what kind of matches I allowed them to play and so on. All these impact the players development.

Completely irrelevant. If I use YOUR data as a measure of the maximum growth for ME. That means that since I'm at a lower rep team in a lower rep country with worse training facilities, worse coaches, lower PA players, I will NEVER EVER see the kind of development you do. Thus, I can safely (with a very high probability) use the development rate of your players as a maximum for my players. That all I'm saying.

[Cleon]

That is exactly what I do. Nothing else.

Completely irrelevant. If I use YOUR data as a measure of the maximum growth for ME. That means that since I'm at a lower rep team in a lower rep country with worse training facilities, worse coaches, lower PA players, I will NEVER EVER see the kind of development you do. Thus, I can safely (with a very high probability) use the development rate of your players as a maximum for my players. That all I'm saying.

But its not irrelevant though regardless of what club you are or how big/small your rep is. If you think its irrelevant then you don't understand training. You can still develop players even in the lower leagues.

The fact that you use my data and disregard how and why I set the schedules up the way I did and the reasonings behind them, then your logic is majorly flawed. What you need to do is base them on your own and not someone elses.

If however they were based on your own findings and your own results then they would be relevant to that particular game you are playing.

I could have easily developed the players at a faster rate and increased attributes even further quicker. Yet I slowed the proccess down to prevent injuries, jadeness and tireing the players out. For these reasons and these reasons alone it does not represent the true attribute growth pattern as it was slowed down in areas on purpose. Had I not done this then attribute growth would have been slightly faster and players would have been more developed or less developed depending on the ijuries they had got during seasons and so on.

Attribute growth and the rates are different for every single player based on gametime, PA, training, coaches, injuries and most importantly of all player personalities. My screenshots all look simliar because all my players are more aless the same type of personality

[Seagullfan]

I agree that with proper schedules even at lower league level significant achievements can be made. My frustration with the information provided on training led me to spend many many hours scouring the forums etc to find every bit of info that I could on the subject. I then put together a clear concise document on how it all worked for my own and my brothers reference. I then devised a spreadsheet that allowed me to identify which attributes I should target for each player in my squad depending on the position I wanted him to play or aspire to. Finally I devised individual schedules for each player based on all the information I had collected.

Whilst initially this took time it has given me clarity and I am now able to tweak each schedule quite quickly on a monthly basis or so to try and achieve the desired outcomes. It's early days but my system seems to be working ok.

Based on this I am less concerned about buying players with lowish key attributes as I believe I can get them to where they need to be if I assess all his other aspects and they fit my criteria

[Cleon]

I agree that with proper schedules even at lower league level significant achievements can be made. My frustration with the information provided on training led me to spend many many hours scouring the forums etc to find every bit of info that I could on the subject. I then put together a clear concise document on how it all worked for my own and my brothers reference. I then devised a spreadsheet that allowed me to identify which attributes I should target for each player in my squad depending on the position I wanted him to play or aspire to. Finally I devised individual schedules for each player based on all the information I had collected.

Whilst initially this took time it has given me clarity and I am now able to tweak each schedule quite quickly on a monthly basis or so to try and achieve the desired outcomes. It's early days but my system seems to be working ok.

Based on this I am less concerned about buying players with lowish key attributes as I believe I can get them to where they need to be if I assess all his other aspects and they fit my criteria

This is much more like how I play.

What causes you to change on a monthly basis though? By that I mean why and how do you decide if something needs changing in such a short space of time?

[steakfaced]

But its not irrelevant though regardless of what club you are or how big/small your rep is. If you think its irrelevant then you don't understand training. You can still develop players even in the lower leagues.

The fact that you use my data and disregard how and why I set the schedules up the way I did and the reasonings behind them, then your logic is majorly flawed. What you need to do is base them on your own and not someone elses.

:

You don't understand, or fail to choose to understand, anything he is saying. you're arguing completely different arguments.

[Cleon]

You don't understand, or fail to choose to understand, anything he is saying. you're arguing completely different arguments.

No, hes using data I provided without understanding why and the reasons it was created and then trying to apply it to his game as some sort of cap.

I honestly don't know why I keep posting though.

[Seagullfan]

This is much more like how I play.

What causes you to change on a monthly basis though? By that I mean why and how do you decide if something needs changing in such a short space of time?

Basically I know which training areas I have set up for improvement so I will take a look at the training arrows which will show if things are heading in the right direction. If I see one on the way down then I may make a very slight adjustment to stop the downward spiral and stabilise it. On many occasions I may want them to go down so that others can grow in which case this is ok. Also in most cases I will probably leave things for another month to get a better picture. I also assess if the levels graph is as it should be and if not tweak things accordingly

[Fabian Jonsson]

No, hes using data I provided without understanding why and the reasons it was created and then trying to apply it to his game as some sort of cap.

Wow. You really do take me for a fool. Just how stupid do you think people are?

It is YOU who keep dismissing my arguments before you even understand what I mean.

Let's end this now.

[R0ca]

Lets get this back on track shall we?

I remember awhile back a formula being posted which stipulated that certain attribute points would "cost" a certain amount of CA to increase by "1".

Now I don't know if that was accurate but if it is, it would be possible to scout how good a player could potentially come using a genie scout or FMRTE for instance.

In my experience of training it only serves to provide a "guidance" for where CA should be allocated to. I've found that even with very little training workloads some attributes have risen(However as Cleon has stated this could be due to events in game)

[Cleon]

Wow. You really do take me for a fool. Just how stupid do you think people are?

You said;

Thus, I can safely (with a very high probability) use the development rate of your players as a maximum for my players. That all I'm saying.

All I'm saying is if you are using data I did then you need to understand everything about how the results came about and take everything I've listed into consideration as that's how the results were achieved.

[Cleon]

Lets get this back on track shall we?

I remember awhile back a formula being posted which stipulated that certain attribute points would "cost" a certain amount of CA to increase by "1".

Now I don't know if that was accurate but if it is, it would be possible to scout how good a player could potentially come using a genie scout or FMRTE for instance.

In my experience of training it only serves to provide a "guidance" for where CA should be allocated to. I've found that even with very little training workloads some attributes have risen(However as Cleon has stated this could be due to events in game)

Training distributes the CA. So even with little training, attributes would rise but you could find you have attributes rising that are not important or used for the role the player players.

[R0ca]

Training distributes the CA. So even with little training, attributes would rise but you could find you have attributes rising that are not important or used for the role the player players.

I know

Point being that if the formula's are correct we could make a very rough projection of how the player would turn out.

I Do agree with you though, and Sfraser for that matter as well. Match Experience + Level of Playing + Personality = Increased rate of CA Gain.