Guide: Understanding the 2016 Training System

[Rautz]

Great work Al, you're very meticulous and have a good mindset for experimenting and extracting information


(Just a small correction, for the condition the gain is not 44% higher, it is 144% higher, like your table says. +144% or *244%)

[Al Svanberg]

Thanks so much guys!

Great work Al, you're very meticulous and have a good mindset for experimenting and extracting information


(Just a small correction, for the condition the gain is not 44% higher, it is 144% higher, like your table says. +144% or *244%)

Thanks! I had a total brain block when I tried to figure that out late last night. Lol I still can't, something is odd with that number. You can take it straight off and get the actual gain. But all other positive numbers, you need to add 1 (ie 100%) to get the actual number, like normally is the case when you talk about something is as being x% higher than something else. Ie something that is 50% higher than 100 is 150% times 100 = 150. But the formula used in Excel should be the same for all numbers so I don't understand why it isn't the same for all numbers. Need to look into the spreadsheet and see what has happened.

[Rautz]

something is odd with that number. You can take it straight off and get the actual gain. But all other positive numbers, you need to add 1 (ie 100%) to get the actual number

I see no problem with the number.
2.86 + (144/100)*2.86 = 7
3.75 + (6.77/100)*3.75 = 4

The interesting part is where all the numbers behave exactly as expected over a small sample size. That may mean the gain is not random (or very small random), it's linear and it can be calculated precisely.
The other interesting part are the 2 stats that behave abnormally (Condition and Aggressivness) and if they can be manipulated for higher gains

[Al Svanberg]

I see no problem with the number.
2.86 + (144/100)*2.86 = 7
3.75 + (6.77/100)*3.75 = 4

The interesting part is where all the numbers behave exactly as expected over a small sample size. That may mean the gain is not random (or very small random), it's linear and it can be calculated precisely.
The other interesting part are the 2 stats that behave abnormally (Condition and Aggressivness) and if they can be manipulated for higher gains

Thanks!

Yeah exactly, that was the big thing I got out of this too, like its fairly random with a very small sample size, but it evens out over just 4-5 practices basically. Like you say, in essence you can predict the outcome.

I definitely know that I have read that younger kids improve conditioning faster. Like the Gym drill seem very interesting in this perspective. If you have a world class gym drill it should be amazing at adding %. A big question is, does the premium for Conditioning carry over into training a new position or special ability? If that is the case, a gym or long run drill or a combo of them could be very interesting.

BTW, does anyone know where the info that kids train conditioning faster comes from?

[Al Svanberg]

Here comes some more Data.

I ran the following drills 30 times with the same kid, but this time after he just became a 5 star player. Here are the data, please ask if anyone have on questions on the numbers:

1. Press the play: 2. Fast-Counter Attack: 3. Press the play: 4 Slalom Dribble: 5 Shooting: 6 Stretch







The TEF is down from 0.34 to 0.26 after he got to 5 stars. The diffs are smaller with a bigger sample size, but more conditioning and less aggressiveness is still a clear result.

[Rautz]

Thanks!

Yeah exactly, that was the big thing I got out of this too, like its fairly random with a very small sample size, but it evens out over just 4-5 practices basically. Like you say, in essence you can predict the outcome.

I definitely know that I have read that younger kids improve conditioning faster. Like the Gym drill seem very interesting in this perspective. If you have a world class gym drill it should be amazing at adding %. A big question is, does the premium for Conditioning carry over into training a new position or special ability? If that is the case, a gym or long run drill or a combo of them could be very interesting.

BTW, does anyone know where the info that kids train conditioning faster comes from?

On the first point, it seems random at first, because you don't know the initial state of the abilities, some could be at x.9, others at x.0. But over time (and it seems not even a long time) that tranlates to those tiny differences of 5-10%, and probably 0-1% over a bigger sample.

On the second point, it's time to upgrade our gym drill
It would be wonderful to add faster %, or even NP/SA, but if that's the case, once we find out it may be nerfed

It definitely seem like the mix of drills used does not impact the individual result, only the bonuses. Or what do you guys think?

My tests show the same thing, I'm confident that the mix doesn't matter, thus I always use my most upgraded one.