Asunto: Questions & Answers

If we assume that optimal training is 2-1-1, we need just to add 2x83 with 50 and 34. We could then divide that number with 4, but I think there is no need because a player that has bigger number - has a bigger training right ?
I don't think I've understood you correct in the first place

Gotcha Thanks mate, appreciate the help working that out.

Dividing by 4 just normalizes it to the 1-99 range that Qs can be in and gives a good reference.

QUESTION---- If a players career is at 5/6 does that mean hell automatically go down to 4/6 nxt yr? 17 yr old.

No ... He can stay for another 1-2 years at 5/6, but, of course, he can drop to 4/6.
At 15 y old, what was his CL ? (is very important)

Im obviously not understanding cause unless im doing something silly then the EQ of player A is actually less than the average of the 3 qualities.

Average of 3 qualities = (83+50+34)/3=55.67
EQ = (2 + 1 + 1) / (2/83 + 1/50 + 1/34) = 54.42

Given that the skill you want to train more is actually the higher quality i would have thought that player would be seen as better than just the average of the qualities.

using Popaji's suggestion you get

Player A = (2*83+50+34)/4 = 62.5

This seems like a better result to me.

What am i missing?

Qualities are rates and the arithmetic mean gives an incorrect result for average training time. The harmonic mean (en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Ha... ) is the correct method for finding the average rate of improvement. The EQ I calculated earlier is simply the weighted harmonic mean multiplied by the drop from CL as Ciukitu stated above.

Qualities can be thought of as a percent of the maximum possible training rate. So a player with 100 quality will train at 100% of the maximum possible that his facilities and staff would allow. Similarly 50 quality and 1 quality are 50% and 1% respectively. If, for example, the maximum possible training per day would be 1 point, then the attribute with 100 quality would take 1 day to gain 1 point, the attribute with 50 quality would take 2 days, and the attribute with 1 quality would take 100 days.

So, if we have 2 players training 2 attributes that they want to keep in a 1:1 ratio, one player with qualities 99 and 1, and the other with 50 in both, the average calculated in the usual way is 50 for both and would seem to indicate that overall they will advance at the same rate. This is false however because the player with 99 and 1 qualities will advance much slower then the player with 50 in both. The harmonic means are 1.98 and 50 and give a true indication of just how long it will take the 99 and 1 player to gain 2 points overall.

By the way ... just remembered now ! Practice reduction for players is not influenced only by CL, but by age too !

had another look at it. Makes sense.

However, it does seem to make the assumption that training is linear starting at zero. Ie 100 trains at 100% and 1 trains at 1%.

If there is an initial offset then the harmonic mean will not accurately predict as far as i can see. Ie if 100 trains at 110% and 1 trains at say 10%.

Examples
Player A, 70, 50, 30 qualities for main, sec, sec
Player B, 50, 50, 50 qualities for main, sec, sec
Obviously both players have same average of 50.

Days to train = number of days to train the primary to 100 and the secondaries both to 50 each from 0.

****Example 1****
(Assume 99 quality trains at 0.99 and 1 quality trains at 0.01)
EQ Player A: 48.84, Days to train = 409.52
EQ Player B: 50.00, Days to train = 400
Thus higher EQ trains faster, so far so good.

****Example 2****
(Assume 99 quality trains at 1.09 and 1 quality trains at 0.11, ie offset by 0.1)
EQ Player A: 48.84, Days to train = 333.33
EQ Player B: 50.00, Days to train = 333.33
Now the higher EQ player only trains at the same speed.

Guess the question is - if a player has 1% quality do they really train at only 1% of the maximum? Personally ive never bothered to check that closely.

"Im obviously not understanding cause unless im doing something silly then the EQ of player A is actually less than the average of the 3 qualities"

That's to be expected. Let's think of making a trip. You drive 200 miles at 83 mph; 100 miles at 50 mph; and 100 miles at 34 mph. It took 200/83 = 2.41 hours to travel the first 200 miles; and then 100/50 = 2.00 hours; and 100/34 = 2.94 hours. In total it took 7.35 hours =(2.41 + 2.00 + 2.94) to travel the entire 400 miles. Your average speed for the trip is 400/7.35 or 54.4 miles per hour.

Even though 1/2 the journey in miles was at high speed on a freeway, you spent most of your time at lower speed, in traffic or in town.

Now back to training, where we want to increase one skill 2 units, and the other two skills 1 unit each. If the Q for those two lower skills is low, then you are going to spend several days getting them to increase, even though you can get improvement in the primary skill at a fast pace.

If the speeds (or Q) are roughly the same (say 73, 70, and 68) then it comes out about the same either way. But a bad Q in an important skill can really slow down overall improvement.

Conceivably, you could reduce the amount of gain in the slow speed skill. Let's say instead of 100 miles at 34 mph, we only travel 80 miles at 34 mph. It takes 2.35 hours for the 80 miles, and 6.76 hours for 380 miles, or 56.2 mph.

If we are training. we can get a player to

109:54:43 in about the same time as 100:50:50

The question is does the higher overall OR compensate for the greater imbalance? IRL, you might be able to complement one wing who is more aggressive, with another who has a better shot. Conceivably someone who can go hard on the net doesn't need to shoot quite as accurately because the G doesn't have as much time to position himself. A less aggressive player might have to have a perfect shot placement to score. But the ME might not work that way.

this is all pretty interesting...but anyone figure out a good value for shooting yet?

Yep, I have a theory !
Many users stated that shooting must be in correlation with maine skill, but I think not. As higher this skill is, even if is double than main skill, player's chances to score a goal are greater !

I'm finally in the process of raising one of my player's shooting skill to 70% of main attribute, and we'll see how that goes!

I am training my key scorers to have shooting at at least 70% of their main.