Does anyone have any reliable data on the effectiveness of raising an assistant coach's skill level from 80 to 85, for example?
I have the impression that it's infinitesimal in terms of the % of training acquired.

And the same goes for the recruiter, as the measurement of his effectiveness is based on probabilities, I don't think we can really measure the value of the training courses.
For the level of the CDF, yes, that's for sure, but for the level of the recruiter, juniors, it's hard to know whether it's worth investing in training courses.

The gain between a 90 and an 80 for an EA is very, very small indeed.
I won't give the figures, because this aspect of the game has to appeal to the most optimistic people ;)

It's very small indeed. I'd go for a 3 to 4 pts win on a full course max.

If it's indeed 3 or 4 pts, so roughly 0.75 pt per season, that's not so insignificant, especially as it's probably also passed on a little to post-training training.

I'm sure that at LV there's a manager who has an EA at 90 and another who has one at 80.

And just look at the gain between the 2 to do a training session at 25%.

You'll soon understand what I mean by the word "tiny" ;)

With pleasure

It's marginal, but if you can afford it, do the courses.

The data is simple: 0.218 and 0.217 for XP at 25% between an 80 and a 90.
From memory, between 80 and 85 it doesn't even change.
The gain in EC is also in the region of a hair's breadth.

It's up to the managers to decide whether these very marginal gains are worth the millions invested.

As for RJ, I can't say because there are no figures as there are for EA. But I think we're on the same order of magnitude: a hair out of place.

Socrate: Je suis sur que chez les LV il y’a un manager qui a un EA à 90 et un autre qui en a un a 80.

Et voyez juste le gain entre les 2 pour faire un entraînement à 25%

Vous allez vite comprendre le sens du mot infime chez moi ;)

Au plaisir

It won't necessarily be representative because the effectiveness of a training session on a player is not exactly the same from one day to the next.
No idea why: % of player's physique? Number of players trained on the criterion? Or perhaps simply the influence of a random variable?

You barely earn 1 point on any course

Given the figures announced, it would not be at all profitable to improve our staff. Especially as they're unavailable during training camps, so we'd have to recruit others, at least temporarily.

Of course, those of you who have been with the game for a while know that there are always changes to the settings that can be made from one day to the next without any prior or subsequent notice, but as things stand I think I'm going to give up sending my staff on training courses.

Long gone are the days when some assistant coaches were as expensive or even more expensive than the best players in the game :) :) :)

myforsans: Vu les chiffres annoncés ça ne serait donc pas du tout rentable d'améliorer ses staffs. Surtout qu'en plus pendant les stages, ils sont indisponibles et qu'il faut donc en recruter d'autres au moins temporairement.

Bon évidemment ceux qui ont un peu d'ancienneté sur le jeu savent qu'on n'est pas à l'abri d'une modification de paramétrage effective du jour au lendemain et sans avoir été annoncée ni a priori ni a posteriori mais en l'état je crois que je vais renoncer à envoyer mes staffs en s...

I personally think that a 90 is still beneficial if you train rigorously...
We're only talking about IEs here, but ECs. There's a bit of a difference too.
Even if it's only 4 5 pts, that's still an extra 2ng.

hazard14: Je le pense personnellement que un 90 est malgré tout bénéfique si tu forme avec rigueur...
On parle que des EI la mais les EC. Il y a une petite différence aussi.
Meme si cest que 4 5 pts c'est quand meme 2ng en plus

Unfortunately, I'm afraid that's not the case. I've done a number of studies on this subject with EA at different levels (81, 85, 87 and 90).
I used different samples of players with different progression coefficients, and averaged their EC gains over more than a dozen training sessions... And in terms of results, as I saw above, it's literally a tiny difference.
Maybe things have changed since then, but I don't think so.

Pauul76: Malheureusement j'ai bien peur que ce ne soit pas le cas, j'ai fait de nombreuses études sur ce sujet avec des EA à différents niveaux 81, 85,87 et 90.
J'ai utilisé différents échantillons de joueurs avec des coefficients de progression différents, et en prenant la moyenne de leur gain en EC sur plus d'une dizaine d'entrainement... Et au niveau du résultat, comme je l'ai vu plus haut, c'est littéralement une infime différence.
Peut être que ça a changé depuis, mais je ne pense pas.

I did some tests too but I can't remember the results lol
I'm going to try to do some more tests but it's complicated unless I take an ea80 and 90 and do 1 ec to see the difference with the same coefficient.

hazard14: J'avais fait quelque test aussi mais je me rappel plus du tout du résultat lol
Je vais essayer de refaire des test mais cest compliqué a moins je prenne un ea80 et 90 et que je fasse 1 ec pour voir la différence avec le meme coeff

Ask members of your agreement to send you figures with the different EA, and you'll see.
However, to be as reliable as possible, you need to take a large sample (at least 10/15 training sessions and 15 players).

Pauul76: Demande à des membres de ton entente de t'envoyer des chiffres avec les différents EA, tu verras.
Par contre, pour que ce soit le plus fiable possible, faut faire en sorte de prendre sur un grand échantillon (au moins 10/15 entrainements et 15 joueurs)

The most annoying thing is having the same coefficients

In any case, what's certain is that we're not really talking about 4-5 extra points on a rigorous training programme from 17 to 24 years old.
Really, if you reach 1 point, it's already good, if you go beyond that point, it's amazing and I think it's more likely to happen with potential 84+ players.

After that, maybe your tests that make you say 4-5 points more were carried out on the old training meta.
Even if 4-5 still seems quite high, I think that on the old meta we were undoubtedly closer to those figures than on the current meta.