-5 per cent after 10 hours between two training sessions. -7 per cent for 9 hours. Have the percentage losses increased?

1 per cent for 15 hours

Yes, it has gone up this week

Nice....

No doubt to discourage players from stockpiling training sessions.
Because at the moment, it’s going to take a long time to use up seven training sessions.

The recent changes are paradoxical:
Some are designed to make the game harder, such as this change or the increase in fitness loss during matches.
Others, on the contrary, are designed to make the game easier: points awarded for defeats, player donations disguised as 100k sales, etc.

lorenzo861: -5% après 10h entre 2 entraînements. -7 pour 9h. Les pourcentages de perte ont ils augmenté ?

You can run a new training session every 24 hours. Your training sessions should therefore ideally be spaced out by this amount of time if you want to optimise your players’ recovery. This is the system I described #forum?topic=140755:

To optimise player recovery, it is therefore advisable to schedule training sessions at as regular intervals as possible.

And there you go – it’s a case of one side pulling the rope, then the other…
‘Pay to win’ – hello! There’s clearly no way left to optimise the training even a little bit…

hazard14: Et voilà un tire la corde d'un côté puis de l'autre....
Pay to win bonjour il y a clairement plus aucun levier pour optimiser un petit peu la formation ....

Well, some people wanted the training to be a bit tougher; this is part of that, so you’ll have to manage your training sessions carefully if you’re going to fit them all in.

Well, if that’s fine by you, that’s what matters!

hazard14: Bah écoute si ca vous vas c'est le principal !

I didn’t say that, but if at some point you ask for a bit of a challenge, you can’t complain when you get one

Galywat: J’ai pas dit ca, mais à un moment si tu réclames un peu de difficulté tu peux pas te plaindre que ce soit le cas

In fact, you won’t have any difficulties; you’ll just have an even more limited training programme, which will mean you’ll end up with pot80s at a maximum of 77ng. So from that point on, ‘pay-to-win’ will simply be the solution.

Do not confuse a call for greater academic rigour with a call for greater diversity in education.

hazard14: En faite ta aucune difficulté tu as juste une formation encore plus restreinte qui amènera a avoir des pot80 à 77ng max . Donc a partir de la le pay to win sera la solution tout simplement

Well, no – you can still save seven training sessions if you want to; you just need to be sensible and plan ahead so you don’t run into any recovery issues.

Galywat: Bah non, tu peux toujours stocker 7 entraînements si tu le veux, faut juste etre intelligent et prévoyant pour pas avoir de problème de récupération.

So I can’t wait to see the 90ng that all the clever blokes will be able to come up with.

hazard14: Alors jai hâte de voir les 90ng que tout les mecs intelligent vont pouvoir sortir .

Why do you twist everything?

Galywat: Pourquoi tu déformes tout ?

I’m just pointing out the reality of the situation: we’ll end up having to pay to win just to get 90ng, and you’re contradicting me by saying we’ll just need to manage our resources better.
So I’m not exaggerating, as my basic idea is simply that the line-up will be rubbish, with players who are only as good as their pots – that’s all.

hazard14: Je montre juste la réalité dez choses qu'on va passer en pay to win pour avoir du 90ng et toi tu me contredit en disant que faudra juste mieux gerer la récupération.
Donc je deforme pas vu que mon idée de base est que la formation sera le néant avec des joueurs égale max aux pot c'est tout .
Bref jai pas votre vision et puis c'est tout .

I’m not saying there aren’t any issues with the vfstore; I agree with you.

But this change won’t mean you’ll train any less effectively than you did yesterday. You couldn’t get a 90 yesterday, and you can’t today either.

Galywat: Je dis pas qu’il y a pas de problème avec le vfstore, je te rejoins.

Mais tu vas pas moins bien former qu'hier avec cette évolution. Tu pouvais pas avoir de 90 hier, aujourd'hui non plus.

Aaah, but we’ve agreed for the last three or four seasons that it’s over.
That’s why, as far as I’m concerned, ‘pay-to-win’ is on its way, and to get the best players you’ll have to spend money or finish in the top 12 to 16 in Division 1 to bag a pot90.

hazard14: Aaah mais on est d'accord depuis 3 4 saisons c'est fini .
Cest pour sa que pour moi le pay to win arrive et que pour avoir les meilleurs joueurs tu devra mettre la CB ou finir top 12 à 16 en div1 entente pour choper un pot90

Yes, at the moment you can get much better items at the VF Store – that’s a problem.

Personally, I’m still hoping it’s just temporary, until the generations aged 28 and over disappear from the game.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that, for the last two or three seasons, it’s become a bit easier to find players with good potential through scouting or the recruitment system. It’s not quite the same thing to reach a Natural Growth (NG) rating of 90 with a potential of 80 as it is with a potential of 84.

hazard14: Aaah mais on est d'accord depuis 3 4 saisons c'est fini .
Cest pour sa que pour moi le pay to win arrive et que pour avoir les meilleurs joueurs tu devra mettre la CB ou finir top 12 à 16 en div1 entente pour choper un pot90

Store players certainly have a higher NG but lack versatility and are already getting on in years. These are important considerations for some.

I don’t see the point in Aymeric putting all his eggs in the Store basket when the majority of his community favours training.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the game is moving more towards developing players with a distinct playing style rather than focusing on high NG. Recent updates have given prominence to players with a distinct playing style and a bit of stamina.

Demi-cerveau: Ne pas oublier non plus que depuis 2 ou 3 saisons on trouve un peu plus facilement des joueurs avec de bons potentiels avec la détection ou le recruteur. C'est pas tout à fait la même chose d'atteindre 90 de NG avec un potentiel 80 et avec un potentiel 84.

Absolutely, the increase in potential has helped restore a balance.

At present, apart from very specific cases, there’s no reason to complain. The balance is very good.

If anything, there is a real issue regarding university players, which needs to be better designed – both in terms of how they can be acquired and in other areas (for example, after the top 8–9, clubs don’t even bother to select players…)