Hattrick - User contributions [en]

Talk:Training

2009-06-12T09:43:21Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Expensive in long term */

I'm trying to decide whether to train scoring or shooting, however shooting says it trains "outfielders", outfielders isn't a position in Hattrick. Please correct this so that the training page makes sense and each type of training corresponds with Hattrick positions not real world soccer knowledge that not all players have! -- Unsigned edit added by anon user 68.117.134.179 on 7 May 2007

----

I have added when to cash in, and also a minor change to general, as general (although very minimally) does train keepers

----

Do alot of people not train till 21, might be worth mentioning that for balance.
The bit on form about goalkeeping was there, just not very clear really.
So I've tidyed it up so hopefully it is clear now that general trains goalkeeping and also that shooting trains set pieces

----

I feel personally that 21 is getting on a bit, so I put 20, but that said if the general consensus is 21 it can be changed
----
As team gets stronger, it becomes important to find the balance between trainable and playable players, therefore I'd say, that 21 y.o. are not too old for training.
----
If I could choose between training a passable scoring at the age of 17 and a brilliant scoring at the age of 21, then I would certainly chose the second...
The second one earns immediatly at least 500k per level, while the 17 year old has to wait till he makes such profits per week...

Furthermore, I think that that should say that only counts for training primary skills, because when you train secondaries (like passing) you will very likely have older trainees, because such trainings are most lucrative when you train someone who already has a high primary skill.
----

With through passes, you can train 20 people, not 18. You could play twice 5-5-0.

you can indeed train 20 as you can with defensive position
however since you can't gain formation experience I did not count them.

In reality each training type could well have a page to itself detailing all the ins and outs
profit potential/formations to use/ways to balance winning games and using that type of training

Since training is so vital to hattrick it is no harm to strive to create a real definitive guide to all the options
----
What do you think about adding section with pros and cons of different training types? -- [[User:Jablan|jablan]]

I agree completely but the differences between each choice is non trivial. To present all the facts I think it would be worthwhile having a page for each training type, except general :), outlining the amount of people doing it, potential profitability, cost of trainees, important secondaries, what formations it limits you to and other such considerations --[[User:Theschneer|Theschneer]] 19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

----
Is that 16 weeks for Set Pieces trained with Shooting really correct? /Escogido#

with the training table - does anyone else feel there should be a more exact description of how training works, ie, the percentage per week numbers, or should we stick to the hattrix numbers? --[[User:Dancing rob|Dancing rob]]

----

Dang....I can't do redirects worth beans in Libbyland, but the table sections need article links. (OgtheDim)

----

I have created a page for the crossing training type. Most links in the table now link to the skills, I think they should link to a training type page. In these pages could be the pros and cons, like in crossing training type.

----
An edit added a "huh?" about skilltrading -- it refers to buying a player who played for the selling club in a match that week a position covered by your training type. If he is on your club for the training update, he will get training, even though he didn't play for your club. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

----
Keeper training time: when I was training keepers, I found that I got pops every five weeks with a solid coach. That's also been my observation for winger training, with the ''occasional'' exception where it's four weeks. It's not frequent enough to call it less than five. If you are going to make a modification here, please provide a detailed counterexample. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

----
The most recent edit reduces the base training time for scoring from 7 weeks to 6 weeks. Is there any basis for this, or should I revert? --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Expensive in long term ==

"Excellent coaches train slightly faster than solid ones by roughly half a week but are generally seen as too expensive to be profitable in the long term."

Do excellent coaches cost more per week or is the initial investment just larger? If the latter is the case, then aren't they too expensive in the ''short'' term?

: They are expensive in the short term if manager doesn't need much leadership on his coach. If the manager on the other hand wants his coach to have leadership he'll have to replace the coach once in two or three seasons or so, which makes them very expensive in the long term also. --[[User:Jhattara|Jhattara]] 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

----
Comparing 10 and 5 assistant coaches (as in example), square root model would suggest 1.41 times better assistant efficiency with 10 coaches, but the 50% model would suggest only 1.03 times better efficiency. Going further into calculation, trying to assess how much assistant coaches really help the main coach, if we assume 1 week difference in 104 weeks, sqrt model suggests that 10 coaches bring only 3.4% to total training (compared to no-coach), and using 50% model, 10 coaches would bring 59% to the total training. Thus, at least one of models is completely wrong, and maybe even both of them. In other words, we don't know much about this, and those models are probably someone's fantasy not backed by any real data.

Is at least this one week difference from solid to divine keeper confirmed by someone?

------
That was a great post to read. No, it does not seem to be, unfortunately. Apparently two USA users trained two keepers (seperately - one each) from solid to divine. They say they both popped together until the last level when one popped a week before the other. This seems like a shaky tale at best and doesn't explain possible sub level differences at the start. The whole solid-divine week rule seems to be a rumor that started several years ago, as no one can provide any proof for it.

The 50% rule and square root rule both have little proof as well. What needs to be done is a long study starting with comparing 0 coaches to 1, then 1 to 2, etc. This can be done with solid coaches and a player starting at a skill level of nonexistant (to avoid sublevel problems that you get when starting at a level like solid). If anyone is interested in really starting this, let me know through an ingame message to Rhapsodysvs.

Of course, the form effects from assistant coaches can probably never be quantified.
--[[User:Rhapsodysvs|Rhapsodysvs]] 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== Specialists ==

On the Wiki page the writer says this:

Another model suggests that each additional assistant coach is worth 50% of the previous. If that is the case then you get something like this:

1 = 100% 2 = 50% 3 = 25% 4 = 12.5% 5 = 6.25% 6 = 3.125% 7 = 1.5625% 8 = 0.78125% 9 = 0.390625% 10 = 0.1953125%

Shouldn´t it start with 50% as more then 100% is not possible. You then get this:

1 = 50% 2 = 25% 3 = 12.5% 4 = 6.25% 5 = 3.125% 6 = 1.5625% 7 = 0.78125% 8 = 0.390625% 9 = 0.1953125% 10 = 0.09765625.

You can then say:

1 assistent helps 50% of the trainer assistent capacity.
2 adds 75%
3 adds 82.5%
4 adds 88.75%
5 adds 91.875%
6 adds 93.4375%
7 adds 94.21875%
8 adds 94.609375%
9 adds 94.8046875%
10 adds 94.90234375%

: The original formulation makes perfect sense relative to the performance of a single assistant, where it certainly is possible to get more than 100%. In fact, if there were not declining contribution, then 10 assistants would give you 1000% of the contribution of one assistant. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== Training speed ==

The speed table says 6.5 weeks for both scoring and playmaking. In my opinion it's more 7 for playmaking and 6 for scoring. Anyone else having an opinion on this? --[[User:Mod-Karlthegreat|Mod-Karlthegreat]] 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== New Trainingspeed Values ==

I've added the values of my training speed formula Excel sheet to the wiki.
[http://www.flattermann.net/downloads TrainingspeedFormula.xls]

They seem to be pretty correct, but feel free to revert my changes or edit the values that you don't like... :-)
--[[User:Flattermann|Flattermann]] 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Youth

2009-06-12T09:42:24Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Change to Old Youth Squad */

Articles are supposed to exist to present objective, valid information.
Discussion is supposed to exist to discuss the articles.

That being said, here's the original content someone put in the article:

Possible Subject matters-

-Evaluation of collected data to determine how high a youth pull is in his relevent skills

-The true probability of pulling certain levels of youth pull

-Whether any factors on our part contribute to the quality of the youth pull ie time he's pulled etc

//

Youth pulling is a pure lottery. So don't cry, if you get the Xth bad player.

Anything below 'passable' is not worth to be put on the transfer market.

If you invest in your youth pull every week. Some people think it's best to pull keepers before the youth hits 'excellent'.

----

I had thought wiki was unmoderated... we do not need a pseudo moderator here editing every topic he is not in agreance with

Right. The whole purpose of a Wiki is to let everyone write "I want to say hello to my mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and my dog" on each and every page and for that to stay there, never to be edited out. The original content was THOUGHTS about what should be in the article, not valid and worthy information for an article. And a Wiki should at least TRY to present valid information.

----

A wiki should also should also not be moderated by every joe average that is in disagreance with what is being presented

----
There needs to be a balance... However, If you can't take it that you're ruthlessly being editted, then don't write here. (it's somewhere in the [[help]]file)

[[User:80.190.240.126|80.190.240.126]] 11:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

----

Took out all references to the word junior squad....the English version of HT doesn't use that word.

----
Just wanted to mark about useless youth pulls - I wrote down in the begining that even "inadquate" pulls would be thrown away (unless pherhaps if we're dealing with young keepers) and I still hold that opinion. I challenge the moderation to "weak" under the "Plumbers and Golfers" section.
Unless if you prove me wrong here (I'm not phanatic, it shouldn't be that hard really) I see no reason for me not to change it back to 'inad.' and I ask those who want to change it to 'weak' - please explain why not inad. with the exception of young keepers.--[[User:Just Y|Just Y]] 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that there are four types of inadequate that sell, whereas a 'weak' will never sell. I think it's cleaner to say'weak' rather than 'inad, but with 4 exceptions...

The four types are

players that are inad in more than one skill

inad players with decent passing

inad goalies

early season 17 year old inads.

I won't change it back just yet, so I'll wait for your response!

[[User:Dancing rob|Dancing rob]] 09:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's put aside the goalies, as both us agree on that group. Remaining are these:

inad. players with decent passing - as long as thier passing is no higher than "inad." (and that is what I meant by an inad. pull, not only primary attributes) I don't thing they'll be quite a hit.

However, I must agree than multi-skilled inad.'s, especially younger ones, have a slight chanse of being sent to the market.

I think that maybe changing (or is it so already? I'm not certain) it to "Even inad. pulls...bla bla.. are MOSTLY SENT.. bla bla.. would make a decent compromise.

--[[User:Just Y|Just Y]] 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about training useless YPs in SP. Neither humourous nor informative, and served no other purpose than to confuse new players.

== Youth Pull with "Inadequate" main skill ==

MY philosophy is that if the pull is 17 years old it is a good pull... especially if they also have decent secondaries. At 17 they could easily make passable to solid in the first season... and I don't know many people that would snuff off a 18 year old solid with decent secondaries... But thats just me.

==Discussion of Youth Scouts ==

I'm looking for some content on how to evaluate Scouts, when to fire them, and how to know if they are doing a good job.

== paying for the new youth system? ==

does your funding increase chances of scouting in the new system or raise their imaginary TSI or skill at all?? or should you scrap the funding if you have changed to the new system??

==Discussion of Youth Academy==

There needs to be some information on how long you can keep a player in the academy, that is the age limit. Also to what age limit will they continue to train?

Additionally, I would like to see a page that say what positions are trained by all the variety of YA training options...

== Change to Old Youth Squad ==
6/12/2009

In the past couple of weeks, very, very, good players have been pulled from the Old YS. Double excellents with solid tertiary, quadruple-solids with two passable skills to boot, etc. The HTs have not yet made comment, but possibly they felt that the old YS was unbalanced with the new one. Check post 12994370.1 for a link to the discussing thread in Global (English).
--[[User:Rhapsodysvs|Rhapsodysvs]] 09:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Youth

2009-06-12T09:41:56Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Change to Old Youth Squad */

Talk:Youth

2009-06-12T09:41:27Z

Rhapsodysvs: Change to Old Youth Squad

Articles are supposed to exist to present objective, valid information.
Discussion is supposed to exist to discuss the articles.

That being said, here's the original content someone put in the article:

Possible Subject matters-

-Evaluation of collected data to determine how high a youth pull is in his relevent skills

-The true probability of pulling certain levels of youth pull

-Whether any factors on our part contribute to the quality of the youth pull ie time he's pulled etc

//

Youth pulling is a pure lottery. So don't cry, if you get the Xth bad player.

Anything below 'passable' is not worth to be put on the transfer market.

If you invest in your youth pull every week. Some people think it's best to pull keepers before the youth hits 'excellent'.

----

I had thought wiki was unmoderated... we do not need a pseudo moderator here editing every topic he is not in agreance with

Right. The whole purpose of a Wiki is to let everyone write "I want to say hello to my mom, dad, grandpa, grandma and my dog" on each and every page and for that to stay there, never to be edited out. The original content was THOUGHTS about what should be in the article, not valid and worthy information for an article. And a Wiki should at least TRY to present valid information.

----

A wiki should also should also not be moderated by every joe average that is in disagreance with what is being presented

----
There needs to be a balance... However, If you can't take it that you're ruthlessly being editted, then don't write here. (it's somewhere in the [[help]]file)

[[User:80.190.240.126|80.190.240.126]] 11:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

----

Took out all references to the word junior squad....the English version of HT doesn't use that word.

----
Just wanted to mark about useless youth pulls - I wrote down in the begining that even "inadquate" pulls would be thrown away (unless pherhaps if we're dealing with young keepers) and I still hold that opinion. I challenge the moderation to "weak" under the "Plumbers and Golfers" section.
Unless if you prove me wrong here (I'm not phanatic, it shouldn't be that hard really) I see no reason for me not to change it back to 'inad.' and I ask those who want to change it to 'weak' - please explain why not inad. with the exception of young keepers.--[[User:Just Y|Just Y]] 00:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that there are four types of inadequate that sell, whereas a 'weak' will never sell. I think it's cleaner to say'weak' rather than 'inad, but with 4 exceptions...

The four types are

players that are inad in more than one skill

inad players with decent passing

inad goalies

early season 17 year old inads.

I won't change it back just yet, so I'll wait for your response!

[[User:Dancing rob|Dancing rob]] 09:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's put aside the goalies, as both us agree on that group. Remaining are these:

inad. players with decent passing - as long as thier passing is no higher than "inad." (and that is what I meant by an inad. pull, not only primary attributes) I don't thing they'll be quite a hit.

However, I must agree than multi-skilled inad.'s, especially younger ones, have a slight chanse of being sent to the market.

I think that maybe changing (or is it so already? I'm not certain) it to "Even inad. pulls...bla bla.. are MOSTLY SENT.. bla bla.. would make a decent compromise.

--[[User:Just Y|Just Y]] 20:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed paragraph about training useless YPs in SP. Neither humourous nor informative, and served no other purpose than to confuse new players.

== Youth Pull with "Inadequate" main skill ==

MY philosophy is that if the pull is 17 years old it is a good pull... especially if they also have decent secondaries. At 17 they could easily make passable to solid in the first season... and I don't know many people that would snuff off a 18 year old solid with decent secondaries... But thats just me.

==Discussion of Youth Scouts ==

I'm looking for some content on how to evaluate Scouts, when to fire them, and how to know if they are doing a good job.

== paying for the new youth system? ==

does your funding increase chances of scouting in the new system or raise their imaginary TSI or skill at all?? or should you scrap the funding if you have changed to the new system??

==Discussion of Youth Academy==

There needs to be some information on how long you can keep a player in the academy, that is the age limit. Also to what age limit will they continue to train?

Additionally, I would like to see a page that say what positions are trained by all the variety of YA training options...

== Change to Old Youth Squad ==

In the past couple of weeks, very, very, good players have been pulled from the Old YS. Double excellents with solid tertiary, quadruple-solids with two passable skills to boot, etc. The HTs have not yet made comment, but possibly they felt that the old YS was unbalanced with the new one. Check post 12994370.1 for a link to the discussing thread in Global (English).

Training

2009-06-12T09:12:04Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Effect of assistants */

{{Interwiki/Training}}

== Importance of training ==

'''Training''' is one of the most important aspects of a successful [[team]] in Hattrick. By concentrating on training just one [[skills|skill]] for a number of seasons a team can take medium skilled, young [[players]] and train them up to become superstars, who can then be sold for a profit or kept in the team, thus improving the team and helping the team to eventually win [[promotion]].

But the monetary side is only one side of the coin. Each training type also has associated other benefits and disadvantages. For example a playmaking trainer can't train his players efficiently in the later [[cup]] rounds and a goalkeeper trainer is not limited to specific [[formation]].

== Choosing trainees ==

Choosing the correct players to train is a balancing act. There are four factors to consider.
* Main skill ([[goalkeeping]], [[defending]], [[playmaking]], [[winger]] or [[scoring]])
* Age
* Secondary skills, related to the main skill
* Price

There is little to be gained from training players that are not at least [[Denominations#Player_abilities_etc|passable]] in their main skill. For new teams 17 year olds with at least Passable main skill should be considered.
Training a player who is passable or solid in primary skill is not as profitable as training higher skills, but lower skilled players cost considerably less to purchase.
To get some ideas of the cost and profit from various skill increases see
[http://www.lokesoftware.dk/ham/hamtpestats.cfm?Skill=1 HAM Transfer Price Evaluation].

As players age, they decrease in price, so buying slightly older players (e.g. 18 or 19 year olds) is often wise.

The better the secondary skills, the more you will pay to purchase the trainee, but the final selling price will also be higher.

== Training types ==
{{Based_on_research}}
In Hattrick, training takes place once a week. Typically only players who played on certain positions are fully trained depending on the skill you are training. If, for instance, [[forward]]s are being trained then only the players that played as a forward in one of the two games that week receive training. There are 12 types of training. Each have their own potential for generating profit or improving your team. ''Generally the training types that concentrate on one of the main skills ([[goalkeeping]], [[defending]], [[playmaking]], [[wing]]er, and [[scoring]]) are the most popular training types.''

To train the maximum number of players each week it is important to arrange [[friendlies]] where you play your trainees who did not play in the league match in the same week.

Brackets indicate small effects. Double brackets indicate very small effects.
<TABLE>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#dddddd">
<TD>Training type</TD>
<TD>Improves</TD>
<TD>...for...</TD>
<TD>Training speed</TD>
<TD>Max players trained</TD>

<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Goalkeeping training|Goalkeeping]]</TD>
<TD>Goalkeeping</TD>
<TD>Goalkeepers </TD>
<TD>4 weeks</TD>
<TD>2</TD>

</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Defending training | Defending]]</TD>
<TD>Defending</TD>
<TD>Defenders, Wing backs ((Others))</TD>
<TD>7.4 weeks</TD>
<TD>10</TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Playmaking training|Playmaking]]      </TD>
<TD>Playmaking</TD>
<TD>Inner midfielders (Wingers) ((Others))</TD>
<TD>6.3 weeks</TD>
<TD>6 (4)</TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Scoring training | Scoring]]</TD>
<TD>Scoring</TD>
<TD>Forwards ((others)) </TD>
<TD>6.5 weeks</TD>
<TD>6</TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Crossing (Winger)]]</TD>
<TD>Winger</TD>
<TD>Wingers (Wing backs) ((others))</TD>
<TD>4.4 weeks</TD>
<TD>4 (4)</TD>
</TR>
<TR valign="top" style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Defensive positions]]</TD>
<TD>Defending</TD>
<TD>(Goalkeepers, defenders, inner midfielders and wingers) ((Others))</TD>
<TD>14.8 weeks</TD>
<TD>(20)</TD>

</TR>

<TR valign="top" style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>[[Wing attacks]]</TD>
<TD>Winger</TD>
<TD>Forwards and wingers ((Others))</TD>
<TD>7.3 weeks</TD>
<TD>10</TD>

</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD rowspan=2>[[Shooting]]</TD>
<TD>(Scoring)</TD>
<TD>(Outfielders) ((Others))</TD>
<TD>11 weeks</TD>
<TD>(20+) </TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddffdd">
<TD>(Set pieces)</TD>
<TD>((All who played a game during the week))</TD>
<TD>Pretty long</TD>
<TD>(22)</TD>
</TR>

<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ffdddd">
<TD>[[Short passes]]</TD>
<TD>Passing</TD>
<TD>Midfielders, wingers and forwards ((Others))</TD>
<TD>5.8 weeks</TD>
<TD>16</TD>

</TR>
<TR valign="top" style="background-color:#ffdddd">
<TD>[[Through passes]]</TD>
<TD>Passing</TD>
<TD>Defenders, midfielders and wingers ((Others))</TD>
<TD>6.8 weeks</TD>
<TD>20</TD>

</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ffdddd">
<TD>[[Set pieces training|Set pieces]]</TD>
<TD>Set pieces</TD>
<TD>All who played a game during the week, 25% bonus to the set pieces taker and goalkeeper</TD>
<TD>1.3 week</TD>
<TD>22</TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddddff">
<TD rowspan=2>[[General training | General]]</TD>
<TD>(Form)</TD>
<TD>(All who played a game during the week)</TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD>22</TD>
</TR>
<TR vAlign=top style="background-color:#ddddff">
<TD>(Goalkeeping)</TD>
<TD>((Goalkeepers))</TD>
<TD></TD>
<TD></TD>
</TR>

</TABLE>

'''Please note the 'Training Speed' numbers are based on 100% training intensity, 15% stamina training, 17 year old trainees having a skillup from [[Denominations|solid]] to [[Denominations|excellent]], using a [[Denominations|solid]] coach, and 9 [[Assistant coach|assistants]].'''

A very rough rule is that for each year above 17 it takes a half week longer to train a player than stated in the above table. A more accurate measurement is that training time increases by approximately 4% each year above 17 years of age.

Also note that these training speed values are given as an average, and can (and will) vary from player to player. This means, for example, that if the value presented for a given training is 7 weeks, some players will take 6, others 8, but if you look at a large number of players they should average at 7. This might be due to the fact that the player gets a part of the next level after a [[pop]]. When that happens he needs less time to pop again. For example: When the first pop ends up to solid and a very little bit (7,02) he needs more time to go to excellent than when his first pop gives him a bit more (7,12).

There is a MS Excel table (see [[#External Links|External Links]] below) to calculate the length of skillups, taking the various parameters (age, trainer, assistants, skill level, ...) into account.
It's based on > 400.000 data samples provided by the the [[Hattrick Organizer]] users.

== Training efficiency factors ==
=== Effect of stamina training ===
The amount of training that you devote to [[stamina]] will cut into the amount of skill training accomplished each week. You will have to balance the amount of stamina training you need to maintain your preferred squad level (as well as any added stamina for trainees).

=== Effect of coach ===
To achieve the optimal training time requires a [[coach]] with solid coaching skills.
A coaching level below that lengthens training time. A general rule of thumb is one extra week for every level below solid, although this rule is not so accurate with the faster training types.

[[Denominations#Coach_skills_/_Form_/_Leadership|Excellent]] coaches train slightly faster than solid ones by roughly half a week but are generally seen as too expensive to be profitable in the long term.

=== Effect of player age ===
Young players train much faster than old players. To achieve the optimal training time, many managers prefer trainees between the ages of 17 and 20, with 17 or 18 the best age to start training. Clubs at higher series levels may prefer to train older players at a higher skill level in order to remain competitive in both the league and the cup.

Older players are slower to train, and a good rule of thumb is one half extra week for every year older than 17. More precisely, training becomes approx. 4% slower for every year above this (also called trainings speed depreciation).

As a player reaches 27 his abilities may start to decrease. This process doesn't occur constantly, and there is no guarantee it will happen at all. Typically, very small decreases occur for players around 30, considerably larger leaps for players around 35. For some reason, these decreases in abilities always surface on Mondays. Certain skills are harder to maintain as players grow older — scoring ability is the hardest to maintain, whilst goalkeeping is the easiest.

=== Effect of assistants ===
[[Assistant coach]]es also help with training. A team may only have 10 of any one type of [[staff]]. However assistant coaches and [[goalkeeping coach]]es are treated as one type, so a team may only have a combined total of 10 coaches. Typically non-goalkeeping training teams employ 9 assistant coaches and 1 goalkeeping coach. It is believed that a goalkeeping coach helps to maintain the [[form]] of the keeper. Other people prefer a 8 to 2 split between coaches. If training Goalkeeping, a 7 to 3 or 6 to 4 split is often used.

Some users claim it is possible to have 11 coaches without seeing any ill effects, but many users have lost a week of training when trying this.

It is not always in a team's best interest to hire all the possible assistants. The effect of each additional assistant decreases fast. The effect of additional assistants most probably follows a square root dependence, just as economists do. Hence four assistants improve the training twice as much as only one assistant does, and 9 assistants improve the training three times as much ( sqrt(9) vs sqrt(4) vs sqrt(1) ).

Another model suggests that each additional assistant coach is worth 50% of the previous. If that is the case then you get something like this:

1 = 100%
2 = 50%
3 = 25%
4 = 12.5%
5 = 6.25%
6 = 3.125%
7 = 1.5625%
8 = 0.78125%
9 = 0.390625%
10 = 0.1953125%

Example: Having 5 GK coaches instead of 10 will slow GK training all the way from solid to divine by 1 week only. This is approximately 2 years of real time!
To get that one week advantage, it will cost you: 104 weeks * 5 assistants * 1500€ every week = €780.000

New clubs and clubs in financial difficulty should always bear this in mind when trying to make savings.

* For more information, see: [[Staff]]

=== Training intensity ===
Most team managers agree it is best to train at 100% intensity. The benefits are clear in that skills increase more quickly, and there is also the likelihood of better [[form]].

Unfortunately, there is also an increased chance of [[injury]].

== When to cash in ==
{{Based_on_opinion}}

In most cases [[transfers|selling]] trainees at age 21 is the best way to maximise profit. Once a player hits 21 years old, he begins to train at a noticeably slower rate compared to a younger player.

With particularly high skilled players, especially [[National Teams|National Team]] players, training can be taken on further, but in general the financial returns decrease beyond the age of 21.

It is also worth noting it is possible to overtrain a player, and make him unsustainable in the long run due to the extremely high [[wages]]. The recent market deflation also makes selling unprofitable after 21.

== Advanced training ==

* [[Skill trading]] - Primarily refers to buying players believed to be close to "popping", ideally within one to two weeks, benefiting from market inefficiency in valuing partially trained players. This approach is difficult with any skill other than goalkeeping, due to the inexact correspondence of [[TSI]] to player skills.

* [[Osmosis training]] - Up to global season 34, every player in a team got at least a bit of training, even if they didn't play at all. Many teams profited from this by buying a lot of players (up to 50) and waiting for a pop in a few weeks while doing nothing. But from season 35 every player needs to play at least once in a week to get the minimum training, effectively decreasing the profitability of this technique.

But it could be that the goal of maximizing profit is a goal that does not optimise the team over time. Some users believe it is better to develop your own players to advance in the series system, rather than to optimise economical goals. It is after all a football manager game!

== Individual training instruction ==
On the 3rd of July 2008, Hattrick announced that Individual training instruction was available. This means you may exclude up to three players from getting any training (except Stamina) at all from playing a game. The main point of this feature is to avoid paying excessive salaries for players that are already very highly skilled. You access this feature from your Training page.

Individual training has a very different meaning in a [[Youth Academy]]. If Individual training is selected, each player randomly gets a small boost to a relevant skill, eg- keepers will increase keeper, defense or set pieces, while a midfielder will increase playmaking, passing, defense or set pieces. The owner has no control over which skill gets chosen, though, and a skill that is already capped may get picked, resulting in no training for that player. Individual training is rarely used as result of this random factor and the extremely slow speed at which it operates.

== See also ==
[[HTs_on_Global/Training]]

== External Links ==

* [http://trainingspeed.freehostia.com/ Hattrick training speed calculator]
* [http://bobymoore.blogsome.com/category/tips/tips-training/ bobymoore's blog advanced articles on competitive training]
* [http://www.flattermann.net/downloads MS Excel table to predict the skillup length (TrainingspeedFormula.xls)] by [[User:flattermann|flattermann]]

[[Category:Training|*]]

Talk:Training

2009-06-12T09:09:12Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Expensive in long term */

I'm trying to decide whether to train scoring or shooting, however shooting says it trains "outfielders", outfielders isn't a position in Hattrick. Please correct this so that the training page makes sense and each type of training corresponds with Hattrick positions not real world soccer knowledge that not all players have! -- Unsigned edit added by anon user 68.117.134.179 on 7 May 2007

----

I have added when to cash in, and also a minor change to general, as general (although very minimally) does train keepers

----

Do alot of people not train till 21, might be worth mentioning that for balance.
The bit on form about goalkeeping was there, just not very clear really.
So I've tidyed it up so hopefully it is clear now that general trains goalkeeping and also that shooting trains set pieces

----

I feel personally that 21 is getting on a bit, so I put 20, but that said if the general consensus is 21 it can be changed
----
As team gets stronger, it becomes important to find the balance between trainable and playable players, therefore I'd say, that 21 y.o. are not too old for training.
----
If I could choose between training a passable scoring at the age of 17 and a brilliant scoring at the age of 21, then I would certainly chose the second...
The second one earns immediatly at least 500k per level, while the 17 year old has to wait till he makes such profits per week...

Furthermore, I think that that should say that only counts for training primary skills, because when you train secondaries (like passing) you will very likely have older trainees, because such trainings are most lucrative when you train someone who already has a high primary skill.
----

With through passes, you can train 20 people, not 18. You could play twice 5-5-0.

you can indeed train 20 as you can with defensive position
however since you can't gain formation experience I did not count them.

In reality each training type could well have a page to itself detailing all the ins and outs
profit potential/formations to use/ways to balance winning games and using that type of training

Since training is so vital to hattrick it is no harm to strive to create a real definitive guide to all the options
----
What do you think about adding section with pros and cons of different training types? -- [[User:Jablan|jablan]]

I agree completely but the differences between each choice is non trivial. To present all the facts I think it would be worthwhile having a page for each training type, except general :), outlining the amount of people doing it, potential profitability, cost of trainees, important secondaries, what formations it limits you to and other such considerations --[[User:Theschneer|Theschneer]] 19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

----
Is that 16 weeks for Set Pieces trained with Shooting really correct? /Escogido#

with the training table - does anyone else feel there should be a more exact description of how training works, ie, the percentage per week numbers, or should we stick to the hattrix numbers? --[[User:Dancing rob|Dancing rob]]

----

Dang....I can't do redirects worth beans in Libbyland, but the table sections need article links. (OgtheDim)

----

I have created a page for the crossing training type. Most links in the table now link to the skills, I think they should link to a training type page. In these pages could be the pros and cons, like in crossing training type.

----
An edit added a "huh?" about skilltrading -- it refers to buying a player who played for the selling club in a match that week a position covered by your training type. If he is on your club for the training update, he will get training, even though he didn't play for your club. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

----
Keeper training time: when I was training keepers, I found that I got pops every five weeks with a solid coach. That's also been my observation for winger training, with the ''occasional'' exception where it's four weeks. It's not frequent enough to call it less than five. If you are going to make a modification here, please provide a detailed counterexample. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

----
The most recent edit reduces the base training time for scoring from 7 weeks to 6 weeks. Is there any basis for this, or should I revert? --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Expensive in long term ==

"Excellent coaches train slightly faster than solid ones by roughly half a week but are generally seen as too expensive to be profitable in the long term."

Do excellent coaches cost more per week or is the initial investment just larger? If the latter is the case, then aren't they too expensive in the ''short'' term?

: They are expensive in the short term if manager doesn't need much leadership on his coach. If the manager on the other hand wants his coach to have leadership he'll have to replace the coach once in two or three seasons or so, which makes them very expensive in the long term also. --[[User:Jhattara|Jhattara]] 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

----
Comparing 10 and 5 assistant coaches (as in example), square root model would suggest 1.41 times better assistant efficiency with 10 coaches, but the 50% model would suggest only 1.03 times better efficiency. Going further into calculation, trying to assess how much assistant coaches really help the main coach, if we assume 1 week difference in 104 weeks, sqrt model suggests that 10 coaches bring only 3.4% to total training (compared to no-coach), and using 50% model, 10 coaches would bring 59% to the total training. Thus, at least one of models is completely wrong, and maybe even both of them. In other words, we don't know much about this, and those models are probably someone's fantasy not backed by any real data.

Is at least this one week difference from solid to divine keeper confirmed by someone?

------
That was a great post to read. No, it is not unfortunately. Apparently two USA users trained two keepers (seperately - one each) from solid to divine. They say they both popped together until the last level when one popped a week before the other. This seems like a shaky tale at best and doesn't explain possible sub level differences at the start. The whole solid-divine week rule seems to be a rumor that started several years ago, as no one can provide any proof for it.

The 50% rule and square root rule both have little proof as well. What needs to be done is a long study starting with comparing 0 coaches to 1, then 1 to 2, etc. This can be done with solid coaches and a player starting at a skill level of nonexistant (to avoid sublevel problems that you get when starting at a level like solid). If anyone is interested in really starting this, let me know through an ingame message to Rhapsodysvs.

Of course, the form effects from assistant coaches can probably never be quantified.

- Rhap

== Specialists ==

On the Wiki page the writer says this:

Another model suggests that each additional assistant coach is worth 50% of the previous. If that is the case then you get something like this:

1 = 100% 2 = 50% 3 = 25% 4 = 12.5% 5 = 6.25% 6 = 3.125% 7 = 1.5625% 8 = 0.78125% 9 = 0.390625% 10 = 0.1953125%

Shouldn´t it start with 50% as more then 100% is not possible. You then get this:

1 = 50% 2 = 25% 3 = 12.5% 4 = 6.25% 5 = 3.125% 6 = 1.5625% 7 = 0.78125% 8 = 0.390625% 9 = 0.1953125% 10 = 0.09765625.

You can then say:

1 assistent helps 50% of the trainer assistent capacity.
2 adds 75%
3 adds 82.5%
4 adds 88.75%
5 adds 91.875%
6 adds 93.4375%
7 adds 94.21875%
8 adds 94.609375%
9 adds 94.8046875%
10 adds 94.90234375%

: The original formulation makes perfect sense relative to the performance of a single assistant, where it certainly is possible to get more than 100%. In fact, if there were not declining contribution, then 10 assistants would give you 1000% of the contribution of one assistant. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== Training speed ==

The speed table says 6.5 weeks for both scoring and playmaking. In my opinion it's more 7 for playmaking and 6 for scoring. Anyone else having an opinion on this? --[[User:Mod-Karlthegreat|Mod-Karlthegreat]] 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== New Trainingspeed Values ==

I've added the values of my training speed formula Excel sheet to the wiki.
[http://www.flattermann.net/downloads TrainingspeedFormula.xls]

They seem to be pretty correct, but feel free to revert my changes or edit the values that you don't like... :-)
--[[User:Flattermann|Flattermann]] 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Training

2009-06-12T09:07:34Z

Rhapsodysvs: /* Expensive in long term */

I'm trying to decide whether to train scoring or shooting, however shooting says it trains "outfielders", outfielders isn't a position in Hattrick. Please correct this so that the training page makes sense and each type of training corresponds with Hattrick positions not real world soccer knowledge that not all players have! -- Unsigned edit added by anon user 68.117.134.179 on 7 May 2007

----

I have added when to cash in, and also a minor change to general, as general (although very minimally) does train keepers

----

Do alot of people not train till 21, might be worth mentioning that for balance.
The bit on form about goalkeeping was there, just not very clear really.
So I've tidyed it up so hopefully it is clear now that general trains goalkeeping and also that shooting trains set pieces

----

I feel personally that 21 is getting on a bit, so I put 20, but that said if the general consensus is 21 it can be changed
----
As team gets stronger, it becomes important to find the balance between trainable and playable players, therefore I'd say, that 21 y.o. are not too old for training.
----
If I could choose between training a passable scoring at the age of 17 and a brilliant scoring at the age of 21, then I would certainly chose the second...
The second one earns immediatly at least 500k per level, while the 17 year old has to wait till he makes such profits per week...

Furthermore, I think that that should say that only counts for training primary skills, because when you train secondaries (like passing) you will very likely have older trainees, because such trainings are most lucrative when you train someone who already has a high primary skill.
----

With through passes, you can train 20 people, not 18. You could play twice 5-5-0.

you can indeed train 20 as you can with defensive position
however since you can't gain formation experience I did not count them.

In reality each training type could well have a page to itself detailing all the ins and outs
profit potential/formations to use/ways to balance winning games and using that type of training

Since training is so vital to hattrick it is no harm to strive to create a real definitive guide to all the options
----
What do you think about adding section with pros and cons of different training types? -- [[User:Jablan|jablan]]

I agree completely but the differences between each choice is non trivial. To present all the facts I think it would be worthwhile having a page for each training type, except general :), outlining the amount of people doing it, potential profitability, cost of trainees, important secondaries, what formations it limits you to and other such considerations --[[User:Theschneer|Theschneer]] 19:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

----
Is that 16 weeks for Set Pieces trained with Shooting really correct? /Escogido#

with the training table - does anyone else feel there should be a more exact description of how training works, ie, the percentage per week numbers, or should we stick to the hattrix numbers? --[[User:Dancing rob|Dancing rob]]

----

Dang....I can't do redirects worth beans in Libbyland, but the table sections need article links. (OgtheDim)

----

I have created a page for the crossing training type. Most links in the table now link to the skills, I think they should link to a training type page. In these pages could be the pros and cons, like in crossing training type.

----
An edit added a "huh?" about skilltrading -- it refers to buying a player who played for the selling club in a match that week a position covered by your training type. If he is on your club for the training update, he will get training, even though he didn't play for your club. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 02:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

----
Keeper training time: when I was training keepers, I found that I got pops every five weeks with a solid coach. That's also been my observation for winger training, with the ''occasional'' exception where it's four weeks. It's not frequent enough to call it less than five. If you are going to make a modification here, please provide a detailed counterexample. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 20:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

----
The most recent edit reduces the base training time for scoring from 7 weeks to 6 weeks. Is there any basis for this, or should I revert? --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 22:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

== Expensive in long term ==

"Excellent coaches train slightly faster than solid ones by roughly half a week but are generally seen as too expensive to be profitable in the long term."

Do excellent coaches cost more per week or is the initial investment just larger? If the latter is the case, then aren't they too expensive in the ''short'' term?

: They are expensive in the short term if manager doesn't need much leadership on his coach. If the manager on the other hand wants his coach to have leadership he'll have to replace the coach once in two or three seasons or so, which makes them very expensive in the long term also. --[[User:Jhattara|Jhattara]] 18:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

----
Comparing 10 and 5 assistant coaches (as in example), square root model would suggest 1.41 times better assistant efficiency with 10 coaches, but the 50% model would suggest only 1.03 times better efficiency. Going further into calculation, trying to assess how much assistant coaches really help the main coach, if we assume 1 week difference in 104 weeks, sqrt model suggests that 10 coaches bring only 3.4% to total training (compared to no-coach), and using 50% model, 10 coaches would bring 59% to the total training. Thus, at least one of models is completely wrong, and maybe even both of them. In other words, we don't know much about this, and those models are probably someone's fantasy not backed by any real data.

Is at least this one week difference from solid to divine keeper confirmed by someone?

------
That was a great post to read. No, it is not unfortunately. Apparently two USA users trained two keepers (seperately - one each) from solid to divine. They say they both popped together until the last level when one popped a week before the other. This seems like a shaky tale at best and doesn't explain possible sub level differences at the start. The whole solid-divine week rule seems to be a rumor that started several years ago, as no one can provide any proof for it.

The 50% rule and square root rule both have little proof as well. What needs to be done is a long study starting with comparing 0 coaches to 1, then 1 to 2, etc. This can be done with solid coaches and a player starting at a skill level of nonexistant (to avoid sublevel problems that you get when starting at a level like solid). If anyone is interested in really starting this, let me know through an ingame message - Rhapsodysvs

== Specialists ==

On the Wiki page the writer says this:

Another model suggests that each additional assistant coach is worth 50% of the previous. If that is the case then you get something like this:

1 = 100% 2 = 50% 3 = 25% 4 = 12.5% 5 = 6.25% 6 = 3.125% 7 = 1.5625% 8 = 0.78125% 9 = 0.390625% 10 = 0.1953125%

Shouldn´t it start with 50% as more then 100% is not possible. You then get this:

1 = 50% 2 = 25% 3 = 12.5% 4 = 6.25% 5 = 3.125% 6 = 1.5625% 7 = 0.78125% 8 = 0.390625% 9 = 0.1953125% 10 = 0.09765625.

You can then say:

1 assistent helps 50% of the trainer assistent capacity.
2 adds 75%
3 adds 82.5%
4 adds 88.75%
5 adds 91.875%
6 adds 93.4375%
7 adds 94.21875%
8 adds 94.609375%
9 adds 94.8046875%
10 adds 94.90234375%

: The original formulation makes perfect sense relative to the performance of a single assistant, where it certainly is possible to get more than 100%. In fact, if there were not declining contribution, then 10 assistants would give you 1000% of the contribution of one assistant. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

== Training speed ==

The speed table says 6.5 weeks for both scoring and playmaking. In my opinion it's more 7 for playmaking and 6 for scoring. Anyone else having an opinion on this? --[[User:Mod-Karlthegreat|Mod-Karlthegreat]] 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

== New Trainingspeed Values ==

I've added the values of my training speed formula Excel sheet to the wiki.
[http://www.flattermann.net/downloads TrainingspeedFormula.xls]

They seem to be pretty correct, but feel free to revert my changes or edit the values that you don't like... :-)
--[[User:Flattermann|Flattermann]] 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)