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 184.108.40.206 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? -- 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 --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? --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. --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. --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? --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. --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. --Rhapsodysvs 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
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. --Mr Wednesday 18:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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? --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. TrainingspeedFormula.xls
They seem to be pretty correct, but feel free to revert my changes or edit the values that you don't like... :-) --Flattermann 00:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)