What is the coaching effect?

[Machinax]

I've had Nuwan Kulasekera on 1% bowling strength and 99% coaching effect, and he still went wicketless for 8 overs in an ODI. What does the coaching effect mean and do?

[6ry4nj]

Coaching effect is the effect of practice. For every day of practice, you get 10% of coaching effect. For every 4% of coaching effect, you get 1% added to your effective form level. So in your Kulasekara example, on 1% playing form and 99% coaching effect, he has an 'effective' form level of 1 + (99/4) = 25.75% You will notice that his star rating is given as just over 1 and 1/4, which is equivalent to 25.75.

So if he still isn't performing well, it's hardly surprising. There's no real substitute for real form. There may be a way to get a Sri Lankan player in form other than by playing him, but I'm not aware of it.

The exceptions/limitations on this are:
- practice can't raise your effective form above 60 if your playing form is below 50
- practice can't raise your form above 69

[Phylos Fett]

Coaching effect is the effect of practice. For every day of practice, you get 10% of coaching effect. For every 4% of coaching effect, you get 1% added to your effective form level. So in your Kulasekara example, on 1% playing form and 99% coaching effect, he has an 'effective' form level of 1 + (99/4) = 25.75% You will notice that his star rating is given as just over 1 and 1/4, which is equivalent to 25.75.

So if he still isn't performing well, it's hardly surprising. There's no real substitute for real form. There may be a way to get a Sri Lankan player in form other than by playing him, but I'm not aware of it.

The exceptions/limitations on this are:
- practice can't raise your effective form above 60 if your playing form is below 50
- practice can't raise your form above 69

That's interesting. Where'd you get this information from, if you don't mind me asking?

[6ry4nj]

That's interesting. Where'd you get this information from, if you don't mind me asking?

I could go for extra cred and say "experimentation", but the sober truth is, purely from experience, aka. the School of Hard Knocks.

[Machinax]

...good Lord.

Wow, thanks for that. That does help clear things up a bit.

[enigma]

For every 4% of coaching effect, you get 1% added to your effective form level.

I'm not sure if this is true, because I just started a new save just to see & put a guy on batting-practice & simmed a few days, his batting-match-form was 49% at the start of the save & even after coaching effect had reached 99%, the match-form was still 49%

I think coaching-effect & match-form are 2 different modifiers & neither has any direct impact on the other.

For every day of practice, you get 10% of coaching effect.

This I believe is generally true only till 7th day or so & coaching-effect increases slower than 10% per day; it usually takes about 12-14 days to get to 99% I think.

[6ry4nj]

Match form does not change. But if you look at the player's star rating, it will have gone up from just under 2 1/2 (49%) to 3 (60%). This is his effective form level. I am 100% sure of what I stated on this issue.

As for the rate at which you get coaching effect, I agree that this varies quite a bit and I've no idea why. The figure I quoted is the best-case scenario. I've also been noticing that coaching has more effect with batsmen than bowlers.

[Dogwood]

So what does technique training do?

[Mully2010]

So what does technique training do?

improve your player ability in a certain area.
e.g. if your training a defensive batsman to be aggressive after a random amount of days you will get a message saying his aggression have been improved.
if you take look at his profile you will notice the defensive sign will be missing and he will now be of normal aggression.
if you keep doing technique training he will eventually become a very aggressive player, it will also decrease his defensive capabilities

i did technique training with one of my young bowlers and his bowling aggression went up twice he began to take alot of wicket but he also leaked alot of runs.

note: do not try to use technique training on players 28 and over it wont do thing

[enigma]

Match form does not change. But if you look at the player's star rating, it will have gone up from just under 2 1/2 (49%) to 3 (60%). This is his effective form level. I am 100% sure of what I stated on this issue.

Sorry I hadn't realized that you were talking specifically about the star-rating because to be honest, I'd assumed that match-form & star-rating go hand in hand but still, (although I could be wrong) I think my earlier statement is likely true that match-form & coaching-effect are different modifiers that modify player-abilities differently.

I've also been noticing that coaching has more effect with batsmen than bowlers.

May be or may be it's just our perception because I'm assuming that we tend to use our batsmen a lot better than bowlers as with batsmen we're just dealing with only one variable ie agression-bar but with bowlers we've to deal with many more that we need to get right ie agression, line, length, field-placement, etc & hence most of us would be struggling to get OPTIMUM performance out of our bowlers & hence the perception that coaching has more effect on batters than bowlers. Just my two cents.

note: do not try to use technique training on players 28 and over it wont do thing

Well, technique-training actually DOES work on above-28 players more or less as much as below-28 players as I've trained many batters & bowlers above 28 & they did improve & I can't say there was a massive difference in terms of time required to train them. I think the general consensus is that "General Technique" doesn't work as efficiently with above-28 players but with other types of training, you CAN see an improvement even with older players although it may be advisable to train youngsters first but saying that "it won't do a thing" is exaggerating beyond reason I think.

[Sureshot]

It's less effective on players over 28, rather than doesn't work.

[6ry4nj]

Sorry I hadn't realized that you were talking specifically about the star-rating because to be honest, I'd assumed that match-form & star-rating go hand in hand but still, (although I could be wrong) I think my earlier statement is likely true that match-form & coaching-effect are different modifiers that modify player-abilities differently.

I'm sorry you feel that way. As you can very soon prove for yourself, match form and star rating do NOT go hand in hand, and star rating is what is used as the effective form for a match. I've told you how it works, if you want to continue in ignorance, that's your problem.

May be or may be it's just our perception because I'm assuming that we tend to use our batsmen a lot better than bowlers as with batsmen we're just dealing with only one variable ie agression-bar but with bowlers we've to deal with many more that we need to get right ie agression, line, length, field-placement, etc & hence most of us would be struggling to get OPTIMUM performance out of our bowlers & hence the perception that coaching has more effect on batters than bowlers. Just my two cents.

I mean if you give five days training to a batsman and a bowler, the batsman will get a training effect of (say) 48% while the bowler only gets 25 or 30%.
There's nothing subjective about it.

[enigma]

I'm sorry you feel that way. As you can very soon prove for yourself, match form and star rating do NOT go hand in hand,

Do you know what "I HAD assumed" means? Please re-read that part.

and star rating is what is used as the effective form for a match.

May be you're right but is there any solid ground for you to base that ASSERTION (as opposed to a GUESS) of yours on.

I've merely made a guess that even though match-form & stars DON'T go hand in hand, it still doesn't rule out the possibility that it could be that they modify batting-skill differently & as I've previously said, I could be wrong on this (unfortunately, I'm not a know-it-all like yourself) but I haven't YET found anything substantial to suggest it.

I mean if you give five days training to a batsman and a bowler, the batsman will get a training effect of (say) 48% while the bowler only gets 25 or 30%.
There's nothing subjective about it.

Well, I'd thought you were talking about coaching-effect's impact on PERFORMANCE (as opposed coaching-effect %) as your original statement read - "I've also been noticing that coaching has more effect with batsmen than bowlers" which is worded in a way that it can easily be interpreted as such; simple breakdown in communication.

[6ry4nj]

Yeah fair enough.

I'm far from a know-it-all. I very rarely say I'm 100% sure of something (especially as relates to the game), because I only say it when it's true.

[enigma]

Yeah fair enough.

I'm far from a know-it-all. I very rarely say I'm 100% sure of something (especially as relates to the game), because I only say it when it's true.

So have you found anything substantial to positively state that, if let's say match-form is 50% & star-rating is 60% (3 stars) then the difference of 10% modifies the batting-skill exactly the way the other 50% does? Has any of the developers ever said that? (Just asking for information's sake, not necessarily a taunt )