So appears to exist a max limit for players skill points, doesn't matter if they are 17y or 27y, when they are getting that max value they start training worse.

Appart that sittuation, got in my team one case where two players are not improving at technical skill, one is 0 points a day and the other -0.01.
The players got both 19y and are traning with a coach 9 skill points x 2 sessions and the other coach, one is 0 skills points and the other 1 skill point x 10 sessions.

I understand and think its right that this coachs can train as a 10 skill points coach, but still at least the players should be improving 0.01 points a day.
They are not 28y or with 0 coach sessions or got bad energy.

Not all teams should be "force" to pick a 10 skill coach. Like football not all teams can have Mourinho and is staff or equal.
Yes there is decay system based on age and skill. The higher those stats, the harder he/she decays.

A coach with 0 stat, is not really a coach though.
Anyway, infact they make your traning worse.
Training sessions have maximum effect till eight sessions at once. Every additional session reduces in effectiveness.
So your zero stat coach has zero impact on your skill, obv. Even worse, he reduces the effect of your 9 stat coach, due to "overtraining" or whatever you want to call it.

When your players get that good, they just need more effective training schedules to stay on top. I don't see anything wrong here.
A top runner won't hold his lvl by just training two hours and then getting shittalked by some random people for another 10 hours.

Do I even make sense here?
are we talking about a 19y player not even top on the stats... At one point i tought you talking about a 28y player with 60 stats points.
and btw the training efficiency cap at 15 sessions, at leats on youngers player. Maybe as they get old they can't get so much sessions, because they got kids and wife, maybe.
Fund Rocket
you dont have to pick a 10 skill coach, no, but you cant expect a 1 or 0 skill coach to do any semblance of good training. that's ridiculous, dude, we went over this yesterday in discord. 0-10 is a scale going from 0= no clue, no competency, 10= a master of the trade and 5= average, decent, knows stuff but not amazing.

like, picking a 0 skill coach is pretty much getting some random bloke off the street whos never used a computer in his life and asking him to coach you on how to play like a diamond player. just dont be dumb and choose a competent coach

also fund rocket i guess
Valerie thats right. According to your analysis a coach lvl 1 should give some training? If i understand your point.
to a certain point, yes, but at a certain skill they won't be able to teach you anything more because they've taught you all they know. 1 skill is basically bronze 5, they can teach you how to press the buttons. but at a certain point they'll stop being able to teach you anything useful, because they dont know any more. the higher skill they are, the more they have to teach you. it makes sense that 0/1/2 skill coaches will pretty much give you no gain unless you're teaching really low skill players because they are low skill and low knowledge as a coach. higher skill players need higher skill coaches to match
I'm alright with the way things are right now, but I do think that R3C raises a legit point about skill decay at young ages.

It does kind of make sense that players who aren't at the age where their reflexes start to slow down yet shouldn't have their skills decay just because they aren't training with a coach. I mean, at the very least they'd learn even just by virtue of all the matches they play. It's not like players just stay away from their computers when you don't set training sessions. They play a ton of ranked games and official matches, so it doesn't make sense how they just get worse or rusty. If training with a coach was a prerequisite for any improvement, or even to stop skill degradation, what about all the pubstars who got so good without any help?

It's probably not a big deal to most of us, but I do understand how others may be looking for a certain degree of realism from a management simulator, so I totally get where R3C's coming from, too.
valerie that can be logic in real life, but to code, so at least a coach lvl 1 should train your players minimus 0.01.
it either wont happen.
if we are going to be realistic, you are right there Sol, that playing multiple games each day in soloQ/team ranked plus league games would make the young players not decay/get rusty in the sense they do, REALISTICLY. but I will in no way accept that a coach with lvl 1 would improve a players stats if the player he is coaching isnt already very very low in that skill. that was the first point made from r3c afaik and that is what I have been arguing against.
Manage Rambo, I never asked anyone to accept that part. Just pointing out that R3C did make some valid points. Sorry, no idea what you were arguing against since I based my reply solely on what's been discussed in this thread, and I wasn't addressing anyone in particular. Anyway, people can have different opinions or perceptions on what a level 1 coach is/should be, but I feel like the skill decay is what gives rise to the disagreements on coaching contributions in the first place, so perhaps that's something worth looking into.