PA- should it be changed? discuss

I personaly have never liked that each player has a set PA- yet I also agree that every player should not be able to be world class.

For example, if you have a good young player at 17 who is 80CA and 120PA, he could have the right personality and training and progress rapidly and then at 20/21 he could hit a brick wall. No matter how well he performs and how good the coaches- that player just cant get any better.

So how about every regen has a 200PA but the chance that this player would reach this are ever decreasing depending on the player.

Okay, I will show you what I mean- please dont get hung up on the numbers- Its the idea that I'm trying to get across

With a base level of English league 2 regular football and 1 star coaching-

This player of 80CA and 120PA would now be:-

85PA-100%, 90PA-85%, 95PA-70%, 100PA-55%, 105PA-40%, 110PA-25%, 115PA- 10%, 120PA-5%

and then ever more decreasing right up to 200PA.

What do you all think? Should good performances, level of football and good coaching be able to progress your player beyond that brick wall?

An idea for sure since there are players (David Bentley, Lee Bowyer etc.) who had loads of potential but never filled it. I just don't think it's workable with the current set up. AI knows who has good PA and buys accordingly. If everyone has 200 PA, it means changing the entire AI transfer system.

I think the system is fine as it is and more realistic. Not everyone has the ability to be a worldclass player as they don't have the natural ability and no matter how good the training and the coaches they will never exceed the level that there natural ability allows them to reach. If I had been given the best training and best coaches in the world since I started playing I would still not be a professional football player because I do not have the ability in the first place. Coaches and training only get you so far.

I think the system is fine as it is and more realistic. Not everyone has the ability to be a worldclass player as they don't have the natural ability and no matter how good the training and the coaches they will never exceed the level that there natural ability allows them to reach. If I had been given the best training and best coaches in the world since I started playing I would still not be a professional football player because I do not have the ability in the first place. Coaches and training only get you so far.

Well what I mean is that by using the % system- the players potential will be roughly the same but slightly more elastic.

That player could then conceivably get up to 121-125 CA, with the right standard of football and coaching or stop at 115CA.

I like the idea, it would need some tweaks to work well in the game but its the right way for game to proceed. SI should consider this in future FMs.

If it aint broken don't try to fix it.

Well what I mean is that by using the % system- the players potential will be roughly the same but slightly more elastic.

That player could then conceivably get up to 121-125 CA, with the right standard of football and coaching or stop at 115CA.

Yeah but everyone has a limit. The whole point is a player with 115PA should be just that, a player who cannot get better than 115PA, as this is his natural ability limit. Coaches and training should just help him achieve 115PA.

Fixed PA is probably a flawed way of measuring ability.

But every player has that brick wall he simply won't be able to surpass no matter how hard he trains. Whether it's his mental ability or his natural athleticism, there is always a point you can't get past, otherwise all that would be needed for every 16 year old boy in the country to make it is to get the right coach in then work really, really hard. Essentially, it would be down to determination and luck.

The -8, -9, -10 is far more realistic than the fixed 160, 170, 180 measurement, but there needs to be a limit.

I like this idea. PAs should not remain static!

If it aint broken don't try to fix it.

This......

Similar to backpackant, I think all players should have a negative PA that is never given a defined number, then that player can attain the maximum his PA allows depending on training, attitude, performances and so on and so forth.

A player who is -9 should always be able to achieve (theoretically) 180 depending on the above listed factors (and many more).

Similar to backpackant, I think all players should have a negative PA that is never given a defined number, then that player can attain the maximum his PA allows depending on training, attitude, performances and so on and so forth.

A player who is -9 should always be able to achieve (theoretically) 180 depending on the above listed factors (and many more).

Actualy i like that better than my idea

If you add on that is actual PA is 173 but in that in extremely good conditions it *might* stretch to 180

Actualy i like that better than my idea

Oh yeah

PA should remain static. the ability to reach it shouldn't. which is how i believe it is currently. injuries, not playing games etc all play their role in the players ability to reach their PA

if you didn't have a static pa then there would be the danger that people would pack their clubs with the world's best coaches, download the best training schedule, and turn out half a dozen maradonas every season

Isn't PA of -9 or -8 static? When you load a new game all those minus PA's are transferred to positive numerical values, for example -8 could be 150 and -9 could be 170. Am I right or wrong?

Isn't PA of -9 or -8 static? When you load a new game all those minus PA's are transferred to positive numerical values, for example -8 could be 150 and -9 could be 170. Am I right or wrong?

Yes this is how it works.

Reading through this i am a little confused. Surely this is what the system is at the moment. players are assigned a PA which unless people are using the editor then they will never know this figure so it is an unknown quantity to most Fm's and then the conditions and playing time of said player determines if he ever reaches that potential. Maybe they could have moving Pa's but my understanding is that they need to know the potential of the player for the Scouts to be able to read back the information.

I think that maybe there could be a little more time spent on working out what effects certain things have on the way a players CA is held back / advanced. But they must have a level that they can not go past as otherwise the game will be full of super talented players available at cheap prices and will make the game pointless to play as it will be much the same for every team that you go to.

Take John O'Shea at United or Wes Brown they are never going to be the best defenders in the premiership and they know that but they have reached there level and are good solid players for United. Even the best training in the world has not made them in to world superstars that every club will be knocking on the door to buy every season and thats how i see FM being at the moment

I think that there should be a fixed PA in the game as it seems to work out OK at the moment in terms of player development. There are a few things I think need to change though.

1. Reduce accuracy of scouts and coaching reports. It's easy to tell who has potential and who hasn't.

2. Make the AI value potential more. It's too easy to pick up young, cheap players with loads of potential. For example, a certain 16yo keeper in the demo who can be signed for around 20k, but is future premiership standard, and has 15+ in key skills even aged 16. IRL this player would be worth millions.

3. Allow a range when setting PA in the editor. When a researcher is setting for a know established player they can make a good guess of the players PA and set to the appropriate -ve value. However, for a 16yo promising player, a reasonable PA may be anywhere from 100-200 and this just can't be replicated at the moment - the researcher has to pick a value. There will then never be good players emerging from unexpected sources.

I've always thought this needs a bit of tweaking. Players can become better than expected, especially through exposure to first team football. Players do have a natural ability that makes them great players but I would say this relates more to technical stats, while playing first team football will improve mental and physical stats, so I think with the right training and playing first team football players should be able to come slightly better than defined at the start of the game but not drastically.

You won't be able to play all young players (well at least not if you want results) so theres no danger of developing a team of superstars. Obviously would depend on the personality of the player and so on.

Thats exactly what I wanted, no artificial limits and any player can become great but there would be a minute chance for most. It would bring back a bit more randomness and really make the game better.

Id love it if we had players who were very likely to develop into an average player vs other players who had the skills to make themselves an international but there was a very small chance of it happening. There are no busts in FM, its all very predictable.

On the other side, theres the potential for this to ruin the game if SI get it wrong.

Or what about the 200PA regen/newgen bug since FM2007 onwards, where for some odd reason regens cannot have 200PA - the maximum potential ability they can come into the game with is 199.:confused:

abfc's is just the same as it is now. In either system you could train the player with brilliant facilities, with brilliant coaches and give him plenty of first team football but he's still going to reach a ceiling. If you don't train him as well, doesn't have as good coaches and doesn't play as much football then he's not going to reach the same level.

Just because a player has a PA of 120 doesn't mean that they will reach it. Hence the term 'potential'.

if you didn't have a static pa then there would be the danger that people would pack their clubs with the world's best coaches, download the best training schedule, and turn out half a dozen maradonas every season

Then you could argue the "bug" doesn't lie with non-static PAs but the fact that it's far too easy for players to reach their PA.

My thoughts are here.

In summary: A PA ceiling may be useful but it means that you automatically rule out anything above that ceiling which is wrong. I do not believe players need a PA ceiling which is isomorphic to our peak ability especially since we don't have crystal balls and situations change. Because the game has no re-rating of any sort while outside the game the researchers are actively re-rating players, you can get the odd situation where rubbish (i.e. low PA) players have very good attributes for their CA and are averaging over 7.50 over the season in the youth leagues, but will never actually get very far due to their PA barrier. In reality if you are a young striker scoring 20-30 goals in the youth leagues consistently then the researchers would be bumping your PA and/or CA and/or reputation per season but in-game this poor striker is stuck as a 100/100 player.

I believe PA (and CA) are things which allow SI to do their calculations easier and that it is inevitable they will be gone in lieu of a better model - one where they can happily run a simulation in the knowledge that the probability a League Two player will become the next Messi is less than you winning the Euromillions 10 consecutive times but allowing them to do a "Jimmy Bullard" - all the way to the Premier League through hard graft and a bit of luck.

I believe there are better systems than a fixed PA. SCIAG in that thread suggested a "soft ceiling" where a player can "break" their PA barrier when they play very well at their peak but a lot slower, allowing low PA players to still develop. I suggested re-rating the players every season (or half-season perhaps) by projecting their development over time - so yes, you can have PA 200 but if you are averaging 6.00, your PA will drop. If you have PA 100 but you are scoring hundreds of goals a season, your PA will rise. PA then helps SI in computing player development as development slows as you reach your PA - so a higher PA allows you to develop faster.

So I see several main problems:

- The PA system fails players who perform well but are capped by a low PA.

- The PA system fails players who change circumstances and become much better, but they were already at their PA so they never actually got that much better (see Drogba).

- It's too easy to reach your PA or at least close to it. It should be really difficult, with talent, luck, ambition and professionalism meaning only the best make it to the top. We need to see more wonderkids fail dramatically - at the moment, you can stockpile your squad with wonderkids using the Good Players forum and all will turn out to be brilliant. They basically can't fail.

I don't think PA can be removed any time soon as I have no doubt SI use it extensively (scouting, development, training, etc.). I believe the PA system can be adapted in several ways to reflect the above issues. I also believe that one day CA and PA will cease to exist with better computational power and mathematical models, but not for a while yet. I do not believe the time is now to remove PA as a consequence.

It's true though, some players just don't have the potential and some do have it but don't reach it because they are unprofessional.

I think PA is brilliant, however I think young players need to peak a bit sooner.

Its annoying have 19-21 year olds with really poor stats and then to see them become world beaters around 23-24 (for another team because your scouts are crap and you sold the player when he was a teenager) .

i think if the u18 players at the start of the game can increased -randomly- 1-25% and u20 players 1-15% also randomly ....

but it's not necessary for the PA of those players to be increased for example a 16 old player his pa at the start of the game is fixed at 120 , he may start at 120 or at 120 + 1% or 120 + 25% ................

because the fixed pa is frustrating when you know it and you know that your player will never exceed it ....

it's a simple idea and very suitable for the existing system of fm and not hard to be done ...

what do you think ..

Originally Posted by Wee Aja

Similar to backpackant, I think all players should have a negative PA that is never given a defined number, then that player can attain the maximum his PA allows depending on training, attitude, performances and so on and so forth.

A player who is -9 should always be able to achieve (theoretically) 180 depending on the above listed factors (and many more).

Thats what i was gonna suggest.

Well played sir, if it was changed, this is what i'd like to see.

My gripe with PA is that I find it unrealistic that anyone could have a clue what the potential of a player is. I know we don't know it as such in-game, but the researchers award a PA based on how well they think the player could possibly become. How is this possible?

What I'd suggest instead is a system where a youngster is rated on his current development. Examples:

-An 18yo has great stats but the coaches don't see him progressing. If he was your player, you'd know that he'd probably not get much better and try to shift him. Other teams - who haven't scouted the player extensively - would only see how good he is and might think he's a future world beater.

- Another 18yo has lesser stats but is progressing rapidly. You then realise that if this player can avoid injuries, he could progress to become a very good player indeed. If, however, he has a dip in form, doesn't get much first-team football, isn't being coached properly or suffers a serious injury, his development rate would fall and he'd stagnate. A change of clubs (eg. providing first-team football) could then possibly reignite the player's career.

My main reason for suggesting this is that you could theoretically have a CA30 PA180 player in the same team as a CA100 PA120 player. How does it make any sense for researchers to suggest that a far lesser player could surpass the better player? What is this based on? Generally (bear with me, I'm generalising), you'd suggest that the 18yo with the better stats would be the one most likely to make it, yeah? The biggest talents in the world are the ones that are performing at a higher level than the ones at the same age level, but there's no chance you'll ever know if they'll hit a brick wall. In FM, some players may have decent stats, but they'll hit the brick wall every single time because a researcher has set a cap on their PA.

This fabled "development rate" I'm talking about would consist of the following (and possibly more) factors:

Age - some players develop later than others, but it's safe to say there's a better chance of progressing when you're 16 than when you're 26

Coaching - facilities & coaches

(Squad) happiness - is the player comfortable? Is he at a determined, ambitious club?

Fitness - does he suffer from injuries?

Playing time - is he playing, and at the right level? Is he performing well?

Mental stats - is he determined, professional, ambitious, etc.?

You could argue that the results would be the same as with the CA/PA system and that many of the above factors are already included in the game (they are), but this would be a completely different angle to approach player development from. Your scout might find a youngster with great stats, but unless you scouted him for a while, you wouldn't know if he was going to progress further. You could take a punt, but more likely you would wait and see if he progressed. If, then, the youngster has progressed greatly in a years time, you might consider buying the player and loaning him back to his old club right away as he wouldn't be good enough to play for you yet and seemed to be comfortable at his old club, or you could bring him in if you have superior training facilities and coaches (or if your reserves play at a higher level than his old team).

Some real life examples:

Anderson - considered one of the best talents in Europe, the Man United player has now stagnated somewhat. Who would have expected that? Nobody can tell right now if he'll become world class.

Leo Messi - had great raw talent and kept up a high rate of development. It is currently hard to tell how much better he can become.

There are plenty more examples that can be described using current ability and current development rate.

I've mooted this before on here but it's still not completely thought through. Disregarding the programming difficulties (I'm not saying it's irrelevant whether it can be coded or not, but I think it's more interesting to discuss how we'd like the system to be rather than talking about what can be achieved within a year).

It's a shame this thread died, it's an interesting discussion (even though it's not new). My above post is very poorly phrased but nonetheless I'm still confident that a non-fixed PA system would be the way to go.

Completely agree with emilthedane. And I think it could be achieved in the game without too much tinkering: all we'd need is an option for the user to be able to turn off 'judging player potential' for scouts and coaches, and for them to only give you reports about the player's current ability.

Then it's up to you as a manager to say "Mmmm. Only 1* current ability. Not very good. But.... he's only 16 years old. Well worth developing, to see what he becomes at age 23".

I'm experimenting with this on my current save by completely ignoring the player potential section of the scout reports: but it's really hard for my eyes not to wander there, when it's sitting right below the assessment of current ability.

I like the soft ceiling idea personally, it seems like a solid idea.

We already have the system, if you think about it.

If a player with 120PA can perhaps go up to 130PA if he gets the right coaching, first-team exposure, lack of serious injuries etc how is that any different form the current system where a player with PA of 130 can only achieve that with the combination of factors already listed.

Your arguing for the same system, just with everybody's PA raised a little.

Every player DOES have a certain amount of talent that restricts his ability to exceed a certain level of football.

It's not just nurture, it's nature as well.

So FM reflects this perfectly realistic.

Of course, you can always argue about how to estimate the PA. It's the most difficult of all taks for the researchers. Irl the club pay lots of money to scouts for trying to figure that out. We could have slightly higher PAs in general and an according decrease of likelihood that the PA is ever reached to accomodate this insecurity and imperfection.

But if every player had a PA of 200, it would basically mean that any player could become Pele. That is firstly not true irl at all and secondly it would mean that we as the users could just always buy the cheapest crap players for free as long as we know how to nurture players best and would always produce big stars.

The suggestion fails both the reality and the usability check

Every player has a maximum "ability level" but without a crystal ball we are in no position to guess as circumstances can change dramatically.

Obviously we cannot just give everyone PA 200 without ensuring it is ridiculously difficult to achieve it. Doing the equivalent of giving everyone PA 200 while making it very difficult to do so means that you never rule out a player reaching PA 200 (which is useful) while letting their development and playing time dictate their development.

Assigning a hard ceiling (say PA 120) immediately says "This player will NEVER reach beyond CA 120, ever. Nada. No chance. Never." A ceiling for a player's peak ability predicted 10-11 years earlier is irrelevant.

PA just mean a bigger pool of stat points , nothing else.

How good a player will be is determined by other factors .

It's realistic as it is. Researchers can only estimate it, but that's why the minus PAs are used. They get it wrong sometimes, but plenty of times they get it right. It works well now and has always worked well on every version of CM and now FM.

Every player has a limit they can reach. The idea that everyone can keep on improving if they just work really hard and get good coaching isn't realistic at all. If you don't look at PAs in saved game or pre-game editors, it's not an issue.

If it was changed there are potentially a lot of issues that would ruin the game. There are plenty of other areas of FM that need improving before the PA system does.

It's realistic as it is. Researchers can only estimate it, but that's why the minus PAs are used. They get it wrong sometimes, but plenty of times they get it right. It works well now and has always worked well on every version of CM and now FM.

Every player has a limit they can reach. The idea that everyone can keep on improving if they just work really hard and get good coaching isn't realistic at all. If you don't look at PAs in saved game or pre-game editors, it's not an issue.

If it was changed there are potentially a lot of issues that would ruin the game. There are plenty of other areas of FM that need improving before the PA system does.

Certainly there exists a number corresponding to some "ability level" that a player will never breach. However, this number is almost surely not the (resolved) PA you assign your Charlton players, the researchers assign to their players and the game generates for newgens. Say you make a player PA -9 - you cannot rule out his PA being <150 or >180 at his peak, and you cannot guarantee his peak being between 150 and 180 inclusive. If you cannot guarantee it then it is not the correct ceiling.

Take Carlton Cole. He was almost at his peak a couple of years back on the database and this was his "limit" - yet hard work and a bit of luck meant that he could improve.

I am aware you have your own guidelines no doubt based upon some numbers the programmers of the game have given you which ensures some sort of balance. However, you do not research my saved game! If a player performs well in real life you happily go and update their attributes. If a player plays rubbish you grumble and knock him down. The game itself has no self-regulatory mechanism.

I think what some of us are asking for is a scenario like this:

- Real life Carlton Cole, arguably not developing much in 2006-2007, suddenly performs really well for his team in 2008-2009 and people suddenly realise he's not that bad at all, and their opinions of how high he can reach will rise a little.

- Football Manager 2007 Carlton Cole plays equally well in-game as he does in real life in 2008-2009, and his PA rises consequently.

I don't think there is much wrong mathematically and computationally with the PAs the researchers assign to their players at the start of the game. It just becomes a problem in-game with newgens. One of my newgen youngsters has PA 144 and has averaged over 7.70 every season ever since he was 15 (this is his 3rd season with me) in my Under-20s. He's got a brilliant scoring record for my first-team whenever he plays as well as being a regular also with a good record in the Italian Cup. He has one or two teams interested in signing him and several Serie A teams wanted him on loan, albeit as backup. A player that is outstanding for 2.5 seasons straight including action in the first-team will get boosted in real-life but sadly he will probably only ever be a squad player for a mid-table side when he has done nothing to justify such a future.

Players in-game are allowed to fail expectations (not reach anywhere near their PA, although it's actually quite easy in-game for players to hit their PAs, arguably too easy), but they are not allowed to succeed and exceed expectations (go beyond their PA). This seems unfair in some ways. I believe there is a correlation between a player's long-term "success" or "development" at youth level and their future PA, but anyone with a restricted PA despite playing well will not really follow this trend.

If you like, you could argue one of your players deserves PA 170 because he is talented, highly professional and a very good team player. However, an even better model would be to not need to hard code this ceiling with the knowledge that on average this player will turn out to have CA 170 at his peak BECAUSE he is talented, highly professional and a very good team player.

If you like, plot exp(-(x-170)^2/50) on http://www.walterzorn.com/grapher/grapher_e.htm with x from 0 to 200 (PA) and y 0 to 1. I know it's not normalised but this could be a probability distribution for this player's true ceiling - i.e. he's very unlikely to have PA 190-200 but will mostly have his PA in the 170 range. There is roughly a 95% chance his PA will be within 2 standard deviations of the mean (about 7, so there is a 95% chance his PA will be in the range [156, 184]). If SI can create a model similar to this based purely on their attributes and match ratings (i.e. P(PA in [156, 184] | Passing=16)=0.95), then we don't need PA. That is my argument.

The problem is of course that making these models can be difficult but with appropriate simplifications we could have a computationally-friendly yet mostly-accurate model which accounts for things like late-bloomers in-game and total flops in-game, with perhaps only a little extra computation at certain times in-game.

Also, not knowing about PA doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist. The fact is PA exists and perhaps a problem does exist - no hiding behind "you shouldn't know anyway" - otherwise why would SI release an editor?

Carlton Cole didn't turn out to have more potential, his PA was simply underrated in the first place. In FM terms, the fans Judging Potential Ability rating was low, or he was just a player they didn't judge accurately. Don't confuse that with the player improving his potential. That potential was always there, just not everyone thought he had it. Examples like Cole have been brought up in the past, but it's always down to the player being underrated. If anything Cole has a team getting the best out of him, and has improved attributes such as consistency that aren't linked to CA. He's not gone from say being a 120 CA striker to a 140 CA striker. He's not changed much physically either, he's made small improvements to his all round game technically and especially mentally, perhaps attitude as well (professionalism for example) which all make a difference.

Your PA 144 player - that's just like many players in real life who are very effective at their jobs for their team, but just can't improve much as a player. They've reached their potential. Just at Charlton we've had plenty of players like that, Matt Holland for example at his peak was very good and consistent for Ipswich. He had no room to improve though. Darren Bent is another example, he doesn't have room to improve significantly, he won't suddenly turn into a top international striker if he gets lucky and works hard. He's probably improved slightly, but he's a similar player of similar ability at 25 now as he was 4 years ago with Charlton when he was 21. Not every player has to have room to improve until their late 20s, some players do peak at a young age.

As for 'why do SI release an editor?' - it's to allow people to edit their game how they want, and if they wish, view hidden attributes. When playing the game itself, no you aren't supposed to look at PA. That's why it's hidden in the game. If people wish to look they can, it doesn't mean the whole system needs changing.

Carlton Cole didn't turn out to have more potential, his PA was simply underrated in the first place.

In real life he always had that ability but in-game he never did. In-game we don't have "underrated players" in that sense as they never get "boosted". Carlton Cole in-game was always capped by a PA that was underrated. Isomorphically a player who suddenly "clicks" in-game unfortunately doesn't develop if capped by a PA. If a player who has hit his PA wins the Ballon d'Or at a rubbish club while playing excellently he'd be boosted by a researcher, but in-game he'll be stuck at his PA. His performances would deserve a boost as he was (as you may say) underrated to begin with.

Your PA 144 player - that's just like many players in real life who are very effective at their jobs for their team, but just can't improve much as a player. They've reached their potential. Just at Charlton we've had plenty of players like that, Matt Holland for example at his peak was very good and consistent for Ipswich. He had no room to improve though. Darren Bent is another example, he doesn't have room to improve significantly, he won't suddenly turn into a top international striker if he gets lucky and works hard. He's probably improved slightly, but he's a similar player of similar ability at 25 now as he was 4 years ago with Charlton when he was 21. Not every player has to have room to improve until their late 20s, some players do peak at a young age.

This is an 18-year-old! If it hadn't been for the fact I have had better coming through the Academy in the past he'd have broken plenty of records by now. Matt Holland joined Charlton at 27 or something which is quite a big difference for possible development. This 18-year-old isn't brilliant in terms of attributes but is way outperforming his age by quite a bit. In a lot of ways he "deserves" a higher PA for his achievements but will never get one.

As for 'why do SI release an editor?' - it's to allow people to edit their game how they want, and if they wish, view hidden attributes. When playing the game itself, no you aren't supposed to look at PA. That's why it's hidden in the game. If people wish to look they can, it doesn't mean the whole system needs changing.

Certainly true, but this was aimed at: "If you don't look at PAs in saved game or pre-game editors, it's not an issue." - this is turning a blind eye.

I've seen ljajic with a PA of 150 only...how sad it is for me as a manutd supporter to get so unlucky with his -9...

x42bn6 has explained (and elaborated on) my point far more cohesively than I managed. Thanks for that.

I agree that every player has a limit - no doubt about it. However, I'd argue that this limit to some extent depends on the natural ability possessed by a player at a young age, i.e. an 18yo with CA 30 has a lower limit than an 18yo with CA 50 (assuming that they play the same position and have a similar distribution of high/low stats). I still fail to see how a researcher can tell that a lesser player will surpass a better player in the future (ceteris paribus). Generally speaking, talented youngsters are talented because they've got more ability than their peers, yeah?

I think one option would be to scrap the PA system (no, not the tannoy) and just let a player's natural ability determine his limit and let other factors (mental stats, happiness, playing time, quality of opponents, quality of training/coaches, etc.) determine how close he goes.

Scrapping PA entirely most likely wouldn't work for existing players (as the researchers will have some sort of idea on the potential of most 20+ aged players based on previous development), but I'd say that regens should be created without a set PA. That is not to say, I reiterate, that all regens should potentially become world-beaters. However, I strongly disagree with the idea that a scout with high JPP can theoretically decide that one CA 50 player is better than another CA 50 player playing the same position with the exact same stats. In real life, only long-term scouting would give you a hunch whether one player will be more likely to make it, and even then, real life clubs sometimes make the wrong decisions, eg. signing a highly talented youngster who never improves.

Actually what they need is a progress rate (how fast a player will progress)

Michael Owen has a high PA but his CA is nowhere close. So his progress rate will be near zero, just like Shevchenko and Anelka in the game. The same goes as the player gets older.

Isn't this what determination is for?

Actually what they need is a progress rate (how fast a player will progress)

Michael Owen has a high PA but his CA is nowhere close. So his progress rate will be near zero, just like Shevchenko and Anelka in the game. The same goes as the player gets older.

Something like .... this?

What I'd suggest instead is a system where a youngster is rated on his current development. Examples:

-An 18yo has great stats but the coaches don't see him progressing. If he was your player, you'd know that he'd probably not get much better and try to shift him. Other teams - who haven't scouted the player extensively - would only see how good he is and might think he's a future world beater.

- Another 18yo has lesser stats but is progressing rapidly. You then realise that if this player can avoid injuries, he could progress to become a very good player indeed. If, however, he has a dip in form, doesn't get much first-team football, isn't being coached properly or suffers a serious injury, his development rate would fall and he'd stagnate. A change of clubs (eg. providing first-team football) could then possibly reignite the player's career.

My main reason for suggesting this is that you could theoretically have a CA30 PA180 player in the same team as a CA100 PA120 player. How does it make any sense for researchers to suggest that a far lesser player could surpass the better player? What is this based on? Generally (bear with me, I'm generalising), you'd suggest that the 18yo with the better stats would be the one most likely to make it, yeah? The biggest talents in the world are the ones that are performing at a higher level than the ones at the same age level, but there's no chance you'll ever know if they'll hit a brick wall. In FM, some players may have decent stats, but they'll hit the brick wall every single time because a researcher has set a cap on their PA.

This fabled "development rate" I'm talking about would consist of the following (and possibly more) factors:

Age - some players develop later than others, but it's safe to say there's a better chance of progressing when you're 16 than when you're 26

Coaching - facilities & coaches

(Squad) happiness - is the player comfortable? Is he at a determined, ambitious club?

Fitness - does he suffer from injuries?

Playing time - is he playing, and at the right level? Is he performing well?

Mental stats - is he determined, professional, ambitious, etc.?

This is of course sort of built into FM already; some players live up to their potential, some don't. However, as mentioned previously, I think natural ability (including a natural limit as no CA 30 18yo player will ever become a world beater) + development rate would do the trick.

Isn't this what determination is for?

No. Determination is for things like how a player reacts when their team goes a goal down.

As for development rate: I'm a bit wary of this unless it is variable, as again we can't use a crystal ball to know what this constant should be, and arguably puts more problems on the researchers as a ceiling is much easier to think about.

I believe PA is basically a weighted sum with dependencies which simply makes things easier for SI. I'm sure a long-term thing for 3-5 years down the line assuming Moore's Law holds will be for SI to scrap CA and PA. Scrapping it also allows things like Wenger rating passing for centre-backs a lot higher than Big Sam, so Vermaelen may be seen as "CA" (CA doesn't exist) 150 by Wenger but 140 for Big Sam - i.e. Wenger would prefer Vermaelen but Big Sam would be looking at rugby players and wrestlers instead, as he "rates" them higher. Lack of CA and PA puts much more scrutiny on scouts, whose jobs when scouting players are basically to look at two numbers at the moment (CA and PA) - a scout who is Brazilian may be able to understand Brazilian players better as he knows their culture and lifestyle, and will realise that perhaps you'd encounter more "spirited" players in Brazil, and perhaps factor that in when rating a player.

So yes I think PA will eventually go and the game will make it harder for players to reach their PA - there will be a lot more flops. However, PA is going nowhere any time soon; but I feel there are certain things SI can do to PA.

Anyone who thinks tl;dr for my posts can simply read:

- PA is similar to an average, perhaps an optimistic average.

- Players are allowed to fail (not reach their PA), but players are not allowed to surpass expectations (go above their PA).

- Players with high PA who underperform are not punished in terms of PA as they are always potentially brilliant; players with low PA who outperform are never rewarded as their PA is low.

As for development rate: I'm a bit wary of this unless it is variable, as again we can't use a crystal ball to know what this constant should be, and arguably puts more problems on the researchers as a ceiling is much easier to think about.

I don't see anyone suggesting that the development rate should be a constant. Indeed, the only constant about it would be that it constantly evolves!

You would then scout a player for an extended period of time, and your scout (depending on his JPP) would zero in on the player's current development rate. This way, you would look for youngsters with good stats and either risk signing them immediately or scout them for a while.

I also agree with your point about the manager defining what a good DC is. In my opinion, FM could really be taken to the next level if we were given ways to personalise our manager and make him unique. The framework is already in place with the financial control, domestic player bias etc. stats as well as the preferred formation and the likes, but I'd like to see SI expanding on this. The dream scenario would be one where a club would/wouldn't pick you as a manager because of your achievements with specific types of teams (eg. Big Sam wouldn't be picked as the next Arsenal manager (physique vs. flair) and Arsene Wenger wouldn't join Man City (nurturing young players vs. buying players at their peak)) or where certain players would be more/less likely to sign for you depending on your track record with regards to youngsters/flair players/superstars etc.

As for your idea about country-specific scouts, I'd probably go for a solution where scout knowledge is split in two; 1. Knowledge of culture and 2. Current knowledge. Consider the following two scout types:

Scout 1: Hasn't played/been brought up in the country in question but has just been on a month-long scouting trip

Scout 2: Brought up in/played in the country but hasn't been there recently

The two scouts would be useful in different ways - scout 1 would unmask more visible attributes but scout 2 would be better placed to offer an opinion on the player's hidden attitudes due to his knowledge about his fellow countrymen.

Another type of scout would be the one who'd rank Vermaelen higher than ... I dunno, Vidic? because he emphasises technical players. Picking scouts would then come down to so much more than just JPA/JPP + knowledge.

As for your idea about country-specific scouts, I'd probably go for a solution where scout knowledge is split in two; 1. Knowledge of culture and 2. Current knowledge. Consider the following two scout types:

Scout 1: Hasn't played/been brought up in the country in question but has just been on a month-long scouting trip

Scout 2: Brought up in/played in the country but hasn't been there recently

The two scouts would be useful in different ways - scout 1 would unmask more visible attributes but scout 2 would be better placed to offer an opinion on the player's hidden attitudes due to his knowledge about his fellow countrymen.

Another type of scout would be the one who'd rank Vermaelen higher than ... I dunno, Vidic? because he emphasises technical players. Picking scouts would then come down to so much more than just JPA/JPP + knowledge.

Something like that. We all rate players differently - I think Lucas is rubbish but Liverpool fans can't stop swooning over his sideways passes and persistent fouls in silly areas. Sir Alex prefers attacking full-backs but Gary Megson would be shocked at how attacking Evra is on the pitch, and would be slightly less enthusiastic about him. Phil Brown would be happy with any centre-back while Carlo Ancelotti may want a centre-back who can bring the forward more as he has enough solid centre-backs.

Scouting in general is a little rubbish anyway - no scout has 100% scouting knowledge of the country they are born in. But that's another matter, I suppose.

Ah, been away from the forum for a long time due to falling out with FM09 (well, me being rubbish!) but glad to see this debate is still ongoing and I think the best idea has been touched upon - perhaps not a soft ceiling but a floating variable depending on the players circumstances. I'd call it XA.

Putting aside all nature vs nurture "real life" arguments aside I think there has to be some form of PA in the game. It stops there being too many top players which was a problem with some early CM games, it removes the challenge of scouting and shifts emphasis towards coaching and training.

I think peoples problems surround "I've signed a player for Liverpool from Oxford but he hasn't developed past his maximum PA or got any better whereas if you did this in real life the player would improve". The issue here is that a player shouldn't have hit his peak at Oxford and if he had hit his peak you shouldn't have signed him...

But anyway...back to XA.

XA will act as a limiter to CA getting to PA depending on the players circumstances.

Take the lad at Oxford. Lets say CA80 PA145. XA should say playing at this level CA can only reach 90. If another coach comes in then XA limits CA to 95. Maybe Oxford get promoted, XA = 105. He gets a move to L1, XA = 115. Maybe he beaks a leg, XA then becomes an absolute maximum of 85% of PA.

Exceedingly complicated from a game design POV I know...

I think it would at least be a start to add some randomness beyond the current -10, -9, -8 system... Perhaps players could still be assigned a PA by the researchers, but then on top of that, when the game was initializing a normal random variable with mean 0 and some variance (dependent on age, bigger for younger players) would be summed to the PA, so that we would have players with different PAs from game to game (eg., those of us who have looked at the pre game editor, save game editor, these forums, or just have played the game a lot of times, wouldn't know for sure starting a new game that kun aguero has a little more potential than pato). This would still not solve the hard ceiling problem referred to by x42bn6, but it would at least bring more variety to the game....

A possible way I can see of solving the hard ceiling problem would be to, at some points in a save game, have a new random variable added to the players pa, with the mean of this random variable depending on the performance he had in the previous season - for instance after a season averaging 7.70 playing 40 games for the first team, maybe the 144 PA player of x42bn6 would see his PA change according to a Normal variable with mean 5 standard deviation 5... if x42bn6 was lucky his player could have his PA go up to 152, if not maybe it would stay the same or go down... I'm sure SI games has people with knowledge of statistics to get this balanced.

I think it would be better if training facilities and coaches were given an overhaul to allow factors to adjust slightly.

Two lads who come through could both say have a "Base" PA of 140. One (player A) is at Man Utd and the other is at Brighton (player B), so off the bat I don't know the level of facilities but Man Utd's facilities could be 20/20 and Brightons 6/20.

So Player A gets bonus of say 10 PA, taking his "Effective" PA to 150.

Player B gets a bonus of 3 PA taking his to 153.

Then coaches could also play a part with perhaps 1 star translating to 1 PA. It wouldn't be overpowered, but it would essentially mean that a player with the best coaches and facilities around him would get that slight edge over an equal abilitied player who isn't able to benefit.

I'd say 15 PA is a good and fair advantage for benefitting from the best in the world, and even the lowest clubs get a couple of points as a bonus for players. Maybe even scale it down to 5 for facilities and 5 for coaches, because ultimately there isn't enough of an advantage of benefitting from the environment in which the prospects like Cahill, Shawcross and Rooney came through to the likes of lower league players who at one time had a large amount of potential.