No more predetermined PA for younger players?

In future versions of FM, I think should we get rid of the fixed PA for younger players in the starting database.

Their PA value is often matter for endless debating/bickering, and it's very often left to the judgement of the Team Researcher.

I don't mean to disrespect the researchers, their job and their dedication, but we all know how easily younger players can be overrated and overhyped, even by experts, pundits and people-in-the-know.

So obviously a researcher will sort of "fall" for the hype, and we'll have an "inflated" CA/PA value.

But out of the two, I reckon the PA is by far the most tricky to assign, and the one that in the end will affect the game much more.

The "negative PA" is a great solution, and IMO the game would benefit hugely if every younger player, say under 20, who hasn't had a creditable breakthrough at Top Level, should be assigned a -N potential ability.

Actually, I even start to wonder whether we should just use Negative PA for every player in the database...

This has two main goals:

1) Stopping having the already (in)famous phenomenon of "FM Wonderkids of the Year" who'll be just average in next year's game, and sometimes sink into oblivion in a couple of years [see the "where are they now" thread].

2) Limiting the Copycat Squads phenomenon.

Once the list of "Good Players" is out, pretty much every other FM'er will have at least a couple of the Usual Suspects in his squad.

Also, that pretty much kills whatever appeal starting a new career might have...

If I already know I can get Aréola, Otamendi, Annan and Muniain for relatively cheap, and that Dzeko is the Deadly Striker of the 2010 Edition, what's the point in playing again?

Having variable PA assigned at every New Game would reduce that, and would keep things interesting.

What do you think?

I would give that idea a

Completely, completely agree - however, it would take away the sense of realism in the game. The top prospects of world football ARE top prospects, and as such should be reflected as such on the game.

I'd like to see the PA's vary from -6 to -9 for these players so that perhaps they don't always reach their potential - we all know that some simply don't.

i like the sound of that. although it would lead to the same problems on a lesser scale. do you change the attribute range to a wider one for each minus number? or will researcher still need to be quick specific with the potential of a player?

Completely, completely agree - however, it would take away the sense of realism in the game. The top prospects of world football ARE top prospects, and as such should be reflected as such on the game.

I'd like to see the PA's vary from -6 to -9 for these players so that perhaps they don't always reach their potential - we all know that some simply don't.

As you just said, a fair share of TODAY'S top prospects will end up becoming just average, some will even be huge disappointments, so having John Youngstar being a killer striker in every-single-career you start is both tedious and inaccurate.

I can live with Messi being awesome in 100 saves out of 100.

I have more problems accepting a plethora of (relatively) unproven [at top level] teenagers taking every savegame by storm.

i like the sound of that. although it would lead to the same problems on a lesser scale. do you change the attribute range to a wider one for each minus number? or will researcher still need to be quick specific with the potential of a player?

Well, it'd still be there, but less "intrusive" so to speak.

I suppose the negative PA would do just fine, without the need of rearrange the intervals [although I think 10 are maybe too many...]

-1: 1-40

-2: 41-80

-3: 81-110

-4: 111-130

-5: 131-150

-6: 151-175

-7: 176-200

that would make the job of the researchers MUCH EASIER, as the vast majority of U19 "filler" players in top leagues would get a -3, and Lady Luck would decide who'll be decent and who'll be Tier 2-3 material.

Good but unproven prospects can get a -4 or -5, while -6 goes to younger players who have played some top-level football already in a convincing way.

-7 is strictly reserved for the Messis and the Ronaldos.

One more thing I'd like to see, but I doubt it's feasible, is "variable intervals" for each range. Like -7 can start at 176 +/- 10 points etc, so the variation would be even better.

As the PA goes higher, a 176 player and a 200 player has a HUGE difference, and it really makes the game data more inaccurate.

The extra variation is good for making the game to be fresh when you start a new save, but it really does not help in making the game more realistic and accurate.

Of course there are always some overrated players in every edition of the game, but making it random doesn't exactly improve it

I suppose the negative PA would do just fine, without the need of rearrange the intervals [although I think 10 are maybe too many...]

-1: 1-40

-2: 41-80

-3: 81-110

-4: 111-130

-5: 131-150

-6: 151-175

-7: 176-200

that would make the job of the researchers MUCH EASIER, as the vast majority of U19 "filler" players in top leagues would get a -3, and Lady Luck would decide who'll be decent and who'll be Tier 2-3 material.

Good but unproven prospects can get a -4 or -5, while -6 goes to younger players who have played some top-level football already in a convincing way.

-7 is strictly reserved for the Messis and the Ronaldos.

One more thing I'd like to see, but I doubt it's feasible, is "variable intervals" for each range. Like -7 can start at 176 +/- 10 points etc, so the variation would be even better.

I fail to see how that's much different to the current system, just more restrictive? The vast majority of young players are given minus potentials already. For example, of the four players you mention, I believe all have minus potentials. I've never actually heard of Annan though. Indeed, if I hadn't been trying to find of certain potentials in GPTG before full release, I wouldn't have heard of Areola or Otamendi, and whilst I found Munain in my save through scouting, he's not a regular for WPOY.

Your -7 is actually a smaller range than the current -10. Beside which, there's no "overlap". A -8 can be better than a -9 under the current system (in terms of PA), but under your system the -7s would always get a higher PA than the -6s.

As for the "variable intervals"- why not just make it 164-200 permanently?

The one thing I would like to see, however, is the ability to set a personalised range of PAs. For example, Jack Wilshire, 16. Arsenal fans were demanding a -10 or -9, both of which would have been too much. Somebody suggested 120-200. Would that not have been perfect? Sometimes he'd be a lower Premier League or upper Championship player, other times he'd be one of the best ever.

A few stats for you (players' PA revealed):

Players aged under 20, PA between -10 and -1: 32416

Likewise, but PA 1-200: 17102

Nearly double the amount have "ranged" PAs.

If we drop age to 18, when fewer players will have proved themselves, and up the minimum PA to 80, so we filter out the relative dross who are less relevant to this thread, only 3011 records are found, including the likes of Bojan and Sean Scannell who are relatively proven.

Okay, I'll be fair and cut out the -4s and below. 11353 players found. That's nearly four times the number of "random" potentials.

Do you want me to go further? -8s and above, 130 PAs and above. 764 randoms, 384 set potentials.

Another step? 47 players aged 18 or under have a PA of 150 or more, including Bojan, Neymar, and Rodwell. There are 109 -9s and -10s, including such real life big names as Macheda, Bostock and Ramsey.

Thanks for posting names of players who become great.

Ok, I see there are more Minus PA than fixed PA, and that's a good thing.

I'll concede my proposal for new ranges is far from perfect, but it was just a rough idea. Probably the existing one is good enough (I haven't realized it had overlaps]

However, I still maintain the Minus Potential should become the only one used for younger players.

And I agree with the idea of a multi-range negative PA. That's probably the best and most effective way to achieve variety and a bit of unpredictability.

Of course we all know some -10 players will become World Class, but on the other hand many many -8/-10 players will end up being average, mediocre or plain bad.

For one Messi, we have several Saviola [good but not stellar], many Adus [perennial prospect], many Pennant [forgotten and later resurfaced] and tons of Lupoli [plain disappeared]

Instead in FM, as long as the player has a decent starting CA and is at a good club [and most of the wonderkids do play at such clubs], he will reach his -9/-10 PA.

I'd like to see that phenomenon toned down, and a variable -N PA would probably help.

On the one hand I notice how I avoid sigining real-existing youths because I worry that their PA might be too low in game. On the other hand I want big real-life talents to have the chance to be big stars in FM. So I'm rather undecided whether PA should be fixed for young players.

If you don't seek out the players then it doesn't affect you. Aside from Otamendi, who I came across whilst managing in Ukraine (he was playing for Shakhtar) I haven't heard of the others. Whilst I no longer care for the formerly called cheat players (cheap and great), part of the appeal for some players (by that I mean the vast majority) is having them, much the same way they collect shinies for their sticker album.

They're as much a part of the series as any other aspect, indeed I'd probably credit CM/FM for popularising the term "Wonderkid" more than any other form of media.

I disagree, but maybe for a personal reason than anything else.

The researchers do a fantastic job in that it's fair and accurate to that current moment in time. I can therefore look forward to signing some of the best young players of that era, knowing full well I could foresee their potential in years to come. To an extent, these players may never reach the same level IRL with accordance to their FM stats. On the other hand, perhaps their FM stats in 6+ months actually do not reflect what they've achieved IRL? There is no way to get this 100% accurate for each player but I feel that's the beauty of having a new game each year. The anticipation of seeing how good 'x' and 'y' are for an upcoming game is pretty exciting, in my opinion.

Having no predetermined PA would result in inconsistencies and for me, it would be quite dull and pointless when you consider that regens fulfill this criteria anyway. Another potential problem with this idea is that the young players (with fixed PA) actually help ease the transition when it comes to the production of regens. In my opinion, it takes a few years before any real decent regens are created, trained and then ready for first-team action. While this is happening, the young generation with fixed PA can be in the first-team for a number of years while you're busy finding players who are essentially classed as random. If this wasn't the case and all young players were no longer predetermined, I fear the beginnings of a new games would be quite difficult and confusing for most users.

And last but not least, perhaps my biggest argument against this would be that some players are truely destined to achieve greatness and therefore a random PA would not do that player justice.