System where PA fluctuates a bit?

I love this game as much as the next guy, but I think it would be interesting could implement some kind of PA changing system. I know it is difficult and they tried to do something like that with the "-9" type thing, but if you go into the database and look you know there are x amount of players, that with the right training and care, will turn into great players. Real life isn't always like that though, there are tons of players who have high potential who don't even close to reaching it and there are players who initially didn't have high potential become fantastic players.

For example, McDonald Mariga was somewhat unknown and he slowly worked his way to the top now he has unbelievable potential. But take a guy like say Nani who was supposed to be amazing and he hasn't even reached close to his potential.

Maybe the game can take into effect a player's surrounding, mental strength, confidence, etc. and have more players with fluctuating PA's. That way the SAME players won't turn out to be great on everyone's games.

It might be a little far-fetched or not do-able but I think it would make the game a bit more interesting.

Players with minus potential will be assigned a PA within a set range when the game loads, there are many other factors which limit whether a player will reach his PA. However I think this is where an improvement could be made, most players seem to reach their PA regardless particularly when under human control.

Yeah everytime the DB loads certain players are given a random PA. Saw it a lot in the end of 09 when I used scout more and saw sometimes Ballotelli would be anywhere from 170 to 199

The same player dont become great in everyone's game? But how can C.Ronaldo, Torres, Messi, Villa only be good enough to be a no body on some people's game while they are the best on others?

Potential ability will always be the same. What should be different is that when current ability hits PA and for how long. In other words, early bloomers, mid bloomers, late bloomers and such. Early bloomers which stays very good till a very old age. Early bloomers who are only at their peak for a short amount of time and many other types. That way, there will be a M.Owen, P.Maldini, Giggs and Adrian Mutu.

Yeah everytime the DB loads certain players are given a random PA. Saw it a lot in the end of 09 when I used scout more and saw sometimes Ballotelli would be anywhere from 170 to 199

Yea I know that's random but whether it's between that range he is still gonna turn out a great player. What if he slowly started to decline and didn't really reach that potential at all, sort of like a Quaresma type player.

That happens in the game all the time. I have a player that had 196 PA and never got above 170 because his ambition and determination were too low. Also just because people think he is going to be good does not mean he has a great PA.

Early bloomers who are only at their peak for a short amount of time and many other types.

That isn't much different than a player with a lower ceiling but high growth rate. They reach their peak fast but can't get any higher.

I love this game as much as the next guy, but I think it would be interesting could implement some kind of PA changing system. I know it is difficult and they tried to do something like that with the "-9" type thing, but if you go into the database and look you know there are x amount of players, that with the right training and care, will turn into great players.

So, you are moaning that, by effectively cheating and viewing the PA figures for all players (which are hidden in-game for a reason), you can figure out who the good players are going to be?!?

Have you considered that possibly by playing the game WITHOUT using the editor to view the hidden PA figures, that might solve the problem you are having?

Bit late now I suppose... ...

So, you are moaning that, by effectively cheating and viewing the PA figures for all players (which are hidden in-game for a reason), you can figure out who the good players are going to be?!?

Have you considered that possibly by playing the game WITHOUT using the editor to view the hidden PA figures, that might solve the problem you are having?

Bit late now I suppose... ...

No, that's not his point at all. He's not talking about any single player in particular: he's talking about PA as a concept. PA is the system that FM uses to define a player's potential. Under this system, there are certain players who will definitely turn out to be good in the game. If you have a hypothetical player with PA -9, the only uncertainty is whether he will turn out to be a good player or a really, really good player. What about those cases in real life where high-potential players just drop off the map completely? In other words, he's not talking about cases where a player turns out to be good rather than world-class: that's already in the game. He's talking about cases where a player turns out to be a massive flop and ends up in League One after being touted as the next George Best.

A couple of posters have said that this has already been accounted for through low determination/work rate etc. But that doesn't quite address the point: once a player has been given a determination rating in the database, it doesn't really go up or down much. If you code Francis Jeffers with an outstanding PA and a Determination attribute of 19, then he will reach his potential no matter what. The consequence was that in CM 01/02, there was no conceivable scenario under which Francis Jeffers would have turned out to be a mediocre footballer, as he has been in real life. (Unless you bought him and put him on a deliberately stupid training schedule, of course.) Another scenario: if you see a regen with a Determination of 1, you know immediately that he won't turn out to be world-class. Where's the uncertainty in that?

No, that's not his point at all. He's not talking about any single player in particular: he's talking about PA as a concept. PA is the system that FM uses to define a player's potential. Under this system, there are certain players who will definitely turn out to be good in the game. If you have a hypothetical player with PA -9, the only uncertainty is whether he will turn out to be a good player or a really, really good player. What about those cases in real life where high-potential players just drop off the map completely? In other words, he's not talking about cases where a player turns out to be good rather than world-class: that's already in the game. He's talking about cases where a player turns out to be a massive flop and ends up in League One after being touted as the next George Best.

A couple of posters have said that this has already been accounted for through low determination/work rate etc. But that doesn't quite address the point: once a player has been given a determination rating in the database, it doesn't really go up or down much. If you code Francis Jeffers with an outstanding PA and a Determination attribute of 19, then he will reach his potential no matter what. The consequence was that in CM 01/02, there was no conceivable scenario under which Francis Jeffers would have turned out to be a mediocre footballer, as he has been in real life. (Unless you bought him and put him on a deliberately stupid training schedule, of course.) Another scenario: if you see a regen with a Determination of 1, you know immediately that he won't turn out to be world-class. Where's the uncertainty in that?

Wrong. With det 1 a player can be tutored and turned into a star.

Players who want a changing PA misunderstand the concept of Potential Ability. It is the players' genes, how good he can possibly get in an IDEAL scenario. If anything needs changing, it's how players actually develop, and how scouts work.

The thing that most people don't seem to realise about PA is that the P stands for POTENTIAL...Potential meaning that they could potentially reach that number, but won't always get there. Just because a player has a PA of 185, doesn't mean that by age 26, his CA (current ability) will be that. He may only reach 170 or 160 or 145 or whatever it may be, so there's no need for any sort of fluctuating PA system or whatever the proposal is because the current system works just fine.

That isn't much different than a player with a lower ceiling but high growth rate. They reach their peak fast but can't get any higher.

What about michael owen type of player? He was one of the best striker in the world, but ever since he moved to RM, Newcastle... He's a no body.

He bloomed to a very high CA (180?) before the age of +-23 and then drop to an average CA (145) at the age of +-27.

Where else Maldini was only considered borderline good and stayed at that level much of his mid 20's and didnt really grow (stagnant). He then spiked to rise to become world best defender around the age of 28. He was with AC Milan. With the best coaches, facilities and plays in UCL and a good league.

Currently in game, given those circumstenses, players will reach 170+ CA at the age of 24.

The thing that most people don't seem to realise about PA is that the P stands for POTENTIAL...Potential meaning that they could potentially reach that number, but won't always get there. Just because a player has a PA of 185, doesn't mean that by age 26, his CA (current ability) will be that. He may only reach 170 or 160 or 145 or whatever it may be, so there's no need for any sort of fluctuating PA system or whatever the proposal is because the current system works just fine.

Yes but....

after the first save, you'll have found out [via scouting, editors or forums] pretty much the best players in the game, even the obscure ones who are given a -8/-9 in the db.

So in the new save you'll just know which players to look for, depending on your needs and strategies...

Sure, John Smith could now get 168PA instead of the 186 he had in the other save, but still, he's a good buy, especially if you get him in day 1, for 20 quids and a pack of peanuts.

The thing is: sure, PA is potential and there's no guarantee it'll ever get reached, but if the human player doesn't drop the ball with a player he KNOWS he's talented, the chance of having said player reaching his PA is very high.

That's why we need broader PA intervals in the database: to avoid playing with the same "Usual Suspects" in every save, where the difference is just the club we're at..

Clearly, some players will always have a high PA, possibly a fixed one, but we could use a bit of variety, especially for younger players who could easily turn out Top Players, but who could also sink into mid-table oblivion

The thing that most people don't seem to realise about PA is that the P stands for POTENTIAL...Potential meaning that they could potentially reach that number, but won't always get there. Just because a player has a PA of 185, doesn't mean that by age 26, his CA (current ability) will be that. He may only reach 170 or 160 or 145 or whatever it may be, so there's no need for any sort of fluctuating PA system or whatever the proposal is because the current system works just fine.

One thing is that potential must not be seen as future CA and shoudl in most cases not be fully reached. Often issues with people demanding that sometimes players should be able to exceed their PA don't understand this concept. What they mean to suggest is a general rise in PAs and a more rigid approach to players reaching it.

However, in here I find a good suggestion which is not related to that.

As far as I understand, in here the question is if the potentials could be a made a bit volatile. Most players don't have a negative PA which would set their PA randomly within a certain frame at the start of the game. Most PAs are fixed and thus the same in every single save. Making them volatile does not mean they should ever change in the game after a save has been created, it only means that before the save is created, any set PA (just like the random ones) is reallocated within a +-5 % frame for example.

To make fixed PAs a little bit volatile would have two pros to it:

1. The game would become a bit more random as the youngsters have slightly different PAs in every save. This would lead to more variation and fun.

2. Researching potential is surely the most difficult thing which reaearchers are asked to do and the issue where they are thus most likely to fail. Knowing that any researched PA value must be taken with a pinch of salt anyway, it may just even be more realistic to abandon the concept of a fixed PA and make every fixed setting slightly, but only slightly, volatile.

Where else Maldini was only considered borderline good and stayed at that level much of his mid 20's and didnt really grow (stagnant). He then spiked to rise to become world best defender around the age of 28. He was with AC Milan. With the best coaches, facilities and plays in UCL and a good league.

Ehm, where did you get that? Maldini was never considered "borderline good"... he was a first team regular at age 17, and by age 25 he was the leading full-back of one of the most dominating forces in modern football.

And the left-back of Italy national team for a good decade, with no other full-back ever coming CLOSE to give him a run for his spot.

As you put it, "by the age of 28" Maldini was already considered THE best left-back in the world, and had won more trophies than a lot of other top players haven't won in a whole career...

He was "stagnant" because he was ALREADY playing close to his full potential. In his 30s he "just" added experience and mental strenght to his game, to make it for the slight drop of physical qualities.

Seriously, if you use Maldini as an example for "varying PA", you're way way way off target.

What about michael owen type of player? He was one of the best striker in the world, but ever since he moved to RM, Newcastle... He's a no body.

He bloomed to a very high CA (180?) before the age of +-23 and then drop to an average CA (145) at the age of +-27.

Ok, that's more like it

Also, it works the other way around...

Take Luca Toni: a guy who was a mediocre "tall guy" for relegation-candidates until age 26, then "found himself" in Palermo and went on to become Serie A's leading striker at age 28..

Actually, in his first Serie A campaign with Palermo, Toni almost topped his overall goal tally, achieved in three previous stints at taly's top level (20 goals, against 24)

Such late bloomers [or Two Years Wonders, if you will) are not uncommon in football, so I think FM should try to replicate it, to an extent.

Instead once a 190PA youngster flounders a while in lower leagues, he'll be bound to stay there, with his "max reachable PA" drops dramatically

The fact is: every football player can exceed his "fixed potential ability", under the right circumstances, be it by training, by tactical solutions or by sheer luck.

Having every single one hitting a "glass ceiling", be it set at 130 or at 180 is a bit of an approximation which takes something away from the game

I love this game as much as the next guy, but I think it would be interesting could implement some kind of PA changing system. I know it is difficult and they tried to do something like that with the "-9" type thing, but if you go into the database and look you know there are x amount of players, that with the right training and care, will turn into great players. Real life isn't always like that though, there are tons of players who have high potential who don't even close to reaching it and there are players who initially didn't have high potential become fantastic players.

For example, McDonald Mariga was somewhat unknown and he slowly worked his way to the top now he has unbelievable potential. But take a guy like say Nani who was supposed to be amazing and he hasn't even reached close to his potential.

Maybe the game can take into effect a player's surrounding, mental strength, confidence, etc. and have more players with fluctuating PA's. That way the SAME players won't turn out to be great on everyone's games.

It might be a little far-fetched or not do-able but I think it would make the game a bit more interesting.

missed the point... potential isnt fluctuating...

francis jeffers had amaszing potential... just because he didnt reach it , doesnt mean he doesnt still have that potential... just the inability to reach it.

and to use your example.. Nani has great potential.. jsut as much as he always has had.. he's just not reached it yet.... his recent performances are a credit to him btw though

same for mariga.... he always had potential.... just because he's signed for a big team, doesnt mean he has more potential now.. just a better chance to achieve it with better training etc...

potential should be , and is , an inherent set value ... and the game does this magnificently.

Yes but....

after the first save, you'll have found out [via scouting, editors or forums] pretty much the best players in the game, even the obscure ones who are given a -8/-9 in the db.

So in the new save you'll just know which players to look for, depending on your needs and strategies...

Sure, John Smith could now get 168PA instead of the 186 he had in the other save, but still, he's a good buy, especially if you get him in day 1, for 20 quids and a pack of peanuts.

The thing is: sure, PA is potential and there's no guarantee it'll ever get reached, but if the human player doesn't drop the ball with a player he KNOWS he's talented, the chance of having said player reaching his PA is very high.

That's why we need broader PA intervals in the database: to avoid playing with the same "Usual Suspects" in every save, where the difference is just the club we're at..

Clearly, some players will always have a high PA, possibly a fixed one, but we could use a bit of variety, especially for younger players who could easily turn out Top Players, but who could also sink into mid-table oblivion

to me ... if i play a realistic manager game... i want the likes of lukaku , neymar etc to have the talent every save i start.... its just realistic.. irl these types of players have all the potential in the world...

start randomising potential and the game isnt realistic.. you'll have reserve players at best becoming world class..

the system is perfect as it is

What you need to remember is that the CA and PA of a player is handed out as we are at today. Unfortunately the researchers crystal ball is out of action at the moment so we don't know what the future holds for anybody. There will always be certain players who at the age of 21 are World beaters but perhaps end up dipping when they should be peaking (Michael Owen) but this is replicated as well as possible in the game with injuries playing a part.

Just to address a post further up the page, the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo, Messi etc have a set PA which will be the same in everybodys game, it is only young players who are given a negative PA to reflect the fact that there is a certain amount of doubt as to how good they can be in future.

It is a fair point that the 'usual suspects' go on to be the top players in the game, but I think the important point here is that it is that, a game. You have played it on 4 different saves, you've read the forums, therefore you already know which players are likely to go on to be top players. The only clean way of doing it would be to play the game without these factors and you face the same challenge as a real manager. It is also important to note that in terms of the match engine itself, the CA is not used, it is played out on attributes. Therefore a player may not have a huge PA but because of his starting attributes along with the increases over th course of his career he may still be very effective with a CA that only climbs to 155 (however a player with a CA of 155 is still a very good player).

to me ... if i play a realistic manager game... i want the likes of lukaku , neymar etc to have the talent every save i start.... its just realistic.. irl these types of players have all the potential in the world...

start randomising potential and the game isnt realistic.. you'll have reserve players at best becoming world class..

I didn't say "randomising" in a way which could lead Bojan to become a reserve at Almería, or Balotelli a benchwarmer at Catania...

But a bit more of flexibility in PA, especially for younger players, would be good.

Lukaku and Neymar are touted as future stars, but how many future stars have we seen fade away already?

The list of "-9" teenagers from Africa or South America which ultimately failed to fulfill their potential, over the last decade, is probably longer than the list of Paris Hilton's one-night-boyfriends...

And I don't just mean "fail to fulfill" in a "close but no cigar" way, but also in a spectacular "did aliens abduct him?" way of disappearing from the football scene.

Instead in the game, if you, or other top clubs, sign the younger -9 kid, it's almost guarantee he'll turn out awesome, unless you really really really screw it up. But it takes probably more effort to ruin him than to nurture him.

the system is perfect as it is

Is it?

Once you know who'll become a Superstar, it's just a matter of signing them over and over again, in every savegame you have, when you're in need of a world class player.

Ain't it boring?

Moreso, how "realistic" is that the Neymars and the Lukakus will ALWAYS INEVITABLY turn out as good as they could, over and over again?

What about michael owen type of player? He was one of the best striker in the world, but ever since he moved to RM, Newcastle... He's a no body.

He bloomed to a very high CA (180?) before the age of +-23 and then drop to an average CA (145) at the age of +-27.

Maybe he over achieved. His PA might never have been that high only the media hype around him gave that perception. That and he probably couldn't handle pressure very well at RM and his morale collapsed.

The thing that most people don't seem to realise about PA is that the P stands for POTENTIAL...Potential meaning that they could potentially reach that number, but won't always get there.

But there are simply too few situations under which certain players won't reach their potential (or vice versa). The person who replied to my previous post cherrypicked one sentence from my post, but couldn't respond to the Francis Jeffers example. In CM 01/02, there was not a single conceivable scenario under which Francis Jeffers, with an excellent PA and Determination of 19, could not reach his full potential. In FM 10, there is still not a single conceivable scenario under which a player with those attributes could not reach his full potential. The extraordinarily unlikely exceptions are receiving a succession of season-ending injuries one after the other, or subjecting the player to deliberately stupid training schedules; neither of which is true of Jeffers' case, or indeed the case of countless others. The thing is: for many players, once their PA and Determination are coded into the database, that's more or less it.

I don't know whether a dynamic PA is the best solution to the problem. Maybe there could be more variables inserted instead.* Maybe the problem isn't necessarily really important. But it's just not viable to deny that the problem - however small or large - exists in the first place.

-----------------

* I quite like the suggestion of having broader PA intervals, as put forward by RBKalle. As someone who does a fair bit of statistics work, I think it would be interesting to use a bell-shaped distribution to expand the intervals at the edges. For example, for a -9 player (diagram not drawn to scale):

Most players will be contained within the range of 150-180. Within that range, a greater proportion of players would be closer to the centre: i.e. there would be more players with a PA between 160-170 than between 150-160 or 170-180. This may already be the case; it's not important if it is or isn't... rather, the main feature of this interval is that while the vast majority (e.g. 98-99%) would be between 150-180, there is a chance that a player may be outside these intervals. There is a small chance of them having a PA below 150, a very small chance of them having a PA below 140, and a really, really small chance of them having a PA below 130. It would be theoretically possible for a given -9 player to have a really low PA, but the probability would be extremely marginal.

We are saying that the -9 system IS a variable PA system that you are asking for. If you dont use scout or RTE then the system in place is a system where to the user PA flucuates between games. One game Otamendi is a world class CB the next he is a mid table premier club at 27.

CA goes up and down throughout a players career and Consistency + Imp Games Attrib apply big losses to key stats throughout the season. A player with CA of 180 but Pressure of 7, Consistency of 4 and Imp games of 8 will hardly play at 180 throughout the entire year. His morale will get shotty in big games and will be playing worse than 170 CA's most of the season.

We are saying that the -9 system IS a variable PA system that you are asking for. If you dont use scout or RTE then the system in place is a system where to the user PA flucuates between games. One game Otamendi is a world class CB the next he is a mid table premier club at 27.

I don't use a scout or RTE. I don't even play FM10. My point is a systemic one, not a user-end one. I'm saying that it's not good enough to have a fluctuation between world-class and good, for the reasons I identified above (and which is reflected in case studies like Francis Jeffers). I'm saying that there should be fluctuation between world-class and League One flop - infrequently, but possible nonetheless. That's the difference between a bell-curve that terminates at 150 and 180 (which is what happens now) and a bell-curve that stretches to the minimal and maximal theoretical bounds (which is what I suggested in my previous post).

Perhaps it's a nuanced point - but in the long-run, the two alternative distributions (and equivalent variables which lead to similar differences) have the potential to lead to quite different results.

I don't use a scout or RTE. I don't even play FM10. My point is a systemic one, not a user-end one. I'm saying that it's not good enough to have a fluctuation between world-class and good, for the reasons I identified above (and which is reflected in case studies like Francis Jeffers). I'm saying that there should be fluctuation between world-class and League One flop - infrequently, but possible nonetheless. That's the difference between a bell-curve that terminates at 150 and 180 (which is what happens now) and a bell-curve that stretches to the minimal and maximal theoretical bounds (which is what I suggested in my previous post).

Perhaps it's a nuanced point - but in the long-run, the two alternative distributions (and equivalent variables which lead to similar differences) have the potential to lead to quite different results.

So, essentially, you're saying have a system where it's more along the lines of 130-200 for -10's, -9's, and -8's and have each lower number have a higher percentage of being towards the lower bound of 130-200. But nonetheless there is always a slight chance it could happen for everyone, therefore making lots of different young superstars on each different game. Something like that.

So, essentially, you're saying have a system where it's more along the lines of 130-200 for -10's, -9's, and -8's and have each lower number have a higher percentage of being towards the lower bound of 130-200. But nonetheless there is always a slight chance it could happen for everyone, therefore making lots of different young superstars on each different game. Something like that.

That's one way of putting it, yes. And the extent to which you get those variations will depend on the kurtosis/shape of the distribution (i.e. you could have 99% of players within 150-180 for a PA -9 player, or maybe 99.5%, or maybe 98% - testing would need to be done, evidently, and it might eventuate that a completely random assignment of PA isn't necessarily the best way). As a general principle, I'm interested in the idea of including greater uncertainty and imperfect information in aspects of FM. One example is the one that I made here relating to player attributes.

It's not necessarily a hugely significant issue, in the sense that once you get several years into a save file, the -[number] PA ratings aren't important any more (unless, as mentioned previously, you use an editor or scout). But it's something that could be considered nonetheless.

My problem is not with PA but as others pointed out, the likes of Luca Toni, Owen, Ronaldinho, etc... FM cannot replicate these types of careers...

If untill 26, a player is not great in FM he wont ever be, there's no "late bloomers". Also there's no declining. Have you ever seen messi become a "normal player" in fm? There no dramatically improving or declining in FM.

The real test is this: If you choose a random player, say adriano who's now at flamengo and check how he was rated in each version of FM you will realise that FM itself cannot replicate the kins of up and downs of a player.

If you manage to turn Vela a great player at the age of 24, he will be a great player untill 32. If he has injuries, he'll be slowed down a little, but not enough.

What i'd like to see fluctuate more is the ability of the players. For exemple, if the player is having problems settling in, their atributtes should drop massivelly. If he wants a new challenge, determination should go down.

Some people may say that this is down to form and not atributtes but i truly believe that the atribbuttes should be attached to form.

The thing is: for many players, once their PA and Determination are coded into the database, that's more or less it.

I know I'm being pedantic and taking one part of your post out of context, but I'm not sure that 'determination' is quite as important as you think in deciding if a player reaches their PA. Professionalism, and to a lesser extent work rate and ambition seem to be far more important factors. From saved-games I've run as a bit of an experiment, I can promise you that when you have players with very low professionalism (<5), it's a very, very hard slog for them to increase their ability

(Edit - for a good illustration of the effect of personality attributes on CA development, this experiment is worth a read. In short, four players set up with the worst personality imaginable generally fail to ever develop their starting CA towards their 200PA)

Anyway, an interesting experiment:

Holiday through the game to about 20 seasons in, and then take a random snapshot of the database, and work out what the CA-PA gap is for players of different ages.

If the vast majority of players aged (let's say) 26+ have reached at, or near their PA, then perhaps there's a point. If there's a mixture of players who've achieved close to their PA, and others who are still off by a fair way, then perhaps it's not as bad as is being suggested.

I don't use a scout or RTE. I don't even play FM10. My point is a systemic one, not a user-end one. I'm saying that it's not good enough to have a fluctuation between world-class and good, for the reasons I identified above (and which is reflected in case studies like Francis Jeffers). I'm saying that there should be fluctuation between world-class and League One flop - infrequently, but possible nonetheless. That's the difference between a bell-curve that terminates at 150 and 180 (which is what happens now) and a bell-curve that stretches to the minimal and maximal theoretical bounds (which is what I suggested in my previous post).

Perhaps it's a nuanced point - but in the long-run, the two alternative distributions (and equivalent variables which lead to similar differences) have the potential to lead to quite different results.

I understand your point about the distribution curve, but I'd argue that a Francis Jeffers type player is more a case where someone does have a high PA, but for a variety of reasons (injuries, form, personality, bad career moves, etc) doesn't achieve it. As long as mechanisms are in place to ensure that players with a high PA don't always get there, I think it's less of a problem.

If you don't look at the PA of a player, the system works fine. It's once you start looking at things you aren't meant to see that it might begin to unravel.

There are two ways of looking at a Francis Jeffers- he failed to reach his potential, or he never had any potential. Both work in FM- I've had lazy players, unprofessional players, injury prone players, players who couldn't break into the first team, and players who got into the first team too early, who probably didn't reach their PA, because they didn't have the right conditions. Likewise, I'm sure once or twice, I've had a scout rave about a player who was mediocre.