The Uncertainty Principle & Dynamic Potentials(READ)

Ok so I've been playing the football manager franchise for years now, back when it was championship manager, It seems every instalment of the franchise has genuinely had more depth to it than the previous, each new version usually boasts new cool features, new ui, updated team rosters etc. But ive been really gagging for the game developers to redesign one of the most important parts of the game, the CA/PA system. Id love to get a few of your opinions on what you think of the system but Id like to see a dynamic potential system, where for each player there is an uncertainty value for both PA and CA for example.

Player X

Current Ability: 150 : Uncertainty (+/- 2)

Potential Ability: 164 : Uncertainty ( +/- 7)

This would be similar to the -10, or -9 values to PA, once the game loads up Player X's CA could be 150, 149, 148, 151 or 152 it is randomly generated on each new game but it is more likely to be closer to the CA value, for example on Player X potential ability it is most likely to generate a number closer to 164 but in rare cases could increase or decrease the full amount. This would be useful for the game developers who admit they are not completely sure about players potential, infact no one can be sure, this system allows game developers to say, "Hey this 18 year old striker is doing great in the brazillian league, but we cannot be sure of his potential at all, so we will set PA to 166 and his uncertainty to +/-6, so essentially on some games he could develop into a premier league star striker or he will be average but on the majority of games he will be somewhere in between."

Not sure if anyone understands it because im terrible at explaining ideas. I for one would love this to be built into fm, because you actually wouldn't buy the same players over and over again because there potentials would be different depending on uncertainty and lets be honest, there is alot of that in football. I mean come on, Sakho turns out to be the best cb in the world 100% OF THE TIME, EVERYTIME! as long as he is played for 20+ games a season, but IRL its more complicated, he could sign for Newcastle and turn out to be the next Boumsong, who knows.

Please incorporate this into the game SI, I dont want to sign Sakho, Hamsik, Sissoko, Dzeko EVERY GAME

When I first saw the thread I thought we were talking about the old chestnut of having a dynamic PA within a save.

However now I've fully read your post I understand what you want and agree it would lead to greater variety so it gets a big from me.

So basically it is the -7, -8, -9 etc system, but with a smaller range of values, and a normal distribution of values.

Yeah, why not.

No thanks, do not want. It would have minimal effect anyway it wouldnt stop good players being great imo with the kind of -/+ swing your talking about. I can only see it dumping on players that are only on the verge of being average, example eikrem in fm2011 can just about be a good squad rotation player depending on who you pick (werder/lyon/benfica teams like these) with training and matches, if he loses -6 its going to mean he's waste of space + 6 will mean he's minorly better squad/rotation player.

someone like Sakho isnt going to be hurt by a -6 too much and will still get into most teams if he gets +6 he will still get into most teams(obv)

Please incorporate this into the game SI, I dont want to sign Sakho, Hamsik, Sissoko, Dzeko EVERY GAME

as for above, play with different levels of teams that should sort your problem

I would love to see a more dynamic system. So many times we see players destined for greatness stumble early and sometimes players take 3-4 years to blossom. Eljero Elia was written off early, but managed to get to the top nevertheless. Wout Brama spend nearly two on the bench (made his debut in 2005-2006 season), but finally managed to break through and is now a international.

Those kind of low/late progression is rare in FM. Maybe we should see a different way of mental matureness...

I like the idea. So if you start a new game the database changes, so that you have to find different players to play. This feature might kill the "Best Players" threads, since it is going to be different for all the games. IMO it is not fair to read the "Best Players" threads, I feel like I am cheating even if I play against AI.

someone like Sakho isnt going to be hurt by a -6 too much and will still get into most teams if he gets +6 he will still get into most teams(obv)

Then you would put +- 10 or +-15 for Sakho. This is not a feature that should follow rules, but it is a feature to differentiate the games you start every time. SO after playing 20 or 30 years in game time, it would give you a reason to start the game again.

-/+ 10 or 15 is a bit extreme do you not think?

the op said it could be between a -/+ range which i assume he would say would be random each time, how would you definie which player gets a bigger -/+ swing?

how can it not follow rules either im not sure what you mean by this, how would it work without rules, what would the point, surely you should just edit everyone player to be -10 then at start of game if you want things that random.

-/+ 10 or 15 is a bit extreme do you not think?

the op said it could be between a -/+ range which i assume he would say would be random each time, how would you definie which player gets a bigger -/+ swing?

how can it not follow rules either im not sure what you mean by this, how would it work without rules, what would the point, surely you should just edit everyone player to be -10 then at start of game if you want things that random.

Well it seems like you don't know what -10 actually does.

Basically what we have now is a system where some players have fixed numbers for CA/PA while other, usually younger players use the - system to give them a slightly different CA/PA when each individual save is created. The OP wants to lose the fixed system to give a little variety to each individual save.

i wasnt talking about the op post when refering to the first bit, it was the post above, i full see what the op is saying and gave my opnion on that in another post.

yes -10 is a mistake as it is the higher end of random pot, basically if you read what he said:

Then you would put +- 10 or +-15 for Sakho. This is not a feature that should follow rules

you will have more understanding of the point i was trying to make :

how can it not follow rules either im not sure what you mean by this, how would it work without rules, what would the point, surely you should just edit everyone player to be -10 then at start of game if you want things that random

not -10 but i meant that way it mayaswell just be everyone having random potential

This sounds roughly like my ideas here, except the range is unnecessary and where a player's peak CA ends up is fully dependent on what he does in his lifetime.

I've been advocating some sort of "soft end CA/PA" for a while now, but in truth I'm starting to think the game compensates for the granitic Ability attribute with Consistency/Inconsistency and with other "tricks" (morale, form, other mental attributes etc).

So it's not as if a 190CA will always be unstoppable... Or a 190PA will always turn into a new Messi.

The game can simulate with adequate accuracy the variation in performances even for players of the highest calibre, so adding more variables to the already ok system could end up ruining the balance in the game [and we do know well how delicate the balance in FM is, don't we... ]

The one and only urgent change to CA/PA is a "two-ways CA"...

In other words, just as a player can "lose" PA points, thus getting a lower "highest CA", it should be possible for him to regain those points, getting back his original PA.

Eg.

John Doe has 100CA and 160PA. He has a couple of below-average seasons as a youngster, so the game decides he can't reach 160 anymore, but say 125 is the highest he can get...

With the current system he'll be stuck at 125, tops, no matter how well he plays

With a new system he should be able to reach 160 again once his career finally gets going.

The game could/should recalculate the PA (and the HCA, aka "Highest possible CA") at the beginning of every season, according with the players' performances over the previous one.

So your backup striker who has scored fairly regularly could enjoy a SMALL PA raise, while your "Fernando Torres" who has been injured or in poor form most of the year should get a sensible cut, but still with all the chances to bounce back in style the next season.

This sounds roughly like my ideas here, except the range is unnecessary and where a player's peak CA ends up is fully dependent on what he does in his lifetime.

No, this is what has been discussed to death in the past.

The OP is not asking for a soft PA, he is asking for a fixed PA that is slightly different from save to save which is a totally different idea.

-/+ 10 or 15 is a bit extreme do you not think?

the op said it could be between a -/+ range which i assume he would say would be random each time, how would you definie which player gets a bigger -/+ swing?

how can it not follow rules either im not sure what you mean by this, how would it work without rules, what would the point, surely you should just edit everyone player to be -10 then at start of game if you want things that random.

I said +/-10,15 for Sakho example, because you said +/-6 wouldn't do any difference. I am not suggesting to put +/-10,15 for every player.

For the rule, I tried to mean that this would be a random thing. So in programing stage Si don't have to create special rule-way to follow. I mean if a player has +/-5, it shouldn't be same pattern for every player, and it shouldn't start from -1, and goes 1 point away every time you start a new game.

-/+ 10 (never mind 15) means a player with 150 pa could have either 140 or 160 thats a 20 point difference, as i said originally i dont like the idea at all, this is researched as best it can be overall and is generally pretty well done, if you look back to the likes of cm01/02 youll find the majority of big players now would become good players in that game aswell, obviously theres a few that have been overrated but in general id say they get it as right as humanly possible

if people dont like starting new games and buying the same players and cant be bothered to try a new challenge and not always pick the same level team then id suggest fm put in a randomly generated world of players, maybe losely based on the reputation of the clubs. You could select this at the start with "hide player atts" "use real player names" "use random players" ??

*edit as below*

-/+ 10 (never mind 15) means a player with 150 pa could have either 130 or 170 thats a 40 point difference,

???

Urm no. A player with a 150PA and +/- 10 could be between 140 & 160, a potential maximum 20pt difference between the extremes.

haha not switched on at all today

No, this is what has been discussed to death in the past.

The OP is not asking for a soft PA, he is asking for a fixed PA that is slightly different from save to save which is a totally different idea.

But we already have this, it's the Negative PA range applied to younger and relatively unproven players...

-9 works for the likes of Lukaku & co, who have indeed hinted to possess potential to turn out great, but it's still unclear how great. So in that case "flexible" PA from save to save is fine.

But the problem with people buying the same established players save after save wouldn't be solved... Unless you're willing to have, say, Bale or Pastore going from "Top Club Material" to "enjoy your newfound mediocrity in Blackburn and Newcastle" level depending on the luck of the draw upon starting a new game...

I see I'm going for an extreme situation, but nonetheless a drop of 5-10 points in PA can make a huge difference, as we're talking about a relatively narrow range, where 10 points can make or break a career, and even above the 150 mark they still mean a lot.

I think the "soft PA recalculated on performances season after season" is a more viable idea...

But we already have this, it's the Negative PA range applied to younger and relatively unproven players...

-9 works for the likes of Lukaku & co, who have indeed hinted to possess potential to turn out great, but it's still unclear how great. So in that case "flexible" PA from save to save is fine.

But the problem with people buying the same established players save after save wouldn't be solved... Unless you're willing to have, say, Bale or Pastore going from "Top Club Material" to "enjoy your newfound mediocrity in Blackburn and Newcastle" level depending on the luck of the draw upon starting a new game...

I see I'm going for an extreme situation, but nonetheless a drop of 5-10 points in PA can make a huge difference, as we're talking about a relatively narrow range, where 10 points can make or break a career, and even above the 150 mark they still mean a lot.

Yes the negative range works well for the younger players and I would be quite happy for it to be expanded to cover every player. The other question is how big that range should be.

I think the "soft PA recalculated on performances season after season" is a more viable idea...

It really isn't, its been discussed so many times in the past.

In the real world people have fixed potential, everything you hint at is about CA development and maximum CA which I would agree could be improved.

Personally, I think the CA/PA system is fine as it is and that people get far too hung up over what figures they're seeing, in the editor or the third-party utilities. The distribution of attributes for me, is the most important thing.

I also think having any additional variable or dynamic system for CA or PA will infuriate more people than it'll please.

Personally, I think the CA/PA system is fine as it is and that people get far too hung up over what figures they're seeing, in the editor or the third-party utilities.

I also think having any additional variable or dynamic system for CA or PA will infuriate more people than it'll please.

I agree.

I just wish that players progressed more naturally when playing U18 and Reserve team football.

Recently I took over as Derby manager at the start of a new game (Random). And I scoured the Prem for players on loan and signed 5 players.

For example, if I'm playing at a top club I very rarely get requests to loan my youth players unless I offer them out on loan. And even at that I want the option to say they will be valuable members of the first team (or else there's no point they may as well stay on the bench/reserves for me with better coaches and training facilities)

I also think having any additional variable or dynamic system for CA or PA will infuriate more people than it'll please.

Why ?

Why ?

Because a large group of users like to use the same/favourite team all/most of the time and sign most/all the same/best players all the time.

If you vary the PA it means they would have to put more effort into the scouting as their "star" players might have 180PA in one save but only 160PA in the next save (for example).

Because a large group of users like to use the same/favourite team all/most of the time and sign most/all the same/best players all the time.

If you vary the PA it means they would have to put more effort into the scouting as their "star" players might have 180PA in one save but only 160PA in the next save (for example).

That's little different to what happens right now. Get a player who is known to be talented (i.e. Pato/Wilshere) in many saves, and in some saves they end up better than others.

With variable PA, the best players may be different ones - even unexpected ones. Why? Because part of a player's development involves, well, developing. In other words, you can scout less but focus more on development to get similar results but with different players.

- Right now, if a user doesn't develop a youngster properly, he won't reach his PA and he will turn out disappointing.

- With variable PA, if a user doesn't develop a youngster properly, he won't reach his PA and he will turn out disappointing.

- Right now, if a user develops a promising youngster properly, he will reach his PA and be awesome.

- With variable PA, if a user develops a promising youngster properly, he will reach his PA and be awesome - and possibly even better than expected.

- Right now, if a user develops a rubbish youngster properly, he will reach his PA and be rubbish.

- With variable PA, if a user develops a rubbish youngster properly, he will reach his PA and be rubbish - but perhaps still better than what his PA was set to begin with.

To me, I don't really see how this can be more disappointing to users who like to overload their squads with wonderkids.

Yes the negative range works well for the younger players and I would be quite happy for it to be expanded to cover every player.

I disagree...

Younger players can have variable potential because researchers can't be 100% positive Johnny Doe will become a new Messi or a new D'Alessandro, so the negative value is there for a reason: to give the game variety BUT first and foremost to avoid having dozens of (over)hyper and overrated youngsters turning into World Class players in every single savegame.

However why should established stars need a +/- N just for the sake of mixing it up?!

The other question is how big that range should be.

Let's be honest here...

If it's minimal, like 1 to 5, the impact would be close to none, thus rendering the change moot.

If it's noticeable, 5 to 10 or more, the impact would be too big, thus turning the FM201x database into some sort of "alternative reality".

So what's the point anyway?

It really isn't, its been discussed so many times in the past.

In the real world people have fixed potential, everything you hint at is about CA development and maximum CA which I would agree could be improved.

That's very debatable... It depends on how you define potential...

Some players peak at a very early age and never get better. Other players are late bloomers and NOBODY would have ever hinted them to have what it takes to make it at the highest level. Etc...

I don't think you can say a former "average Joe" who suddenly has an impressive breakthrough at a relatively late stage of his career can be considered as always having been that talented...

To simplify it: if John Doe has 120CA at age 24 and he's average for mid-table clubs at best, I don't believe he can become 170PA as soon as he changes club or something...

Say, when Evra was just a random dude playing in Italian Tier 3, was he already Man Utd material, just nobody had noticed it?

Either way, FM doesn't handle that situation...

Even if a player has PA 200 but he's stuck at a mediocre club, or has a poor season, his original PA will be out of reach no matter what... So before talking about variable PA and similar things, we should take care of CA and PA being able to go both up and down according to performances, environmental variables etc.

If it's noticeable, 5 to 10 or more, the impact would be too big, thus turning the FM201x database into some sort of "alternative reality".

I personally don't think it's a problem. I personally think the (reasonably-) unexpected should be more fun. While Paul McShane turning into the next Messi is probably too unrealistic, you never know where the next Messi will come from - after all, look at the first clubs of Messi, Ronaldo, the Portuguese Ronaldo and Zidane. Maybe in some game, Kaká hits peak form again and wipes the floor with Messi's face - becoming better than Messi in terms of PA (i.e. he becomes a "late-bloomer" except he was really good to begin with). Maybe in some game, Javier Hernández can't stop scoring even if he tried his best not to, and suddenly after bagging 30 league goals (plus lots more in cups) in 2 consecutive seasons, there's serious whispers about him winning the Balon d'Or and surpassing Messi.

All legitimate alternative realities - if possibly fairly unlikely to happen. But it's still reasonably possible. Alternative realities could be more fun.

You have a CA and PA

A young player has a low CA and set PA

Depending on chances and training and clubs, injuries etc. they can either reach their Potential!!!

If not they only climb to the current PA.

Like Ronaldinho has a very high PA because he was one of the best players in the world. But now his CA has dropped rapidly and won't go back up. But it doesn't mean his PA should be a variable.

What we need is players with high PAs actually have their CA increase naturaly playing in reserves and also to request to be loaned out and/or sold before it's too late.

Like a 24 year old player with a high PA and low CA is useless to send out on loan because they won't get any better. They should be looking for transfers at the age of 20.

Agree totally with what you're saying there, the game should bes less predictable in terms of the way players turn out. A big tumbs up from me

All of this still would be resolved with tweaking how players develop, not by changing PA around. A fixed definite number exists, if/how a player reaches that number is what should be refined. People get too hung up/disappointed about someone being unable to "fulfill" their magic number.

Perfectly fine as it is in my opinion.

Players with a massive PA do not always get there, as they don't in real life (anyone remember Adu?).

Also, the problem with what the op suggests is, and as others have commented, such a small variation will make zero difference. As for hiom not wanting to always pick the same players, well sorry mate, but if you have no willpower, how and why does the game need changing?

The issue with some players having very similar ca/pa or being fixed is because, in real life, they are that effing good, so get over it. Don't want to pick those players, don't pick them, exactly what is your problem?

You have a CA and PA

A young player has a low CA and set PA

Depending on chances and training and clubs, injuries etc. they can either reach their Potential!!!

If not they only climb to the current PA.

Like Ronaldinho has a very high PA because he was one of the best players in the world. But now his CA has dropped rapidly and won't go back up. But it doesn't mean his PA should be a variable.

What we need is players with high PAs actually have their CA increase naturaly playing in reserves and also to request to be loaned out and/or sold before it's too late.

Like a 24 year old player with a high PA and low CA is useless to send out on loan because they won't get any better. They should be looking for transfers at the age of 20.

You're missing the point. The point is that the PA is static so it never changes. If a player has PA 150 and another PA 155, then the average-case scenario if both players have reasonable personalities and a reasonable CA-PA difference is that in every save, the latter is superior to the former.

For young players, it imposes a definite ordering on how they will turn out at best, when in reality nobody can predict the future.

Therefore the OP suggests making it more realistic by putting an uncertainty factor - so it could allow the former to surpass the latter via a higher PA.

RBKalle goes one further and suggests that PA should be "reviewed" after every year, so the PA uncertainty varies with reason - do well and the PA increases, do badly and the PA decreases.

I go even further and suggest that PA is only a safety-net and one day can be removed. Do well and you develop faster - do badly and you develop slower. The PA or peak is immaterial.

All of this still would be resolved with tweaking how players develop, not by changing PA around. A fixed definite number exists, if/how a player reaches that number is what should be refined. People get too hung up/disappointed about someone being unable to "fulfill" their magic number.

With a variable PA, there will still be a peak. It just so happens that it is unknown.

With the OP's idea, the peak is only known when the player peaks. A bit like your life - once you are at your prime, that is where you are "at your best". You don't know where that will be when you are a teenager, but you will know "when you get there".

With RBKalle's idea, you will know when the player peaks, but can estimate it by the moving PA. So a 24-year-old who has a rubbish attitude will know his future isn't great based on his attitude and ability. He will only know for sure when he peaks, i.e. 27/28 for an outfield player, and 30/31 for a goalkeeper, for example.

With my idea, you only know when a player peaks - but where he peaks at is an uninteresting statistic. Does it matter that his peak CA turned out to be, say, 155? How is knowing that the PA that should have been assigned as 155 12 years ago helping the model? To me, if a player turns out better than another, then that's all that matters - the player turned out better. The aimed peak is an attempt to predict the future based on initial circumstances, failing to take into account circumstances that happen in a player's lifetime.

I hate to say it x42 but you are turning this thread into another about dynamic "in save" variable PA.

That is not what the OP suggestion was and the thread is moving away from the OP's idea rather than discussing it.

The fact is that in RL PA is fixed at birth and that most of us never reach our PA in any field.

Every discussion on the subject boils down to your ideas are always related to CA development and a maximum achievable CA, not PA.

Don't think I'm missing the point at all?

How can Picasso sort of have a PA of 190 for painting? He's either got the potential talent or not.

it's the CA that goes up and down. There are some people that just better than others, that's why not every player in the World is Ronaldo.

Would you suggest that in circa 2000 that Ronaldo be givena PA of 170 (-/+ 20) he can either be as good as Zinizdine Kilbane or Zinizdine Zidane?

More realsitic is that Ronaldo for his whole footballing career always had a PA of +190 - it's his Current Ability that shaped his future.

Had he stayed at Porto perhaps he would have only reached CA of 160 or 170 - but his Potential would still be very high.

You're missing the point. The point is that the PA is static so it never changes. If a player has PA 150 and another PA 155, then the average-case scenario if both players have reasonable personalities and a reasonable CA-PA difference is that in every save, the latter is superior to the former.

Which is pretty much realistic...

In ideal and perfectly equal conditions, Rooney is better than Agbonlahor, end of story.

Then again, under different circumstances Agbonlahor might be more effective/useful than Rooney, but that's a totally different topic.

For young players, it imposes a definite ordering on how they will turn out at best, when in reality nobody can predict the future.

Therefore the OP suggests making it more realistic by putting an uncertainty factor - so it could allow the former to surpass the latter via a higher PA.

We already have that for younger players! it's Negative PA

But if the OP is suggesting, in some savegame Agbonlahor could end up having a PA higher than Rooney (or closer to his), just for the sake of variety, then it's a preposterous idea.

RBKalle goes one further and suggests that PA should be "reviewed" after every year, so the PA uncertainty varies with reason - do well and the PA increases, do badly and the PA decreases.

I'm still for a "soft end PA", renegotiated according to performances, but still within the boundaries of the original PA (be it fixed or negative)

Late bloomers and One Year Wonders can exceed the expectations but that should not mean every single player in the db can go from Championship to Champions League...

I go even further and suggest that PA is only a safety-net and one day can be removed. Do well and you develop faster - do badly and you develop slower. The PA or peak is immaterial.

I disagree... We still need a peak, otherwise you could just buy plenty of average guys for peanuts and turning them into world class players, "exploiting" the fact they have no limits.

I can go train and play with Barçelona for 2 years, but I would never be able to exceed my level of "natural talent"

With a variable PA, there will still be a peak. It just so happens that it is unknown.

With the OP's idea, the peak is only known when the player peaks. A bit like your life - once you are at your prime, that is where you are "at your best". You don't know where that will be when you are a teenager, but you will know "when you get there".

With RBKalle's idea, you will know when the player peaks, but can estimate it by the moving PA. So a 24-year-old who has a rubbish attitude will know his future isn't great based on his attitude and ability. He will only know for sure when he peaks, i.e. 27/28 for an outfield player, and 30/31 for a goalkeeper, for example.

With my idea, you only know when a player peaks - but where he peaks at is an uninteresting statistic. Does it matter that his peak CA turned out to be, say, 155? How is knowing that the PA that should have been assigned as 155 12 years ago helping the model? To me, if a player turns out better than another, then that's all that matters - the player turned out better. The aimed peak is an attempt to predict the future based on initial circumstances, failing to take into account circumstances that happen in a player's lifetime.

You're forgetting the "peak" moving higher in the 1-200 scale also means the player will have his attributes increased...

A player with peak set at 155 [be it set in stone from the first day he is in the FM universe, be it a soft peak renegotiated every now and then according to his performances] will have inherent limitations when it comes to his attributes.

Basically when he peaks it means he won't ever become better at any "CA consuming" attributes.

Suggesting to have UNRESTRICTED peak value, you imply ANY player can become "indefinitely" better, just playing game after game... I don't think it's realstic at all.

There must still be a "ceiling" every player will hit, sooner or later...

There's more to how well a player plays other than the CA and the PA

There's the Current Rating % and Potential Rating %

Someone with a PA of 185 might only have a Potential Rating 70%

Whereas someone with a PA of 165 might have a Potential Rating 90%

The player with the 90% would be better to have in your ream

So it does kinda vary anyway.

There must still be a "ceiling" every player will hit, sooner or later...

As I said earlier. Not every player in the world has the potential to be as good as Ronaldo.

Some players are just better than others, and others potentially better than others.

To suggest that Rafael of Man Utd have a PA of -/+ 20 and then start with a PA of 175 then eventually surpass Ronaldo in PA is completely unrealistic in the realm of the game (fictional and reality)

Anyone looking at Rafael will tell you he's going to be a decent right back, but he'll never be sold for 80m. But when you saw Ronaldo play at Rafaels age you knew Ronaldo was going to go on to be a world beater!

As I said earlier. Not every player in the world has the potential to be as good as Ronaldo.

Some players are just better than others, and others potentially better than others.

To suggest that Rafael of Man Utd have a PA of -/+ 20 and then start with a PA of 175 then eventually surpass Ronaldo in PA is completely unrealistic in the realm of the game (fictional and reality)

Anyone looking at Rafael will tell you he's going to be a decent right back, but he'll never be sold for 80m. But when you saw Ronaldo play at Rafaels age you knew Ronaldo was going to go on to be a world beater!

Thus proving that the current model works perfectly well. Your counter arguing your own argument there. As has been said, in real life, every player has an ability they can achieve/natural talent. What the OP wants is a ridiculous idea, as every save will be different (and again as has been said, Jake Roberts from FC Wherever might be better than say Rooney).....its just plain dumb. In the real world, never in 64 million years will that player ever be anywhere near Rooneys level.

So why should the game model this? Again, the OP's PRIMARY problem, is he has no willpower to stop himself from continously buying the same players, the very same players who in real life are the best.

That's his issue, it is not the games fault, nor SI's fault that Dzeko is as good as he is, nor is it their fault that the OP cannot stop himself from buying the best in the game.

Exactly, where is the problem? What the OP wants is already implemented into the game (at some level), the OP just wants every game/every player/every save to be completely random. Well I am very sorry to break it to everyone, but tomorrow morning Grant Holt of Norwich will not suddenly be better than Torres because its what 'I' want....

Edit: And because this is now annoying me, that people can't get it into their heads what the OP's exact issue is, he has 3 ways of solving the problem. Start with no real life players (then he doesnt know who the best is), play such a team that by the time he gets to the very top, all the 'players he referrs to' have retired, or as I said in my first post which everyone conveniently ignored, just don't flaming well pick them same players save after save after save. He is his own worse enemy on the issue thats annoying him.

The fact is that in RL PA is fixed at birth and that most of us never reach our PA in any field.

Every discussion on the subject boils down to your ideas are always related to CA development and a maximum achievable CA, not PA.

I'm not denying that we have a limit from birth. What I do deny is that that limit needs to be picked at birth.

I see it simply that we have a limit. When that limit is chosen - does it really matter?

Take a theoretical example, away from FM. Assign numbers to a certain attribute of a person (be it height, football ability, head size, IQ, spitting distance, etc.), and track this number throughout this person's lifetime. It will go up and down - sometimes it may even stay constant. But as long as this attribute is finite, there will be a maximum somewhere along this person's lifetime. Prove this by contradiction. Assume there is no maximum. Say the initial number is x - by the assumption, x cannot be the maximum. Therefore let x+a be the next value along the timeline, where a>0. But then this can't be the maximum either, by the assumption. Therefore for all possible numbers greater or equal to x, there is no maximum. x can be made arbitrarily small. Therefore the initial number cannot possibly exist - contradiction.

What this means is simple. Look at something that goes up and down - say, a stock market graph. Over a finite period of time, there will be a maximum stock market price (***). Despite the fact that the stock market can theoretically go up to infinity. There is a limit. Despite the fact stock markets don't have hard-coded limits (although there are certainly computational limits in the sense that we cannot have infinite RAM).

Look back at (***). There is a maximum stock market price. According to the Football Manager model, we would predict this maximum stock price at the very start of the stock market's creation. So in a game modelling the economy, someone designs the stock market such that it has a limit. This is rubbish! What about if the economy is able to be designed such that it can one day perhaps become a superpower? The limit becomes a hinderance!

So why does this not work? The limit has failed to take into account the current set of circumstances where the economy becomes that of a powerful nation. The game has used the initial set of circumstances - poor country, rubbish infrastructure, corruption abound - to generate a limit. But the moment these circumstances change, the limit's usefulness becomes dubious.

So how do the various suggestions help this? The OP models the uncertainty of the future (i.e. you cannot know the future, just hazard a guess) by making the PA "soft". RBKalle's idea changes PA based on newer circumstances - the PA goes up and down with newer data. My suggestion throws PA away because if a player is developing, do we really care what the limit is?

I agree that players can develop in unusual ways, but a model that has no limit can also implement variable development rates. In fact, the three suggestions in this thread will allow this. So I believe variable development rates are a red herring.

But all three suggestions boil down to a somewhat softening of PA.

Don't think I'm missing the point at all?

How can Picasso sort of have a PA of 190 for painting? He's either got the potential talent or not.

it's the CA that goes up and down. There are some people that just better than others, that's why not every player in the World is Ronaldo.

Would you suggest that in circa 2000 that Ronaldo be givena PA of 170 (-/+ 20) he can either be as good as Zinizdine Kilbane or Zinizdine Zidane?

More realsitic is that Ronaldo for his whole footballing career always had a PA of +190 - it's his Current Ability that shaped his future.

Had he stayed at Porto perhaps he would have only reached CA of 160 or 170 - but his Potential would still be very high.

You are discussing why a player may not reach his PA. I'm talking about the actual PA concept.

You see, Ronaldo is an interesting one (and it's Sporting, not Porto). If he had joined as a Sporting youngster, it would have been difficult to justify giving him a PA of 190+ at the time. In fact, I bet half the people on these forums would be furious that someone so young was given a high, definite PA. Ronaldo would become the next Lukaku - everyone would sign him. In fact, I would be interested to see what his PA is in FM05/FM06 (or whenever he became first available).

What's gone wrong here? Why couldn't his PA be 190+? Because initial circumstances didn't permit it. Go one further. When Ronaldo first entered the footballing world, his first team was an amateur side. Can you imagine one of the Portuguese researchers smacking a PA of 190+ on a youngster at an amateur side? No! It just doesn't happen! Initial circumstances are useful, but newer circumstances even more useful! Hence RBKalle's argument about renewing PA every season. And the OP's idea of an uncertainty about PA.

We cannot predict the future. The predicted future right now is uncertain, therefore any limit we assign today must also be uncertain. Like it or not, assigning an initial limit will always affect our development because our ability cannot exceed the limit. Yet that flies in the face of uncertainty - because I can at least show a maximum - which was supposed to be uncertain.

I have not mentioned development here. Development is immaterial. Development can vary with a variable PA, and development can vary with a fixed PA. Development can vary with no PA. Development, quite frankly, is a red herring. Which is why I said you have missed the point. Proved by the fact that I agree with the gist of your post being that some youngsters may never go far despite having high PA - but that's not what I'm talking about.

Which is pretty much realistic...

In ideal and perfectly equal conditions, Rooney is better than Agbonlahor, end of story.

Then again, under different circumstances Agbonlahor might be more effective/useful than Rooney, but that's a totally different topic.

A little difficult to compare because Rooney and Agbonlahor aren't really youngsters any more and neither has a great deal to move in terms of development. I think a more apt comparison would be, say, Szczesny vs. Fiorillo - nobody knows who will be better. I can think of some circumstances where Szczesny will be better - and circumstances where Fiorillo will be better.

But I don't think we're talking about general cases here - extreme corner cases maybe. Cases where Rooney suffers cruciate injury after cruciate injury, to the extent that at his peak Rooney is forced to ply his trade in the Championship or lower, while Agbonlahor stays in the Premier League. Possible, but improbable.

(Hence why I picked a slightly more variable example.)

We already have that for younger players! it's Negative PA

But if the OP is suggesting, in some savegame Agbonlahor could end up having a PA higher than Rooney (or closer to his), just for the sake of variety, then it's a preposterous idea.

It's obvious that neither Nick nor Andy (the researchers) will give such silly bounds for players who are closer to their peaks than spring chickens. But at, say, 15, you wouldn't have ruled out Agbonlahor becoming better than Rooney. There was too much uncertainty at the time. You might have ended up with egg on your face seeing Rooney turn out thus, but there's the problem with predicting the future - you don't know.

I disagree... We still need a peak, otherwise you could just buy plenty of average guys for peanuts and turning them into world class players, "exploiting" the fact they have no limits.

I can go train and play with Barçelona for 2 years, but I would never be able to exceed my level of "natural talent"

Or you could become a Darren Fletcher or Roy Keane (not the most talented of players, but make up for it with other attributes)...

As I argued above, we do have a peak anyway, even without PA.

And as for the "develop anyone" argument, would you prefer a blunt knife to cut food, or a sharp one? It will always be easier to work with better tools. It will always be better to work with talented players. You will need to work extra-hard to the extent that the situation becomes ridiculous for Joe Average to become Lionel Messi (i.e. first-team football for all seasons from 16 onwards, average rating 10.00 in all matches, no injuries, perfect personality, top training facilities, etc. etc. etc.). I would argue that at that point, if you can get Joe Average to become the next Lionel Messi, congratulations - a model professional who gets an average rating of 10.00 is the next Lionel Messi, even if his talent is pathetic.

This is because talent is only one part of determining how good a player becomes. Hatem Ben Arfa - talented but his career looks like it's heading for a car crash. Darren Fletcher - perhaps not the most talented, but a good player nevertheless. Talent is only part of the story.

You're forgetting the "peak" moving higher in the 1-200 scale also means the player will have his attributes increased...

A player with peak set at 155 [be it set in stone from the first day he is in the FM universe, be it a soft peak renegotiated every now and then according to his performances] will have inherent limitations when it comes to his attributes.

Basically when he peaks it means he won't ever become better at any "CA consuming" attributes.

Suggesting to have UNRESTRICTED peak value, you imply ANY player can become "indefinitely" better, just playing game after game... I don't think it's realstic at all.

There must still be a "ceiling" every player will hit, sooner or later...

I'm not implying any player can become indefinitely better. Look at my stock market example above - why don't we see stock markets at infinity?

Any model, whether it be the OP's uncertainty, your model of renewed PA or my model of no PA will need to be balanced. The OP is not implying everyone needs +/- 100 as a youngster; you are not implying one good season can give you a PA of 200; and I'm not implying Joe Average will become Lionel Messi all the time.

great points here, ive enjoyed reading all of them. Although my original intention was to suggest a way of varying CA/PA on each new save game for all players, I feel this discussion has gone onto RL potential of players, I agree the potential system works fine as is, every player has a set potential, But what im trying to say is how the hell can we be sure of anyones potentials, let alone stick a number on it, how on earth can SI quantitize a human beings potential to play football, lets atleast say its impossible to judge potential accurately and introduce an essence of randomness in each game as to potentials, with varying degrees of uncertainty for each player, for example if you never got to scout or watch any games of a player his uncertainty is going to be pretty damn high, whereas someone playing for Tottenham week in week out is going to have a low degree of uncertainty, but still uncertainty nonetheless. this is nothing to do with -9,-10 system, it is for players with fixed pa's but could eventually replace the -9 -10 etc system.

this diagram might explain the mathematics of the system

Player x has PA of 160 with -10 uncertainty

When the game starts new PA is generated

160 - high chance

159- Lower chance

158 - even lower chance

...

You get the idea, it will hopefully stop the good players lists and "you must sign these players lists" because on every game it will be different, people will say "Hamsik doesn't improve much on my game" and "sakho actually isn't great on my game", it will make scouting more important and IMO thats realistic because Alex Ferguson doesn't look on the internet for the best players, he scouts them because there is uncertainty. Just because the Napoli scout thinks Hamsik has great potential it DOES NOT mean he actually has great potential, he could have already hit his potential, id love to see the superstars like Hamsik with -10 PA uncertainty because lets be honest if you were a real football manager you WOULD NOT gamble 16million on hamsik IRL just because hes decent in seria a and apparently has potential.

This system takes into account the uncertainty of the scouts who create the players on the game, just like the uncertainty of the AI scouts inside the game.

great points here, ive enjoyed reading all of them. Although my original intention was to suggest a way of varying CA/PA on each new save game for all players, I feel this discussion has gone onto RL potential of players, I agree the potential system works fine as is, every player has a set potential, But what im trying to say is how the hell can we be sure of anyones potentials, let alone stick a number on it, how on earth can SI quantitize a human beings potential to play football, lets atleast say its impossible to judge potential accurately and introduce an essence of randomness in each game as to potentials, with varying degrees of uncertainty for each player, for example if you never got to scout or watch any games of a player his uncertainty is going to be pretty damn high, whereas someone playing for Tottenham week in week out is going to have a low degree of uncertainty, but still uncertainty nonetheless. this is nothing to do with -9,-10 system, it is for players with fixed pa's but could eventually replace the -9 -10 etc system

In all honesty even for players at around 23-24, how good they will become is still uncertain. What we can do is be more certain. To the point where at 29, you can probably put your finger on a player's peak, plus or minus 1. So it works for players with fixed PAs too - just that the uncertainty becomes less.

I agree x42bn6 but the fact is, if I buy Hamsik when hes young and play him almost every game for 2/3 seasons, I am 100% sure he will hit his PA, which is the same for every game, every player, every single time, do you not think there is something totally unrealistic with that?

I agree x42bn6 but the fact is, if I buy Hamsik when hes young and play him almost every game for 2/3 seasons, I am 100% sure he will hit his PA, which is the same for every game, every player, every single time, do you not think there is something totally unrealistic with that?

It depends. He has a decent personality and I wouldn't doubt him becoming a very good player. On the other hand, if he suffers some serious injuries...

Your idea lets him have some variation, RBKalle's idea may punish him if he doesn't play well (or reward him otherwise), and my idea just takes into account the fact he's talented while he develops. All are superior to the fixed system, in my opinion.

I completely agree, I hate the fixed PA system.

a lot of good ideas in this thread. I just wonder how easy it is to program this into any future FM release

Im not blowing my own horn, but Im an intermediate programmer, know about 6 languages, and seeing as the -9 -10 etc system is already built into FM it would be a simple tweaking here and there, literally take a couple of hours, the hard part would not be programming it in but getting the balance right I guess.

people will say "Hamsik doesn't improve much on my game" and "sakho actually isn't great on my game",

This does happen in the game already to a large extent....

because lets be honest if you were a real football manager you WOULD NOT gamble 16million on hamsik IRL just because hes decent in seria a and apparently has potential.

And this happens all the time in real life....

So again....what exactly is the problem?

This does happen in the game already to a large extent....

And this happens all the time in real life....

So again....what exactly is the problem?

READ THIS:

Ok lets say I start a new game, I take over Man City, first season I buy Neymar and play him every game possible for 4 seasons, HE WILL HIT HIS PA STAT WITH 100% CERTAINTY BY THE 4th SEASON. So lets anaylse this:

In this situation can Neymar be a flop? NO BECAUSE IF YOU PLAY HIM EVERY GAME FOR 4 SEASONS HE WILL HIT HIS PA 100% OF THE TIME WHICH WILL MAKE HIM A WORLD CLASS STRIKER

Do you see the problem here? it is because Neymar has a fixed PA of 180+

Im not blowing my own horn, but Im an intermediate programmer, know about 6 languages, and seeing as the -9 -10 etc system is already built into FM it would be a simple tweaking here and there, literally take a couple of hours, the hard part would not be programming it in but getting the balance right I guess.

It would take a couple of hours implementation, but weeks of balancing and research.

READ THIS:

Ok lets say I start a new game, I take over Man City, first season I buy Neymar and play him every game possible for 4 seasons, HE WILL HIT HIS PA STAT WITH 100% CERTAINTY BY THE 4th SEASON. So lets anaylse this:

In this situation can Neymar be a flop? NO BECAUSE IF YOU PLAY HIM EVERY GAME FOR 4 SEASONS HE WILL HIT HIS PA 100% OF THE TIME WHICH WILL MAKE HIM A WORLD CLASS STRIKER

Do you see the problem here? it is because Neymar has a fixed PA of 180+

The problem is we need a guideline FORBIDDING researchers to give insanely high (and fixed) CA/PA to youngsters who have yet to prove they're worth half the hype they're getting

Neymar has been good in Brazil, like dozens of young players before him... But that doesn't even remotely grants him the insane CA/PA he's assigned in FM2011. He can be the new Pato, but also the new Denilson [the Betis one...]

And don't get me started on the likes of Babacar and the other Fiorentina kid...

Negative PA, as far as I'm concerned, should become the rule for all the players who haven't peaked in real life...

Don't blame the PA system, blame the biased researchers who buy into the media hype

P.S. There's still room for Neymar to "disappoint" you, despite him reaching his PA... After all aren't there many "how can I get the best out of ____?" threads...? So it means CA and PA aren't the end of it all...

I completely agree, I hate the fixed PA system.

I won't say that I hate the current system, I would say that I somewhat dislike that fact that you are able to determine a player's future without much uncertainty even without using outside programs.

I'm sure that many people have come across a lot of players who were said to have huge potential, newgens that is, but did not reach it due to poor facilities, poor or lack of tutoring, lack of playing time etc.

But the opposite, players who are immediately written off but later become successful, rarely seems to happen. And that probably comes down to the fact that no one really knows what makes a late bloomer.

Right now in FM, its so easy to just release 2/3's of your youth team because they have 1/2 a star or 1 star potential, according to your coaches, because there is no level of uncertainty when looking at these reports.

I mean I doubt anyone has ever released a youngster, thinking he would amount to nothing, who ended up being a successful player somewhere else in the same league or even in a higher league.

Currently there's generally no fear on our part when we release all these kids every year and I think that needs to change.

One coaching report/scouting report should not be enough to know everything about a player even if you are biggest team on the planet.

Ok to sum it all up, there are plenty highly touted newgens who never reach their peak (probably due to the AI's lack of ability to develop youngsters) but I don't think there are enough late bloomers and it is simply due to the fact that they are just too difficult to code for.

Here is what should happen to make the game more realistic.

1) Scale up everyone's PA a bit.

2) Make it harder/more random to reach said PA.

That way, people like Lukaku still have the best PA, but he could flop it like Adu. Or he could be great. At the moment, ANYONE under 18 with a high PA will be world class if you want them to. It's not hard at all to have a player reach their PA. Which is unrealistic because IRL it can be hard to have a player reach his PA, and you dont know which players are that good IRL. So that's why you scale up everyones PA. Because it could be some guy who looked a bit crap that turns out to be world class because he is the lucky one that develops his potential.

Another big Problem...

No one EVER starts out young and already at their PA. You never get a 17 year old with great stats, who doesn't improve. If they have good stats as a kid, they can always get a fair bit better. You never see a talented young kid who has already peaked, whereas IRL it happens all the time, and not just because he is lazy.