Why don’t SI show the CA and PA in the game?

Why don’t SI show the CA and PA in the game?

FM is a game, and as a result, numerical values are given to players attributes and performances (amongst other things) so that the people playing the game can judge how good a player is and how that player is playing.

What I mean is, if it’s deemed acceptable to assign a value of 1-20 to a players ability to dribble, or his agility, then why not just let us also see values from 1-200 indicating the players Current and Potential Ability. And even a % rating for the players ability to play in certain positions.

It could be an option in the start up of the game, like attributes masking, so you could choose for yourself if you see the information regardless, or if the player requires scouting before his stats are revealed.

It has obviously been a conscious decision by SI not to show this information in the game, and I wondered what the justification / decision process was not to show this information, and of course what other peoples opinion of it was.

you could use a third party tool?

http://www.fmscout.com/c-editors09.html

Because they are hidden values showing how goodthey are/will be. The others are just thier specific skills.

The game would be far too easy.

Eh? Does a real life manager "know" how a young player "is going" to turn out?

NO!

So hence why you cannot see these "hidden" attributes in the game.

It would essentially make the game too easy and make scouts redundant. There would be no fun in buying players, because you'd simply sort them by highest PA or CA and buy them, leaving 99% of the database untouched. It would be horrible, I don't know how anyone can look at PA/CA and enjoy FM

Can you judge exactly how good a player will be in real life by looking at them

Eh? Does a real life manager "know" how a young player "is going" to turn out?

NO!

So hence why you cannot see these "hidden" attributes in the game.

I disagree to an extent, young players talents and potential are generally spotted very early, and these players are then nurtured and brought up through the ranks.

It happens in all sports, look at Lewis Hamilton for example.

Not only that, but you can scout young players in the game and get a star rating of their potential ability, so why not just give us a numerical value.

I supose that's my point. They give us such a specific numerical vaule of their attributes and of how they played that match etc, and only a star rating of their overall ability.

Nothing in life is guaranteed though - Lewis Hamilton may have had the potential to become world champion, but that didn't mean he was guaranteed it. Life events, bad luck, bad training or whatever may have prevented him getting there - FM represents that now as it is.

I agree Super Bladesman.

I've just signed a young player with a PA of 190. It doesn't mean he's going to be any good though. I'm going to have to work hard to try and make him reach that potential.

I used a 3rd party tool to find him.

If I'd have scouted him using my in game scouts, he'd have probably got a 7 star rating for potential, and I would have signed him anyway.

My point being though, wouldn't it be better, that if we're assigning an exact number to something as arbitrary as balance, why don't we just bite the bullet and assign an exact number to current and potential ability, instead of a star rating.

The star rating is a judgement. Which is what the game should always come down to. If you remove the skill in spotting a good player then what is the point in playing at all?

The more I see people talk about CA and PA the more I wish SI never included editors with the game.

The game would be far too easy then. Should I sign Player X or Player Y? Hmmm, Player X has a PA of 165, Player Y as a PA of 195. No brainer.

It would make the game even less realistic and would spoil all the fun of signing a player with minimal expectations only to see him turn into a world beater.

The hidden CA and PA values make the game more interesting, and their is more emphasis on scouts with those stats hidden. If you sign a useless scout with a poor reputation, he may recommend signing a player and that player turns out to be less of a gem when signed...that is what makes FM great. The ability to make mistakes, based on player recommendation, just like real managers is fantastic for me.

I want a button that makes me win each game too.

I want a button that makes me win each game too.

We've got quite an interesting and constructive post going on here, whatever people's opinion on the matter is, why do you feel the need to make smart alec comments.

It wasn't intended to be a smart alec comment, if you want a completely unrealistic feature in the game, then so do I.

It wasn't intended to be a smart alec comment, if you want a completely unrealistic feature in the game, then so do I.

Why is it anymore unrealistic than knowing a players jumping is 12 out of 20?

Why is it anymore unrealistic than knowing a players jumping is 12 out of 20?

Because in real life you can look at a player and make a judgement on how good his jumping is. What you can't do is look into the future and see exactly how good he could become.

That's why you can see his jumping attribute, but not his potential ability.

Attributes are more than just an opinion, they are statistically provable.

You can tell explicitly from watching a player whether he is good at heading the ball or not, you can't tell from watching a player if he's definitely going to be the next Maradona.

Potential ability can't be proven in real life, it's only somebodys opinion - the in-game hidden PA is SI's way of giving the illusion of reality.

'That's why you can see his jumping attribute, but not his potential ability.'

Yet scouts will give you a star rating out of 7 for potential. So you can glean a fair bit of info from that (ignoring the fact that the scouts can get it wrong). And how long is it until SI change the 7 stars to 10 or 20, or like the attributes, a number up to 20, making the scouts judgement more detailed, as they have done with the match rating (now to a decimal point).

And it’s not a question of ‘proving’ potential ability, a scouts ‘opinion’ would be fine, but why not, when a player is scouted, don’t you just get told the players potential ability is 170 instead of 6 stars...

Don’t get me wrong, I know why you don’t get the info - to make it a bit more uncertain, like you said, real life isn’t exact etc etc etc. But then why not then give you the players attributes as a star rating, why be so exact about a players composure...

And why go to a decimal point match rating...

Do you know what I mean.

I'm in the camp that says hidden stats should remain hidden.

Would make it boring and easy

Sure managers can spot talent and have an idea of players potentials, but surely you can by looking at the players given stats without having the PA.

From here you can try and nurture the young player and see him grow, watch how he plays in 3D mode and so on. He could become the next best thing or fade away, just like real life.

Also as mentioned above thats what scouts, if you really want to see how they play then why not go 'Attend' a match they are in?

It would essentially make the game too easy and make scouts redundant. There would be no fun in buying players, because you'd simply sort them by highest PA or CA and buy them, leaving 99% of the database untouched. It would be horrible, I don't know how anyone can look at PA/CA and enjoy FM

Agreed, would take all fun out of the game.

Don't want to retread old ground about the PA hidden debate but this:

And why go to a decimal point match rating...

Because in the old integer display, a rating of 6 could mean a player had an in-game rating of within the range 5.5 to 6.5 - but all you'd see was that he was mediocre (the rating 6 was considered only just above average). If the player then did something that crept him to a 6.6 from 6.5, then his rating would leap to 7 (a 'good' performance).

So during the course of a game a player's rating would flip between 6 and 7, even though their had actually only dropped a fraction of a point. Personally I'd rather see a player's rating drop from 6.4 to 5.5 than see it stay at 6.

The decimalised ratings system is far more user friendly.

When you're scout rates a player with seven stars, that rating is based on his PA, weighted by other factors (definitely the scouts judgement and your team's squad strength, possibly your team's reputation). It's an elegent solution that doesn't reveal too much. You don't need to see the PA - certainly since not too long ago where all you got was "This player should be a definite purchase" as feedback.

I like the decimal point match rating, but then again, I want an exact current and potential ability

But it's hardly realistic is it!...

If we're talking about realism though, why not make the players attributes a star rating that is based upon your coaches opinion, or your own. Like in real life.

One coach might give a player 7 stars for his passing, but another might only give 5. Maybe the one who gives 7 has a better relationship with the player, maybe he's better at judging passing skills, or maybe he's more experienced.

I suppose I was only trying to say that there is an element of inconsistency in how the information is relayed.

why not, when a player is scouted, don’t you just get told the players potential ability is 170

I know why you don’t get the info - to make it a bit more uncertain

So that's cleared that up then?

So that's cleared that up then?

Haha thanks for that. Did you read the post, it makes more sense if you read it all and not just pick random bits out of it.

By knowing a players CA and PA it would make the game too unrealistic.

Basically no team would ever sign a flop player.

There would be no David Bellions, Djemba Djembas, Francis Jeffers, Bruno Cheyrou's and Le tallecs...

Every young player signed would be a gauranteed success.

In real life, even the very big clubs make mistakes on players.

By knowing a players CA and PA it would make the game too unrealistic.

Basically no team would ever sign a flop player.

There would be no David Bellions, Djemba Djembas, Francis Jeffers, Bruno Cheyrou's and Le tallecs...

Every young player signed would be a gauranteed success.

In real life, even the very big clubs make mistakes on players.

Huh?

All the players you mentioned would probably have a high PA, just circumstances meant they never reached it. No player in the game is ever guaranteed to reach their PA.

I wish they would just show CA. Without all the complications introduced by weaker foot and positions weights, it's very difficult to judge how good a player really is.

Huh?

All the players you mentioned would probably have a high PA, just circumstances meant they never reached it. No player in the game is ever guaranteed to reach their PA.

Exactly, even if you knew the exact PA instead of a general star rating, it doesn't mean that player is going to reach his PA.

I used a 3rd party tool to buy a player with a PA of 190, my scouts gave him a 7 star potential rating and said he's the potential to be a leading star for any Premiership side. But it's going to take a lot of time and effort on my part to ever see him reach that... if he ever will.

I wish they would just show CA. Without all the complications introduced by weaker foot and positions weights, it's very difficult to judge how good a player really is.

I agree. If they show you almost everything else about the player in a numerical format, why not just show you the CA as well.

Huh?

All the players you mentioned would probably have a high PA, just circumstances meant they never reached it. No player in the game is ever guaranteed to reach their PA.

hmmm...no...

These players were signed because they were thought to have a lot of potential. Infact, they didnt.

I agree not all players reach their potential, but thats usually due to player personality, professionalism, injuries, facilities of training etc.

Some players just NEVER have the potential to begin with.

David Bellion for example, was thought to be the new Henry. Man Utd signed him because of this. It turned out that he would never actually progress much after a few years because he never had the potential to start with. It was not because factors stopped him reaching his potential.

The same happened with Bruno Cheyrou, aka the 'new zidane'. His potential was misjudged. You cant sit there and seriously think that he always had zidanes potential, and that circumstances stopped him reaching it.

If CA and PA was shown then, like other people have stated, the game would be far too easy. You would know exactly which youngsters to buy and therefore there would be no risk involved.

If you want to view the CA and PA of players then you can use a third-paty tool .

Exactly, even if you knew the exact PA instead of a general star rating, it doesn't mean that player is going to reach his PA.

I used a 3rd party tool to buy a player with a PA of 190, my scouts gave him a 7 star potential rating and said he's the potential to be a leading star for any Premiership side. But it's going to take a lot of time and effort on my part to ever see him reach that... if he ever will.

You'll need to invest a bit of time and effort in setting up well balanced training regimes and giving him the necessary experience to make him the best player in the world, true. And it's almost certain that he will reach a standard making him a leading Premiership star eventually (CA>165) even if you do a poor job of development - player development is pretty deterministic in FM. More importantly, you can guarantee he's worth it and he's not simply some player who is very good for his age but will plateau by the time he reaches his 20s and struggle to make the first team

Scouts judge players relative to the quality of existing squad and domestic league rather than an objective worldwide scale, they make systematic errors of judgement based on the reputation and current abilities of the player, and only spot a percentage of players plus those you specifically ask them to look at. There's a big difference between betting a seven star potential player a scout has found will be worth the money and simply ranking all the high PA players in the world in the player search function and buying all the cheap ones.

I wish they would just show CA. Without all the complications introduced by weaker foot and positions weights, it's very difficult to judge how good a player really is.

This touches on something I've had a problem with in FM, the fact that there isn't any real feedback on a players' development in terms of CA. You can scout players and get told that "Mr X is playing at close to his full-ability" and compare with one of your players, giving you an instant guide about if he's any good or not (if you trust the scout, of course ), but no such thing exists for players once you've bought them, and that's more than a little silly, I find. It's like you have a better chance knowing how good your opposition is than your own team!

And for those people saying that seeing the CA/PA would be bad, but currently having 1-20 attribute ratings being ok, I say huh? There is no way that the attributes are realistic. How would you objectively compare 2 players' passing skills *enough* (this is the key) to make a judgement and rate him across every player in the game world (which is effectively what the current system does by letting you view other players' stats)? The only way you could really do it is to watch each player and just decide for yourself, and do away with ratings completely.

Anybody remember "The Double" on the Spectrum? You had to actually watch players to see if they were any cop. Tough game!

SI should indeed implement search capabilities by the players attribute eg - Professional or Wonderkid, things like that. It says it in each players profiel so why not be able to scout that ?

in scouting it has the stars of the best players I think, also what your scouts think the minimum & maximum price you may have to pay for the player

ah yes they do have Personality. will look at that tonight

SI should indeed implement search capabilities by the players attribute eg - Professional or Wonderkid, things like that. It says it in each players profiel so why not be able to scout that ?

Incidentally, how is 'wunderkid' a personaily, exactly? What would that even mean?

I disagree to an extent, young players talents and potential are generally spotted very early, and these players are then nurtured and brought up through the ranks.

It happens in all sports, look at Lewis Hamilton for example.

Not only that, but you can scout young players in the game and get a star rating of their potential ability, so why not just give us a numerical value.

I supose that's my point. They give us such a specific numerical vaule of their attributes and of how they played that match etc, and only a star rating of their overall ability.

There's no point giving that info. You know jumping stats because you know how well someone jumps, shoots, run, head etc etc. You don't know how good they will be or how well they can be.

By your theory it's like saying, we know the lottery consists of 49 numbers and we know we must get 6 numbers. We might as well get the combination for the lottery each week.

Makes no sense.

By your theory it's like saying, we know the lottery consists of 49 numbers and we know we must get 6 numbers. We might as well get the combination for the lottery each week.

Makes no sense.

after that explanation i hope he backs down as his argument is stupid. Like everyone's saying you can judge someone's abilty at, say finishing or heading, but there is no way anyway could know for definate how good someone will be, which is what you want.

not only is it unrealistic, it would also make the game too easy and boring, and scouts void.

after that explanation i hope he backs down as his argument is stupid. Like everyone's saying you can judge someone's abilty at, say finishing or heading, but there is no way anyway could know for definate how good someone will be, which is what you want.

not only is it unrealistic, it would also make the game too easy and boring, and scouts void.

exactly what he said

would make the game a lot more boring, its much more rewarding to do it without knowing the ca/pa

Buy a good scout and scout the person you want to know about.... You don't need to know exactly what PA and CA they are.

I can't see that they would make CA/PA values visible and nor do I think they should. As has been mentioned before there are third party tools for those that are inclined to sneek a peek so I don't even see the point really.

David Beckham is a fantastic crosser of the ball. FACT.

David Beckham is a Good player. Opinion.

And that is it! Simple as that.

You can measure how good someone is at jumping. You can put a ruler next to him and say over 1m = 15/20.

You cant do that with CA/PA. Its opinion. How do you measure how good someone is? Its your opinion.. So, putting in a figure would be stupid...

Despite the obvious logical flaws in attempting to predict the future...

How pathtic would the game be if you had those in the game? Would defeat the point of the game and kill any skill required in playing.

Haha thanks for that. Did you read the post, it makes more sense if you read it all and not just pick random bits out of it.

Yup, read it all and I still think it's an idiotic suggestion.

David Beckham is a fantastic crosser of the ball. FACT.

Nope, that's still an opinion. Even if everyone in the world agrees with it, it's not a fact.

Actually I think the programmers should do the opposite and make less specific information about players available to front end users. They should have a system like NBa 2k9 where players ratings are displayed through grades like A,B c... or great,very good,good... and so forth. This would be more realistic because we don't say christiano Ronaldo is 20 dribbling we say he is a great dribbler and deciding who is a better than another player at a particular skill is very subjective. So, I think they should keep the ratings very specific underneath but display the ratings to us in a broad way.

I think this would help capture mysterious aspect to football because we know certain players are great at certain skills but it would be difficult to sort out slight incremental differences between two highly talented players in real life. It would also mean that we could get rid of that silly attribute masking system which I believe is unrealistic.

There's no point giving that info. You know jumping stats because you know how well someone jumps, shoots, run, head etc etc. You don't know how good they will be or how well they can be.

By your theory it's like saying, we know the lottery consists of 49 numbers and we know we must get 6 numbers. We might as well get the combination for the lottery each week.

Makes no sense.

What? Seriously, what? Is this a joke post?

How do *you* rate how well somebody jumps, or shoots exactly? And then place it on some arbitrary rating system?

If anything, estimating CA/PA is probably more accurate than any subjective rating of somebody's jumping ability - especially when you logically think that a player would (generally) be picked-up at a young age and be judged on whether or not they may make it long before their jumping ability would reach its' peak.