New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

**arsenal fan 123** · 06-05-2010 22:47

Hi guys,

I know this could be thrown into the "what do you want to see in FM11" thread, but i wanted to start a new one to focus solely on this idea.

I've been doing a bit of thinking and I believe currently, FM really limits a lot of the player growth by putting a fixed PA on everyone who is fairly well established and has passed their youth years.

This takes in no consideration for late bloomers though and will never allow an average player to one day become world class unless he sets the world alight before he hits his 20's.

The best case of a average player turning into a world class player would no doubt be Didier Drogba. An average player (if not even under average) during his time before Marseille. Even then, and when he first joined Chelsea, he was possibly just a 'good' player at best. But his coming to form in his third season really shot him up and his name was thrown around as one of the best strikers in the world. Once again this season he has done the same. But if we were playing an early version of FM/CM, before he had established himself at Marseille or moved to Chelsea, he would be, no doubt, a crap footballer to have in your team. I know this for a fact, i tried to recreate the Chelsea 2006/07 squad back in CM3 and Drogba was rubbish. Which is fine, as it was a true representation of how he was playing at the time, but in all my 6 seasons in that game he never got better. He wasnt even good enough to score more than 10 goals in all competitions for Chelsea. Thats fair enough as well, as at the time there was no indication that Drogba would be any good anyway. But they never left the chance of 'what if'...

With a fixed PA, there was no way he could get better stats, even though he was actually rapidly improving IRL. His great season for Marseille brought the interest of Chelsea. In the game, yes, if a player has a exceptional season he does attract interest of higher/similar clubs to the one he is in. What usually doesn't change though is his stats and many a times the player will move, not be able to perform the same way in this new team and will rarely get a game, drop down into the reserves and be sold at a cut price 1/2 seasons later.

So i began to think of how FM could fix this. How could FM reward you for creating a tactic that would get the best out of your average striker, allowing him to score those 20+ goals that season and actually seeing his stats improve past what their 'limit' was.

I thought about scrapping that fixed PA's and just sticking with the -10, -9, -8 etc. Although that would lead to more of a range of stats, and say a player turning world class in one game and average in another, it would still limit them as to how high their stats could go.

I came up with a potential idea. It's a bit tricky to explain i guess, but it has a simple basis to it. Reward the player by increasing his PA for achieving a number of tasks. If the player becomes the top goalscorer of his league, increase his PA. The amount it would be increased would depend on how many goals he has scored and the league he is playing in. Reward them the same if they achieve a high amount of assists. Same for passing completion, shooting accuracy etc. It doesnt even have to be a general increase in their PA, it could just be raising the players potential passing ability by 1 or 2 points for coming in the top 5 passing completions in the league at the end of the season. Same for their finishing if they achieve similar in shooting accuracy.

If a player wins player of the month, increase his general PA by 1 point. Nothing major, just little things here and there. Player of the season could obviously see something slightly higher, say 5 points. Top goalscorer of the season would be something similar. This could then allow you to keep improving your players, even past what their original PA's were. The only thing sort of preventing this is the rule that you wont see major growth in players generally after the age of 23. That should be completely scrapped too! If a player suddenly becomes the top goalscorer in the world, breaking records and whatnot, why should we not see rapid growth in his stats, even if he is say 27 years old? I would definitely love to see stats being raised by 2, 3 even 4 points in these cases.

Obviously, it wouldn't happen to players who are already in the world class stage at the moment. These player would only receive minor boosts here and there, my idea is mainly for breaking that mould of having an average player and turning him into a superstar. It would provide so much more variety in the teams people would be fielding too and increase the realism the game offers. No more would we be discarding all the average players we've had at the club once we break into the top 4. It will be those average players who got us there, who have now improved as a result, forming the core of the team and improving as well.

It's hard to know if i explained that correctly. Throw your opinions at me guys. Sorry if its a long read, but i wanted to make sure i got it all out and explained it well enough

**rjo333** · 07-05-2010 00:42

I agree completely and Drogba is the perfect example to use. If I was in charge of the data and had to give him a potential ability ten years ago he wouldn't have got over 100!

I love the idea of ranges instead of a fixed number, with certain achievements adding on points, regardless of the range.

There is nothing more frustrating than being a lower league team, and having some great young players doing really well and getting you promoted, but you know in the back of your mind they are not cut out for the big league because of their fixed potential. If your young star picks up top goalscorer in League 2, and the same in League 1, why does he not have a chance to develop with the team, instead of being at a fixed potential of decent championship player?

The argument against is often the same - everyone has a fixed potential in real life. While this is true, it is impossible to predict, so the game needs to be flexible. This has been proved by looking at Drogba's PA over the last 10 editions of the game. There is a huge variation, proving that the current method is flawed. The same can be said for almost every other player too.

PA should be set as a range, with bonus points added for great performances, good training, good luck etc.

**DavidG589** · 07-05-2010 00:44

I thought about scrapping that fixed PA's and just sticking with the -10, -9, -8 etc.

This bit. Brilliantly simple. I champion this idea

**Cougar2010** · 07-05-2010 00:51

The fact remains though that Drogba has a fixed potential in RL, he just hasn't fulfilled it until the last few years.

There is nothing more frustrating than being a lower league team, and having some great young players doing really well and getting you promoted, but you know in the back of your mind they are not cut out for the big league because of their fixed potential. If your young star picks up top goalscorer in League 2, and the same in League 1, why does he not have a chance to develop with the team, instead of being at a fixed potential of decent championship player?

There are hundreds/thousands of examples over the years of players not cutting it at higher levels and dropping back to a division where they excel. Very few top goalscorers in the lower leagues have ever gone on to be a success in the top divisions.

I probably need to also point out as arsenal seems confused, when a player has a negative PA in the database he doesn't get a range in the game. A fixed PA is selected from a range when the save is created.

**x42bn6** · 07-05-2010 01:19

Old idea, not new...

(My long posts are hanging around somewhere)

**rjo333** · 07-05-2010 01:25

Cougar, you say "The fact remains though that Drogba has a fixed potential in RL, he just hasn't fulfilled it until the last few years."

In real life this is true, but it has been inaccurately portrayed in the game. His PA has varied about 60 points over the last 7-8 editions, proving this does not work.

"There are hundreds/thousands of examples over the years of players not cutting it at higher levels and dropping back to a division where they excel. Very few top goalscorers in the lower leagues have ever gone on to be a success in the top divisions."

Of course there is, and I knew as I was typing that this wasn't a great example, but it seems crazy that a great young goalscorer who is producing the goods in every game can't make it in the better leagues just because his potential has been fixed at 100. His potential should be fixed at -6, with additional points being given with a great training schedule, great manager, good facilities, and most importantly, good personal achievements, ie golden boot in his division, first international cap etc

**Cougar2010** · 07-05-2010 01:40

Originally Posted by rjo333

Cougar, you say "The fact remains though that Drogba has a fixed potential in RL, he just hasn't fulfilled it until the last few years."

In real life this is true, but it has been inaccurately portrayed in the game. His PA has varied about 60 points over the last 7-8 editions, proving this does not work.

Without having a time machine its impossible to pick out the players that are going to improve with age and to be fair I would say there were few if any complaints about his PA in old versions.

"There are hundreds/thousands of examples over the years of players not cutting it at higher levels and dropping back to a division where they excel. Very few top goalscorers in the lower leagues have ever gone on to be a success in the top divisions."

Of course there is, and I knew as I was typing that this wasn't a great example, but it seems crazy that a great young goalscorer who is producing the goods in every game can't make it in the better leagues just because his potential has been fixed at 100. His potential should be fixed at -6, with additional points being given with a great training schedule, great manager, good facilities, and most importantly, good personal achievements, ie golden boot in his division, first international cap etc

As I said in my previous post potentials aren't "fixed" at negative numbers.

A lot of users seem to base too much emphasis on CA/PA rather than just playing the game and focusing on attributes & performances.

My advice would be ignore CA/PA and just play the game the way it was intended. Your young player with 100PA will gradually fall out of favour as you climb divisions and drift away from the first team rather than you dropping him instantly because he has 100PA.

EDIT
That said I would agree the way CA develops could probably be improved to include "late bloomers" amongst others. In fact I thought I had read this had been done for this version when it was released but have seen nothing about it since.

Adding a small amount of PA for certain events could also be a good addition as long as they weren't user driven events that could be manipulated.

In general though I would like to see an adjustment in the rate of CA improvement so that very few players ever reach there in game PA.

**MelbVictory** · 07-05-2010 01:42

Originally Posted by rjo333

i
Of course there is, and I knew as I was typing that this wasn't a great example, but it seems crazy that a great young goalscorer who is producing the goods in every game can't make it in the better leagues just because his potential has been fixed at 100. His potential should be fixed at -6, with additional points being given with a great training schedule, great manager, good facilities, and most importantly, good personal achievements, ie golden boot in his division, first international cap etc

Well, isn't this what happens with CA. Most players, with game time, mentoring etc will increase CA. They will increase the better you go about it. It is capped at a certain value. Which IMO is a fine way of doing it. Remember, in theory you should never see these numbers.

Re Drogba - this is a data error. He should have had 180+ in the beginning.

**rinso** · 07-05-2010 01:48

Reward the player by increasing his PA for achieving a number of tasks.

No, no, no no no!! Its a football management game, not some kind of rpg where you "level up" your players. Naturally FM gets things wrong from time to time, but, unless you use an external editor, then you wont know a player's PA/CA, so, to a certain extent, its irrelevant. You simply cannot predict how the future will pan out, hence the use of "random" or "-" PA values...

**x42bn6** · 07-05-2010 02:09

There's also regens who aren't given a subjective PA at the start - the game doesn't allow them to be a late bloomer. It's not just the likes of Drogba.

**-MD-** · 07-05-2010 07:55

Hi Number 26

**numbas2** · 07-05-2010 09:16

I would love SI to come out and say THIS IS HOW IT IS AND THIS IS WHY.

Silense would fall upon you all!

Chris Eagles has something like CA/PA of around 142, yet he played in my CL qualifying campaign with Newcastle playing 30 EPL games and getting 8.47 average. In your world you'd have sold him or not given him a look.

I agree with what has been said: play the game the way it was intended and you'll not have issues. Delve in too deep and you can get stuck on silly little details which take away from YOUR experience, at your expense, whilst everyone else is having a ball.

**Kenco** · 07-05-2010 11:37

This "new" idea has been discussed to death already!

As a player gets better, whether early in his career or a late bloomer, his CA increases, because it is CA that determines how good a player is, PA is just the maximum limit.

**MelbVictory** · 07-05-2010 12:13

Exactly - play the game. Forget the editors and hidden numbers.

**robertcornell68** · 07-05-2010 12:18

Originally Posted by MelbVictory

Exactly - play the game. Forget the editors and hidden numbers.

Correct. PA does EXACTLY what it's supposed to, we only know about it because of editing tools.

**AB-forever** · 07-05-2010 12:39

I don't like this idea. I would prefer it if many players had higher PA but much fewer players would reach their PA's. At the moment if a player doesn't get seriously injured and gets a reasonable amount of playing time when he is younger, there is a big chance he will come very close to reaching his PA. If less players actually come very close to their PA, we could raise the PA's of the original players in the db which would give us much more variety.

**Eugene Tyson** · 07-05-2010 12:50

The problem is though that your staff don't give an accurate account of your players ability. Yet, the other teams seem to be able to pin-point your best players and try to sign them or buy them.

That is the only way I know that my players are any good. And to be honest about it, in 25 seasons as Barcelona manager I have not had one youth prospect come through my youth academy with a PA of over 170. In fact the highest I believe was the 150 mark.

That simply doesn't happen in real life.

I do sign the young Brazil players, and from the Portugese leagues, and other leagues that are relatively low profile. I sign the players with a PA above 175 that are 15, 16 years of age, have a very low reputation.

Yet I only have them 6 months in my youth squad, the assistant and coaches are begging me to sell him, I have Man United, Chelsea, Man City, Inter, Ac Milan, etc. all trying to buy the player. And yet at every team meeting my staff are saying the 15/16 year old isn't good enough and to sell him on?

The whole point is, there's a whole lot more wrong with the game than the PA system of rating players.

I expect better feedback, a way to sign a player that is signed as a backup or hot prospect to be recognised by the staff, the ability to automatically sign the player to the "reserve" "u19" or "youth squad" etc. The staff to acknowledge his ability and when they are giving a rating of 7.8 over a season in the youth team the staff recognises this and doesn't beg you to sell your best and brightest star.

Yet when the new youth players are rolled out you get a message "MR. X is the brightest player to come out of the academy" then I check his PA, and it's a mere 130.

Why don't the staff say "He's the best but he's only a reserve player or would do well in the second division" or something.

My point is the staff you have can't recognise the players ability and they work with them day in day out in training and watching them in matches. Yet, Man City who in 6 months are bidding 7.5m plus 25% of the next transfer fee for the player. How can their staff recognise him as a good player and mine can't?

And I do have the best staff in the game, all 6/7 stars for coaching in training.

(And yes I am checking the PA of players because I want to see when or if my Barcelona team will ever produce a young player with any talent. It's been 25 seasons and nothing!)

**Muhtesem** · 07-05-2010 13:11

Originally Posted by Kenco

This "new" idea has been discussed to death already!

As a player gets better, whether early in his career or a late bloomer, his CA increases, because it is CA that determines how good a player is, PA is just the maximum limit.

things not going like this. when a player reacher maximum of his PA he can never improve even he breaks all of the records.

so i am aggre with these rewards and records must effect players

**B4L** · 07-05-2010 15:00

Personally I like the PA concept as it is and can't see any reason whatsoever to scrap or alter it.

**Thedore** · 07-05-2010 15:04

The problem with all these arguements are that the quoted players obviously had the potential from the beginning, they just didnt fulfil it until late in their career. Its really just their CA changing.

**numbas2** · 07-05-2010 15:05

I understand what the theory presented means and it's intentions but the game works asis and has always worked this way.

**kieronbrown73** · 07-05-2010 15:25

Another real life example of a late bloomer is Ian Wright.

I do believe there could be more fluidity in the way players improve, regardless of their age, and that should be by coaching. If you manage to get a lower league club into a higher league you are able to attract better quality coaches so surely a good teacher can further develop their students?

**Blanchflower1** · 07-05-2010 15:28

I also like the idea of scrapping the PA! There are numerous examples when players in real life become late bloomers! I just hope that SI takes a serious view on this matter. With the right coach and team, a player could become a legend!

**DE4life** · 07-05-2010 15:32

Surely this is only a problem if you're playing the older games? By the time a "late bloomer" has exceeded the original PA he was given chances are a new FM has been released. And if you're still playing the old one, just use the editor to alter his PA accordingly?

**Kenco** · 07-05-2010 16:53

Originally Posted by Blanchflower1

I also like the idea of scrapping the PA! There are numerous examples when players in real life become late bloomers! I just hope that SI takes a serious view on this matter. With the right coach and team, a player could become a legend!

Again, this is not about PA, it's about his CA improving later in his career. The potential was always there, he just took a while to fulfil it.

**gregt or smokey** · 07-05-2010 17:19

Personally, i think the poster of this thread is onto something. I, and many, many others out there will not buy a player over the age of 24, so the OP's idea would no doubt add an unbelievable amount of realism to the game. The number of saves i've had where agbonlahor wins top scorer in the league and even the golden boot would suggest that his attributes should reflect his performances. So it means that when you think about signing europes top marksman, your immediately put off by the fact that his attributes are not as good as others out there, and also the realization that he will never get better. It also means that almost never in this game will you be scouring the world for players around the age of 27 who have started to play out of their skin, e.g Arshavin, Luca Toni (in real life). It completely restricts your gameplay.
I'm an addict of this game and i'm not really complaining, however if realism is the goal here, then i'd take the threadstarter's idea into considerstion.

**looknohands** · 07-05-2010 17:29

I've made this suggestion before: Use two systems.

First, start with "natural talent"/"expected potential." This would be the current PA system, though using only the random numbers (-10, -9, etc.) and not a fixed number. This determines player growth up to the age of 24 or so.

Second, use a player's performance to adjust PA after the age of 24. Meaning, if a player maxes out their PA at 120 or so they could see an increase in their PA based on how well they perform relative to the league they're in. I think a PA adjustment of up to 5 points a year would be sufficient:

Example:a player with a current/max PA of 120 averages a 7.3 for the season. His PA is then raised a few points for the next season. If he performs well again, his CA will increase to match the PA increase, and he may be rewarded with another small boost to PA (relative to the quality of the league he plays in, so you won't be seeing any players reach 200PA on a League 6 squad or anything.) After two years (and possibly a +10 point increase in CA/PA) the player will likely attract the interest of another team from a better league. The player makes the move, but only averages a 6.8. His performance doesn't merit any increase to his PA, and his CA may actually decrease slightly as a result.

To me, this addresses the fundamental flaw of the current system- even though people will say "Drogba always had that level of ability," the simple fact is that FM cannot compensate for our inability to accurately guess what a player's true potential may be...so we have to make do with players suddenly gaining 20 or 30 points to their CA/PA with each year's release. With this system, you could theoretically take a player from a pub team with an initial PA of 100 and, after the course of ten successful years, end up with a player with 150PA. Of course, this would only happen so long as the player performs well in better and better leagues. It would be uncommon to see such an incredible increase over a player's career, but it should still be possible. I believe this would be the best way to make the PA system more "realistic."

**Paulo1985** · 07-05-2010 17:33

I think that you are all missing the point of the game. It is to be as realistic as possible. But the game has its limits thats the nature of games. It would be too easy to find a tactic that works stick a youth striker up front and get him to tap the ball in all the time. This would improve the player beyond anything he would normally become. if the way you are talking about raising the players PA was to happen it would be again too easy to make superstars. The game needs the PA as a back ground to tell it the potential of the player. If i buy a 15 year old i have no idea how good he will be. Unless i cheat and look in the editor i will never know how good this player can get all i can go on is the coaches and the how he plays.

If you have a problem with PA dont look for it and it will not ruin your game. Managers in real life pick up players all the time not knowing how they will turn out so why would it be any different in the game.

**RBKalle** · 07-05-2010 17:38

The thing is...

PA isn't a mere figure that tells us if Player X is a potential Top Star or will be lucky to get a couple of run-ins in Premier League before disappearing in lower leagues.

PA sort of represent the highest the player's attributes can reach, under the best possible circumstances.

So to me the issue isn't really about, say, Drogba or Luca Toni having low PA 10 years ago compared to the real-life level they later reached.

The issue is: why can't my 130CA/PA midfielder improve further, despite having been a vital part of my team, with average rating over 7.00 and plenty of goals and assists?

It doesn't mean any Average Joe who's playing ok for your club can suddenly turn into the new Gerrard or Messi, but it's rather silly seeing Top Clubs fighting to sign a relatively disappointing player for £20M while your players keep on getting ignored just because they hit the glass ceiling of their modest PA.

I think it'd be interesting revamping the dynamics between CA/PA and attributes rise/drop.

Sure a guy who's 130/130 won't ever become a "full 18 player", but there is no reason he shouldn't get "attention", recognition and possible a rise in PA-attributes according to his performances.

See, with the current system I'd rather sign a mediocre keeper who's said to be a future star [eg 90 CA/150 PA] than a competent keeper who won't get any better [eg 115 CA 120 PA]

The latter would be a better choice, while the former will sure garner more interest AND require a lot more work to become useful.

**gregt or smokey** · 07-05-2010 17:45

[QUOTE=RBKalle;5310302]

See, with the current system I'd rather sign a mediocre keeper who's said to be a future star [eg 90 CA/150 PA] than a competent keeper who won't get any better [eg 115 CA 120 PA]

Exactly! This sort of problem is rife in the game. More or less restricting the gamer to who he will buy

**x42bn6** · 07-05-2010 18:29

http://community.sigames.com/showpos...8&postcount=13

(And scroll down)

**thegame24** · 07-05-2010 18:48

I have a better idea.

Get rid of the fixed I agree, however, get rid of the massive ranges in the -9, -10 etc. Its stupid how wilshere is world class on one save and below average in another save.

What should happen is if you are a -10 player everyone has the potential to be a 200 but is based on how he plays and how often is played and how well hes trained etc. Even being at the wrong team can kill your abilities to improve so not many would reach 200 if any.

Really though the ranges are annoying

**Krald** · 07-05-2010 19:01

One thing to note is late bloomers are an exception to a rule in a sense, they're not a regular occurance, and also they'd be quite frustrating in the game really. To have a player reach a cieling and never improve, and then think "well this player wont get any better" sell him and then see him turn into a marvel.

It's actually something that's happened to me once to an extent, I had a player that just didnt improve, he was like 23, and I saw no future for him so I sold him, turned out he improved loads at his new club, getting a constant time in the first team, at a top flight (scottish at least) club, even though their coaching and facilities were awful compared to mine.

So some can "bloom" later than 21 but it's rare.

**Cougar2010** · 07-05-2010 19:33

Originally Posted by RBKalle

The issue is: why can't my 130CA/PA midfielder improve further, despite having been a vital part of my team, with average rating over 7.00 and plenty of goals and assists?

How is that an issue?

He has reached the limit of his abilities, simple as that. This happens everyday in the real world.

**Scath** · 07-05-2010 20:26

Most teams that get promoted sell all the lads that got them the promotion and buy in better players.

Hull would be a recent example.

PA is an attempt by the game to estimate how a player will turn out. Most lads with PA in FM are not exactly unknowns. Guys like Lukaku are out there doing incredible things at a very young age, which suggests they will turn out to be amazing. Many don't, and have their PA reduced. For every Drogba who has a low PA at the start of the game, there's one with ludicrously high PA who turns out to be a damp squib for whatever reason. (See the greatly misfortuned man that is Nii Lamptey.)

As an example, I remember first hearing about Wayne Rooney in the pre-season before his Everton debut. Out of curiosity I looked him up in (I think) Champ Manager 01/02. He was absolutely awful. (By which I mean, a generic reserve striker.)

Here's another example, from CM 4, Andrés D'Allesandro had higher PA than Xavi and Rooney. Back then Zlatan Ibrahimovic, still of Ajax, had a PA of 180. So too did Mido, also of Ajax.

Nothing's ever going to be perfect, but the system is merely a decent stab at estimating how players will turn out. I personally find that the exaggerated PA's of some awful players are actually quite accurate. Mido probably could have been that good.

**RBKalle** · 07-05-2010 20:38

Originally Posted by Cougar2010

How is that an issue?

He has reached the limit of his abilities, simple as that. This happens everyday in the real world.

I'm quite sure nobody was expecting Antonio Di Natale to become one of Italy's topscorers when he debuded in Serie A aged 25. And after a relatively modest career in lower divisions

In FM a case like his would have been handled in two ways:

1) relatively low PA in the db, according to his age and to his not so stellar cv thus far
2) higher PA he wouldn't have been able to reach anyway, as players tend not to fulfill their PA if not trained/played in the proper way within age 20-22

Either way, in FM it's almost impossible having a "Di Natale" or an "Amauri", much less a "Graham Alexander"

Give a PA of 200 to two 18 years olders with equal attributes and CA, then put one at Man Utd and one at Coventry City.
By the time they reach age 22, the one at Coventry, as well as he might have played there, will probably never be able to fulfill his 200PA regardless of he staying at Coventry or moving to Arsenal.

That's not how real life works...

A player can have "wasted" some years in average clubs, or even look like he has already peaked and will never be better... But the occurrence of "average players" having some sort of fresh start at a higer level is far from a rarity

Something that in FM just can't happen, with a huge impact on the transfers market dynamics and on the game as a whole

**Cougar2010** · 07-05-2010 20:50

Originally Posted by RBKalle

I'm quite sure nobody was expecting Antonio Di Natale to become one of Italy's topscorers when he debuded in Serie A aged 25. And after a relatively modest career in lower divisions

In FM a case like his would have been handled in two ways:

1) relatively low PA in the db, according to his age and to his not so stellar cv thus far
2) higher PA he wouldn't have been able to reach anyway, as players tend not to fulfill their PA if not trained/played in the proper way within age 20-22

Either way, in FM it's almost impossible having a "Di Natale" or an "Amauri", much less a "Graham Alexander"

Give a PA of 200 to two 18 years olders with equal attributes and CA, then put one at Man Utd and one at Coventry City.
By the time they reach age 22, the one at Coventry, as good as he might have played there, will probably never be able to fulfill his 200PA regardless of he staying at Coventry or moving to Arsenal.

That's not how real life works...

A player can have "wasted" some years in average clubs, or even look like he has already peaked and will never be better... But the occurrence of "average players" having some sort of fresh start at a higer level is far from a rarity

Di Natale is a real player though who is judged by fans and they can't see into the future so its impossible to identify a player that will turn out to be a "late bloomer" in RL.

The rest of your post is more about CA development than PA and I would agree that there should be more variety to it.

**RBKalle** · 07-05-2010 21:21

Of course fans/researchers can't see into the future... But...

Take FM2008

Edin Dzeko has PA/CA 120/140, so if I was starting a new career in FM08, no matter how many goals Dzeko could have scored for my team, no matter how well I would have trained him, NOBODY would have wanted him among the Top Flight clubs.
And he wouldn't have improved a lick once he had peaked after one or two seasons, regardless of his actual performances.

And that goes for ANY player, original or newgen, with a relatively low CA he can reach at a somewhat young age.

It's partly about CA development, but it's also an issue related to a fixed PA [be it fixed or negative in the db] becoming an insourmontable obstacle to the development of a player.

Basically in FM you've got three kinds of players (who haven't peaked yet):

* Future Stars (high CA, high PA, good hidden skills, formed at Top Clubs/Nations)
* Lost Stars (average CA, high PA, mediocre hidden skills, formed at poor clubs/nations)
* Average Players (adequate CA/PA for their nation/league)

The latter won't ever have a chance to exceed the level they're currently playing at, and that's just not how football works...

Just like a PA 180 youngster can either become a Top EPL player or just fail to develop the right way and disappear in lower leagues, it'd be nice having a rather "average" youngster later turning into a good top-level player, if trained well.

Of course it would be just as difficult and relatively rare as it is fostering the 50/180 kid, but it should definitely be a possibility.

As the game works now, a couple of average youth intakes at, say, Real Madrid, would just get the axe as soon as you realize you haven't stumbled upon another Raul...
Basically a whole intake of 2.5* (say 125-140PA] players isn't even worth the time and the effort to bring them to through the ranks...

With a new chance to turn average guys into adequate top-level players [adequate, not stellar mind you] the game would become much more challenging.

As it is now, there is NO REASON to invest on youth academies and to buy players over 24-25 unless they're already well-established stars

**HHUK** · 07-05-2010 22:31

I believe PA should vary throughout a player's career. Players have good seasons, bad seasons, injuries.. it should be adjusting itself dynamically to reflect these events.

Perhaps have some tie in with form, better form gives the PA a chance to increase, poor form causes it to stall or drop. A good way this would work is if Drogba had an amazing breakthrough season, his PA would increase and could possibly increase to the top end of his designated PA scale. If he had a -9 then he could work his way up from the bottom end to the top end, depending how his career is going. I believe the PA brackets are the way forward.

**grade** · 07-05-2010 23:18

To be honest the PA does limit player development.

Someone said then it would be easy to create superstars and I laughed (sorry if offends to whomever said it). That is mind blogging excuse to be honest.

You might agree or not, but the point of this game is to represent real life. It is the point that we all love this game regardless of version of FM.

If that is so, then the game would permit a player develop early, mid or late bloomer.

Now I think there is easy way to do this without limits or PA. Just use the average rating of last season, age and motivation that moves up or down his stats (make some sort of calculation).

No one gave anything for Ronaldo when he was bought by Man United. Sure he had caught the eye of Fergusson, but he learn something early on in Man United, if he wanted to play first team he needed to work hard, every day. Be first to arrive to training and the last one to leave and give all that his got in the matches.

This is lesson of how things should be set in the game. At this point the training is pretty basic stuff, but we all have average rating of the player after a season. Why not use this?

You question is What if it produces a lot of super players? My answer is, they didn't created beta testing because it sounds cool or it was pretty name.

**Suggy33** · 07-05-2010 23:26

I think this fits into what the OP means:

Suggy33
Have a situation where if a striker scores alot of goals it will improve his reputation.

For example, a BSP striker scores alot of goals, and is bought by a League 1 club. His CA/PA may not be good enough for this level, but because of his reputation for scoring, he still gets played and scores goals at this level as well.

**Kenco** · 07-05-2010 23:34

Originally Posted by grade

To be honest the PA does limit player development.

That's the point! It's an in-game limiter to stop all players becoming World Class.

**Kenco** · 07-05-2010 23:36

Originally Posted by HHUK

I believe PA should vary throughout a player's career. Players have good seasons, bad seasons, injuries.. it should be adjusting itself dynamically to reflect these events.

Perhaps have some tie in with form, better form gives the PA a chance to increase, poor form causes it to stall or drop. A good way this would work is if Drogba had an amazing breakthrough season, his PA would increase and could possibly increase to the top end of his designated PA scale. If he had a -9 then he could work his way up from the bottom end to the top end, depending how his career is going. I believe the PA brackets are the way forward.

CA does this.

Just because somebody has a bad season, doesn't mean their potential suddenly drops, they can still get back up to that level so PA shouldn't adjust.

I think people are getting CA and PA confused here.

**edgar555** · 07-05-2010 23:43

Originally Posted by numbas2

I would love SI to come out and say THIS IS HOW IT IS AND THIS IS WHY.

Silense would fall upon you all!

Chris Eagles has something like CA/PA of around 142, yet he played in my CL qualifying campaign with Newcastle playing 30 EPL games and getting 8.47 average. In your world you'd have sold him or not given him a look.

I agree with what has been said: play the game the way it was intended and you'll not have issues. Delve in too deep and you can get stuck on silly little details which take away from YOUR experience, at your expense, whilst everyone else is having a ball.

This sums it up. Ignore CA/PA. If you play properly you never need to know them.

And as has been pointed out, this really isn't a new idea. At all. Must be hundreds of threads on this subject that these thoughts could have been added too.

**grade** · 08-05-2010 00:13

Originally Posted by Kenco

That's the point! It's an in-game limiter to stop all players becoming World Class.

The limiter only needs for how well their average rating is last season, how age they are and how they are motivated.

What basically the PA is stating that if it states that certain player either develops in world Class in early 20s or doesn't develop at all.

Do you want or not the game to resemble real life? Then I believe there is better ways to do this development then using PA.

**grade** · 08-05-2010 00:18

Originally Posted by edgar555

This sums it up. Ignore CA/PA. If you play properly you never need to know them.

And as has been pointed out, this really isn't a new idea. At all. Must be hundreds of threads on this subject that these thoughts could have been added too.

Wow, now there is good way and wrong way to play? I thought FM gave the freedom to its users to play how we wanted... guess I was wrong.

**HHUK** · 08-05-2010 00:22

Originally Posted by Kenco

CA does this.

Just because somebody has a bad season, doesn't mean their potential suddenly drops, they can still get back up to that level so PA shouldn't adjust.

I think people are getting CA and PA confused here.

It's obvious their CA would drop with bad seasons and injuries but it still doesn't hide the weakness that fixed PA is an ineffective measurement with late bloomers.

PA is constantly adjusted in the database releases to go along with real life changes (as a players estimated potential develops as he does), so why would PA not be adjusted slightly to emulate this factor of "not being sure" in-game? It would also add a level of real-time randomness to the game, this would help emulate the total high PA flops (Fabio Paim) and late bloomers.

**RBKalle** · 08-05-2010 00:51

Originally Posted by Kenco

That's the point! It's an in-game limiter to stop all players becoming World Class.

Sort of...

But not every player reaches his max PA in the game anyway, no matter how well you train them or how often you play them.

But I can't see a good reason for having a consistently solid player being stuck with the same attributes [e.g. max PA reached, no more improvement is possible] at age 24 just because the game "decided" that's the best level he'll ever reach.

On the same vein, why can't a former hot prospect who has "lost" a couple of seasons suddenly recapture his ancient form/skills?
Once the game decides the original PA can't be reached, a player will get a new "max CA"... so basically a former PA 180 can't now go higher than 130... And that makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Kenco

CA does this.

Just because somebody has a bad season, doesn't mean their potential suddenly drops, they can still get back up to that level so PA shouldn't adjust.

Wrong.

The PA doesn't drop, but the Highest Attainable CA drops indeed.

So the absurdity is: two bad seasons: Player won't ever reach the original PA anymore
two good seasons: Player won't ever exceed the original PA anyway

According to the FM dynamic, a player like Giovinco would be doomed already after two seasons as backup at Juventus at his age.
His original PA is gone, and even in the case of a stellar breakthrough next year, he would never be as good as he could have been had he played regularly.

That's not how it works in real football... A player can stagnate and then become a hit even after many years of mediocrity.

FM works on a one-way level only.

Basically it's a straight line from starting CA to the original PA, or to a new, lower, PA renegotiated according to in-game events.

What the game doesn't renegotiate is when things go BETTER than expected...

A player can turn out worse than he's supposed to, but not better.

I think people are getting CA and PA confused here.

I think you're not entirely getting our point

Lukaku can become 130, 170 or 195 depending on how the specific savegame goes.

Plenty of other players won't ever become better than 130 despite being consistently good, well trained and kept in high esteem by the human manager

**looknohands** · 08-05-2010 02:00

Originally Posted by Kenco

That's the point! It's an in-game limiter to stop all players becoming World Class.

...and it also stops the Drogba's of the world from being reflected in-game.
The problem is that in real life, players have their performances weighed to determine whether or not they're World Class. The game relies on the opinions of a handful of people.
My proposal would solve this, without having everyone becoming World Class. In my system, a player will only develop his PA to the level of the league he's playing in; once he reaches that point, he'd need to play (and do well) in a higher league to continue developing.

**dibbers** · 08-05-2010 08:39

I do like this idea. I'm thinking if a player from accrington is signed by man utd then surely he will have a higher potential through the better coaches/training facilities at man utd??
PA should be based on (current stats for position + training facilities + coaches) not just random.

**Cougar2010** · 08-05-2010 09:24

Originally Posted by dibbers

I do like this idea. I'm thinking if a player from accrington is signed by man utd then surely he will have a higher potential through the better coaches/training facilities at man utd??
PA should be based on (current stats for position + training facilities + coaches) not just random.

No, his potential would stay the same he would just have a better chance of reaching it if he were at Man Utd.

What would change would be the "Maximum Attainable CA"

**Kenco** · 08-05-2010 10:02

Originally Posted by RBKalle

Sort of...

But not every player reaches his max PA in the game anyway, no matter how well you train them or how often you play them.

But I can't see a good reason for having a consistently solid player being stuck with the same attributes [e.g. max PA reached, no more improvement is possible] at age 24 just because the game "decided" that's the best level he'll ever reach.

On the same vein, why can't a former hot prospect who has "lost" a couple of seasons suddenly recapture his ancient form/skills?
Once the game decides the original PA can't be reached, a player will get a new "max CA"... so basically a former PA 180 can't now go higher than 130... And that makes no sense.

Wrong.

The PA doesn't drop, but the Highest Attainable CA drops indeed.

So the absurdity is: two bad seasons: Player won't ever reach the original PA anymore
two good seasons: Player won't ever exceed the original PA anyway

According to the FM dynamic, a player like Giovinco would be doomed already after two seasons as backup at Juventus at his age.
His original PA is gone, and even in the case of a stellar breakthrough next year, he would never be as good as he could have been had he played regularly.

That's not how it works in real football... A player can stagnate and then become a hit even after many years of mediocrity.

FM works on a one-way level only.

Basically it's a straight line from starting CA to the original PA, or to a new, lower, PA renegotiated according to in-game events.

What the game doesn't renegotiate is when things go BETTER than expected...

A player can turn out worse than he's supposed to, but not better.

I think you're not entirely getting our point

Lukaku can become 130, 170 or 195 depending on how the specific savegame goes.

Plenty of other players won't ever become better than 130 despite being consistently good, well trained and kept in high esteem by the human manager

I still think this has more to do with CA needing to be more flexible. It seems that players either progress young or not at all, so maybe the CA system needs to be improved to allow for these late bloomers.

I think you're not entirely getting what PA is. PA isn't what a player is supposed to get to, it is the MAXIMUM he will ever get, assuming everything goes perfect for him during his career.

**nick1408** · 08-05-2010 10:09

Originally Posted by AB-forever

I don't like this idea. I would prefer it if many players had higher PA but much fewer players would reach their PA's. At the moment if a player doesn't get seriously injured and gets a reasonable amount of playing time when he is younger, there is a big chance he will come very close to reaching his PA. If less players actually come very close to their PA, we could raise the PA's of the original players in the db which would give us much more variety.

I like the basis of this idea. The thing that concerns me though is if a lot of players have high PA then any player from the lower leagues will be able to be signed by a higher club and trained into a world beater. We still need something to limit growth.

Originally Posted by HHUK

I believe PA should vary throughout a player's career. Players have good seasons, bad seasons, injuries.. it should be adjusting itself dynamically to reflect these events.

Perhaps have some tie in with form, better form gives the PA a chance to increase, poor form causes it to stall or drop. A good way this would work is if Drogba had an amazing breakthrough season, his PA would increase and could possibly increase to the top end of his designated PA scale. If he had a -9 then he could work his way up from the bottom end to the top end, depending how his career is going. I believe the PA brackets are the way forward.

I think this is pretty much the only way to go if PA was to change. You still need to be able to limit player growth. Not every player can go from being a league 2 star to being a premiership star. I think it is unrealistic to rely on CA to stop any player in the game from progressing beyond where they should. I know it does annoy people that some players seem to stop developing. I currently have a 24yo Alex Smithies at Everton who has won two premierships, a couple of minor trophies but has not grown in stats for three seasons.

If every player had a ranged PA then it allows the minor growth once a player peaks. This is all it should be too, minor growth, no major growth. The players mentioned earlier (Drogba, Di Natale etc), did they actually improve their skills when they moved clubs or only refine and learn their limitations? Did the new surroundings and tactics play to their natural abilities?

Is this reletive of a young player in real life? probably not, but on the other hand if there was no PA I could sign a Nicky Nobody, train him up and make him a world class keeper for my side. That is what the current PA system is stopping.

Another option would be to limit growth by club and facilities. Again I feel this is unfair to the player. A player like Tim Cahill would be playing at the same level at Everton or Arsenal but the difference would be the quality of ball to him, not the ability for him to grow as a player due to higher training facilities. On the other hand, I don't want to be able to sign a player from a lower league only to know he can only develop to a certain level, then if I sell him to a bigger club know he will develop to a higher level again. While this may be true in some cases in other cases it is very untrue.

The current system has it's faults but so does each system that has been put forward too.

**Chochip** · 08-05-2010 10:19

The only reason that this current fixed PA system works is that SI updates the database roughly every 3-9 months. Fixed PA would be a huge problem if they were never going to be updated regularly. But SI researchers change them every 3-9 months to reflect real life.
In terms of late bloomers, they do happen in FM. Players with high PA but low ambition/professionalism tend to develop slowly and reach close to maximum later in his career.

One thing to note. Even if you change the PA to be all -10, -9, -8 etc, you are just making it more random, not more accurate.
If Messi was given -10, then he could be stuck at 170.
Rewarding PA points for good training, cup experience etc is a good idea, but giving points for good performance could mean that only the already good players become extra better and the bad players stay bad.

**edgar555** · 08-05-2010 10:42

Originally Posted by grade

Wow, now there is good way and wrong way to play? I thought FM gave the freedom to its users to play how we wanted... guess I was wrong.

Typical (low)grade post.

You know full well what I mean. When the game was designed I'm sure that it wasn't in peoples minds that what we all wanted were 3rd party add ons allowing us to see and fiddle with HIDDEN stats. So as I'm sure you've seen my post before, yes people are allowed to play their game how they like. However there is clearly a 'proper' way.
Therefore the whole change the PA system argument is a waste of time, because people who don't dive into editors don't know and don't care what PA/CA are.
OK. Make sense? Probably not.

**RBKalle** · 08-05-2010 11:16

Originally Posted by Kenco

I think you're not entirely getting what PA is. PA isn't what a player is supposed to get to, it is the MAXIMUM he will ever get, assuming everything goes perfect for him during his career.

I know, but when something with the player's growth goes "wrong", the original PA has no real reason to be there, or to be taken into account.

Let's call the new, lower, Potential Ability (or Highest Attainable Ability) "pA" but the core of the issue doesn't change.

Ok, it's more like a matter of CA development, but there are two separate problems I'm addressing.

Late bloomers are impossible in the game because:

1) CA development is rigidly one-way: CA rises, but once the original PA is out of reach, it'll stay out of reach forever.

2) PA is fixed, so a player with relatively low PA will peak around 24 and not move from that level until he starts to get old.

Instead in real life we have tons of examples of players who were considered "lost" or "rubbish" suddenly turning into Top-Level stars.

(in FM language, they filled the gap between their pA and PA)

And players who had been a quiet career well into their 20s and then reached heights they were never "supposed" to be able to reach.

(in FM language, they went over their original PA)

You can see how neither scenario is possible on FM...

Originally Posted by Chochip

In terms of late bloomers, they do happen in FM. Players with high PA but low ambition/professionalism tend to develop slowly and reach close to maximum later in his career.

No...

A player with stellar PA but with poor mental attributes (or simply a player who has been lost in the shuffle for whatever reason) will NEVER reach close to his original PA

That kind of "late bloomers" will be lucky to land a contract for League One sides once the in-game scouts find out their maximum CA is laughably low compared to the original PA.

The AI scouts and managers just "read" the low "pA" and then avoid signing those players.

One thing to note. Even if you change the PA to be all -10, -9, -8 etc, you are just making it more random, not more accurate.
If Messi was given -10, then he could be stuck at 170.

Well, a scenario where Messi won't turn out as awesome [and 170 is still starting eleven material everywhere] is a possibility...

Rewarding PA points for good training, cup experience etc is a good idea, but giving points for good performance could mean that only the already good players become extra better and the bad players stay bad.

Indeed...

But we're just talking about a couple of extra points (possibly for role-related skills) to be weighed according to the original attributes etc...

Of course a Championship striker wouldn't suddenly get a truckload of extra points, becoming better than Rooney over time...

P.S. in my original FM10 savegame [started with 10.0] Lukaku ended up on free transfer and was so bad nobody signed him for months.
And there would be no reason to sign him, considering his CA is low and his pA is barely adequate for second-rate leagues.

That's how the CA-pA-PA system works

**x42bn6** · 08-05-2010 16:36

Originally Posted by edgar555

However there is clearly a 'proper' way.

Eh? It's a game, not a piece of coursework. There's no such thing as a "proper" or "right" way to play a game.

There's certainly things you can't do within Football Manager, such as capturing a flag in an FPS scenario, but it doesn't mean that there's a right way to do things.

Any game developer can expect their game to be hacked and modded - this is a given.

And even if the attributes are hidden it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a bit like saying the sinkhole beneath your house isn't a problem because you're not meant to smash a hole in your floor to see it.

**DaSilva9** · 09-05-2010 04:27

People focus too much on CA and PA when they can be really misleading. The scouting reports should really focus on how suitable a players attributes are to their role and position relative to players in their division. You can have one player that is 165 CA and another that is 150 CA. All your scouts and coaches will tell you that the 165 CA player is better even though the 150 CA has attributes that are perfect for their position and role while the 165 has CA points distributed in attributes that aren't as useful. We know SI has said that CA has zero impact on what happens on the pitch so the star rating system seems primarily useful for making judgments about possible player development but not necessarily useful for judgments about who to put in the lineup. So a players current star rating should be based purely on their attributes while their future star rating should be based on the difference between their PA and CA.

**pleming** · 09-05-2010 04:30

Just a thought, and I can't do this as I don't have my old versions of the game still, but...

What if we went back and tracked players CA/PA over the course of the game versions to use as a model on CA/PA development?

There's obviously some user error as we have people determining what the players CA/PA are, but that should balance out if we have a large enough sample size. For example- sometimes we are just wrong in a version on someone's CA/PA. We make up for it the next year. Like Drogba. We clearly had him wrong in CM01, he's fixed since then, I think.

Anyhow- you could use the resulting data to figure out how players develop IRL and use that to help in-game development.

That being said, I don't think the current system is wrong... the only error really is the system of who's determining what players CA/PA are. It's human error. Not game error.

* Future Stars (high CA, high PA, good hidden skills, formed at Top Clubs/Nations)
* Lost Stars (average CA, high PA, mediocre hidden skills, formed at poor clubs/nations)
* Average Players (adequate CA/PA for their nation/league)

This is shown in game... Remember, we don't know CA/PA, and aren't SUPPOSED to... PS- all the examples below are just from my experience with the game... I realize that with the -10, -9 PA's some of these guys may not have been good or rated highly for everyone

I look at the Future Stars as guys who are 18-20 and have CA about 110-125, PA 165+... guys that FM got right (from previous versions to this one) include Aaron Ramsey, Guiseppe Rossi, etc.)

I see the Lost Stars as guys who are 18-20 and have CA still only 80-100, with PA 165+ and never get over 140... guys that FM got right are Freddie Adu and Jose Baxter...

The Average players are guys who have CA's at 18-20 of 110-125, but CA's of less than 150... guys that FM got right are Jay Spearing, Michael Mancienne, Dave Nugent...

Anyhow. My $.02... I think FM has the development paths this thread claims they don't... the problem is that people want these paths to apply to specific guys on their teams...

I've seen late bloomers in the game. I bought a guy when managing Everton from Belgium with a CA/PA of 134/168 at the age of 25... When I sold him at age 30, he was a 158/168... still not maximizing his potential, but he certainly got a few classes better after the age of 25...

**pleming** · 09-05-2010 04:43

Also- I just had a rush of memory lane guys...

David Edgar @ Newcastle was a guy who had a way high PA and never realized it... he's another failed star, or fizzled star, whatever....

I remember playing with Clint Dempsey a few versions ago, and his CA/PA split was about 30 at the age of 24, and he maxed out completely...

I had Roger Johnson when with Cardiff and his PA was only in the 140's, but he was only in 120's... but he maxed out and got bought up by a EPL club from under me...

Joe Ledley, also Cardiff... had a big PA one version, but was -30 on CA at least... I ended up selling him to Arsenal, and if my memory is clear as I think, he fizzled out as the bust of the season that year...

**x42bn6** · 09-05-2010 04:47

Originally Posted by pleming

That being said, I don't think the current system is wrong... the only error really is the system of who's determining what players CA/PA are. It's human error. Not game error.

It's not human error because, well, you don't know a player's PA, therefore you can't get it wrong.

Not being able to see something doesn't mean it's not a problem.

**pleming** · 09-05-2010 05:12

Originally Posted by x42bn6

It's not human error because, well, you don't know a player's PA, therefore you can't get it wrong.

Not being able to see something doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Fair enough... good point.

**RBKalle** · 09-05-2010 11:19

CA and PA are figures that dictate how good/bad the attributes are or can/will be.

So, for the sake of stopping the usual "but you're not supposed to know CA and PA" objection, let's just put it that way:

players will hit a glass ceiling and their attributes won't EVER go beyond a certain point, regardless of training, first team football etc.

P.S. About the "late bloomers" some people claim to have seen, well a player who had high potential to begin with but stagnated for a while and then went on to achieve almost his full potential is NOT a late bloomer...

Should Freddy Adu suddenly become a world class striker, would you consider him a late bloomer? Someone who had been hinted as a possible Top Star when he was a teenager.

Now if Jason Scotland becomes Top Scorer next year in EPL, that could qualify as a late bloomer...

**Kenco** · 09-05-2010 11:31

Originally Posted by RBKalle

CA and PA are figures that dictate how good/bad the attributes are or can/will be.

So, for the sake of stopping the usual "but you're not supposed to know CA and PA" objection, let's just put it that way:

players will hit a glass ceiling and their attributes won't EVER go beyond a certain point, regardless of training, first team football etc.

P.S. About the "late bloomers" some people claim to have seen, well a player who had high potential to begin with but stagnated for a while and then went on to achieve almost his full potential is NOT a late bloomer...

Should Freddy Adu suddenly become a world class striker, would you consider him a late bloomer? Someone who had been hinted as a possible Top Star when he was a teenager.

Now if Jason Scotland becomes Top Scorer next year in EPL, that could qualify as a late bloomer...

Freddy Adu would be a late bloomer, because he always had the potential but hasn't realised it yet.

Jason Scotland being top scorer in the EPL could happen without his attributes suddenly getting better. Chelsea could stick him up front all season, he is bound to score more than he does now without necessarily being a better player.

**edgar555** · 09-05-2010 11:41

Originally Posted by x42bn6

Eh? It's a game, not a piece of coursework. There's no such thing as a "proper" or "right" way to play a game.

There's certainly things you can't do within Football Manager, such as capturing a flag in an FPS scenario, but it doesn't mean that there's a right way to do things.

Any game developer can expect their game to be hacked and modded - this is a given.

And even if the attributes are hidden it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a bit like saying the sinkhole beneath your house isn't a problem because you're not meant to smash a hole in your floor to see it.

Talk about twisting my words.
Maybe if I'd used 'pure' rather than 'proper' you might not get on your high horse. I and many others don't mess around with editors and don't care for CA/PA because I don't play it like that. Again I will say that people are welcome to do what they want with their games but to change something for the sake of those that 'mess' with the game is just plain wrong.

Your analogy sucks also. Again maybe because I've phrased something badly.
My point wasn't that because you can't see it, its that I don't believe the systems broken.
I'm currently in my 4th season in the EPL and I have a striker who's started 12 games, made 20 sub appearances (usually for only 10-15 minutes) he's topped 10 goals and 15 assists. I don't know his PA or CA and don't care to, but I would wager his CA is no more than 125 and a PA no more than 140. Still he can perform for a title winning side and get in the national squad. He could conceivably go on to be a world beater IRL and someone would cry that his PA will limit that in game, well I say no it won't because he's already achieving.

**Cikku** · 09-05-2010 12:51

I agree with the idea in principle, but with some thought you might come to realise that the game's system is not really that far off from what you all want.

If a player has 190 PA, it is only with certain conditions like injury, training, facilities etc that he can get to that level. So in truth the PA does vary as seasons flow by depending on the player's circumstances.

A few editions back, I remember having a belgian regen aged about 20. He seemed to be a brilliant prospect.....but he got serious year-long injury. When he came back he never ended up becoming the player he could have become, because the injury didn't let him evolve to his max, therefore it can be said that is PA was reduced.

I do agree with the negative number system since it randomises the potential of a player; SI can never know the real exact potential of a player, so it is wise to use the negative number method as it puts in the realistic element of chance of Potential Ability.

In the case of Drogba, I really cant blame SI. If any of us saw him 10 years ago, none of us would have ever come to believe that he was to become the player he is today. Using the negative number system would of helped in this regard, as it would have thrown his potential to chance to a certain extent. This would have left more possibilities to what he might have become in FM.

What I don't like in the game is the predictability of the development of players. Whilst most players develop in the same manner, as in FM, in truth there are other players who get there best years when they're 23 or when they're 33. In FM, it's always between 27 and 31. There should be more variation - players who have long years being crap, than having 3 great year between 30-33; players who who have 2 great years in their early 20s but spend the rest of their careers as weak players. These are occurrences which do occur in real life.

**AB-forever** · 09-05-2010 13:54

Originally Posted by nick1408

I like the basis of this idea. The thing that concerns me though is if a lot of players have high PA then any player from the lower leagues will be able to be signed by a higher club and trained into a world beater. We still need something to limit growth.

That's true and that's why we also need in-game scouts to focus a lot less on CA/PA and instead focus on performance and attributes. If a lot of players have high PA, while still having average CA, he probably wouldn't play that well and thus no bigger club should have an interest in buying him unless they were short of cash. There would be more chances of finding a late bloomer.

Originally Posted by RBKalle

[Post slightly edited] I know, but when something with the player's growth goes "wrong", the original PA has no real reason to be there, or to be taken into account.

Let's call the new, lower, Potential Ability (or Highest Attainable Ability) "pA" but the core of the issue doesn't change.

Ok, it's more like a matter of CA development, but there are two separate problems I'm addressing.

Late bloomers are impossible in the game because:

1) CA development is rigidly one-way: CA rises, but once the original PA is out of reach, it'll stay out of reach forever.

2) PA is fixed, so a player with relatively low PA will peak around 24 and not move from that level until he starts to get old.

Instead in real life we have tons of examples of players who were considered "lost" or "rubbish" suddenly turning into Top-Level stars.

(in FM language, they filled the gap between their pA and PA)

And players who had been a quiet career well into their 20s and then reached heights they were never "supposed" to be able to reach.

(in FM language, they went over their original PA)

You can see how neither scenario is possible on FM...

A player with stellar PA but with poor mental attributes (or simply a player who has been lost in the shuffle for whatever reason) will NEVER reach close to his original PA

That kind of "late bloomers" will be lucky to land a contract for League One sides once the in-game scouts find out their maximum CA is laughably low compared to the original PA.

The AI scouts and managers just "read" the low "pA" and then avoid signing those players.

P.S. in my original FM10 savegame [started with 10.0] Lukaku ended up on free transfer and was so bad nobody signed him for months.
And there would be no reason to sign him, considering his CA is low and his pA is barely adequate for second-rate leagues.

That's how the CA-pA-PA system works

I've never heard of this "highest attainable ability" before and if this is indeed in the game it needs to be removed.

And regarding late bloomers: Haven't you read the comments from people in this thread concerning a late bloomer? So they do exist in the game, which is what people want. I do agree though, that there should be slightly more of them, especially on a smaller scale ie. a player who is a decent League 2 squad player as a 23-year-old who becomes a regular in the Championship when he is 29.

And people do focus too much on CA and PA. If a player plays well with his attributes what is your problem? It might be down to your tactics (if a player has sub-standard attributes tactics are probably the reason) and thus if he moves to another club or his current club appoints a new manager he probably won't be as good, which is how it works IRL.

**x42bn6** · 09-05-2010 15:44

Originally Posted by edgar555

Talk about twisting my words.
Maybe if I'd used 'pure' rather than 'proper' you might not get on your high horse. I and many others don't mess around with editors and don't care for CA/PA because I don't play it like that. Again I will say that people are welcome to do what they want with their games but to change something for the sake of those that 'mess' with the game is just plain wrong.

SI certainly do not think that way because in the past they have helped editors before not to mention the Editors' Forum.

If something shouldn't be seen it doesn't mean there is absolutely no problem with it, simple.

The problem with PA is that there's a lost "tail" probability that comes as a result of a hard ceiling - i.e. the probability of going 1 CA above your PA is zero compared with the probability of not getting within 20 CA of your PA. For example, you are less likely to reach 141/140 than 119/140 at your peak. I personally do not believe this is quite true because the player irregardless of how he plays and trains will smack into this brick wall.

Originally Posted by edgar555

Your analogy sucks also. Again maybe because I've phrased something badly.
My point wasn't that because you can't see it, its that I don't believe the systems broken.

Your quote:

You know full well what I mean. When the game was designed I'm sure that it wasn't in peoples minds that what we all wanted were 3rd party add ons allowing us to see and fiddle with HIDDEN stats. So as I'm sure you've seen my post before, yes people are allowed to play their game how they like. However there is clearly a 'proper' way.

And I disagree that there is a "proper" way, see above.

Originally Posted by edgar555

I'm currently in my 4th season in the EPL and I have a striker who's started 12 games, made 20 sub appearances (usually for only 10-15 minutes) he's topped 10 goals and 15 assists. I don't know his PA or CA and don't care to, but I would wager his CA is no more than 125 and a PA no more than 140. Still he can perform for a title winning side and get in the national squad. He could conceivably go on to be a world beater IRL and someone would cry that his PA will limit that in game, well I say no it won't because he's already achieving.

Reputation somewhat compensates for the above but a striker that consistently scores will always be considered for a move upwards and possibly "unlocks" a hidden "potential level" by moving upwards (and of course they are more likely to be found out as a rubbish striker in-form, but that's not the case all the time).

Take Carlton Cole - without researchers updating his PA with every data update if you get him to play effectively consistently like he did early-on in the season in real-life he wouldn't be linked with various clubs - he'll just be an effective goalscorer.

If you win the Premier League with a rather average team all those players will get linked with bigger moves yet despite the fact all have comfortably punched above their weight they're always limited by how their "hard-coded" PA is.

----

My solution is rather simple: Soft ceilings and movable PA with a "talent level".

Soft ceilings
Let players break their PA but slowly, so they can continue to develop but it will be hard work. But a player that consistently gets high 7s and has a good attitude will be able to, say, go 10-15 CA higher than their PA and sustain it, so it allows for him to play and develop differently (not just better) should he make a higher career move.

Talent level
When a player develops, instead of testing if they have reached their PA ceiling, test if they have reached some number p such that p is a function of (i.e. generated from) talent level, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, etc. Therefore if a player makes a huge career move (non-League to Premier League, say), the training facilities statistic will increase substantially and therefore his p-value will also increase, possibly substantially. If he gets tutored by Hatem Ben Arfa his professionalism will plummet and therefore his p-value will also drop.

The p-value is essentially a probability distribution possibly like a Normal distribution or negative Weibull distribution with mean/peak the talent level of the player. So if a researcher sets a player to have PA 120, instead they set Talent level to 120 and their true peak CA will be somewhere in this region - not just below it - but on average will be 120. This way it lets peak CA vary not just less-than-or-equal to PA, but slightly greater-than-or-equal to as well.

This way a player is always somewhat constrained by his natural talent but if he finds some niche and has the correct attitude as well as delivering performances on the pitch, he can find a home at a top team, possibly in a limited-yet-effective-within-these-limitations role, which his talent level (i.e. PA) never let him achieve in the first place.

This way players are allowed to overperform (i.e. go above PA) in the same way that they are allowed to fail (i.e. get nowhere near PA), thus completing in some way the "tail" probabilities that are not available as a hard ceiling.

**AB-forever** · 09-05-2010 16:02

We just need the AI teams (and scouts working for human teams) to buy and recommend players based on performances rather than CA/PA/reputation. If that happens I don't think we need to change the CA/PA-system. AI teams use reputation (as well as CA and PA) to decide who to buy and if good performances are rewarded with a bigger reputation increase, the game should behave more realistically.

**x42bn6** · 09-05-2010 16:42

Not really, Chelsea (spit) certainly didn't sign Verón based on performances.

Form is temporary, class is permanent - but form is a funny thing.

**impirion** · 10-05-2010 01:15

My 2 pence on this.

I have seen this very often, and I think the main problem in this is that the Maximum attainable CA seems to only be able to drop, not rise.

Yes there are mistakes, such as Drogba, but I would argue that the system would allow for regens to be late bloomers if the Maximum Attainable CA were to be allowed to increase (up to the PA) as well as drop.

The fact of life is that people can only get as good as a certain level. For example, put me in training at Man United, or Barcelona, and I may improve, but no way will I ever be Blue Square premier standard, let alone Premiership :P. I will however be able to reach my PA, that glass ceiling which my genes have determined. That is the reason I believe there should be a PA, because it does exist in real life.

In terms of late bloomers, if Maximum CA were to be allowed to rise as well as drop, then it could be represented by someone who has an AP of say 170 and CA of 90, but starts off at a lower league club with poor facilities, and for several years, that CA doesn't go up much due to not very good training facilities and maybe some poor performances resulting in him not playing much. This lowers his Maximum CA to 140 say.

After a few years, the player moves to another club, and with a new start gets a good amount of games and starts playing well, raising his CA to its ceiling.

This is where I believe there's a problem. The player now, having found a place to develop should (with hard work) be able to recover some of that lost CA, but it can't because he has reached his maximum attainable CA. If the maximum attainable CA were allowed to rise again (up to his PA) due to good performances at a high level, then I believe this would mirror what one could term a "late bloomer".

Imp

**pleming** · 10-05-2010 04:34

My solution is rather simple: Soft ceilings and movable PA with a "talent level".

Soft ceilings
Let players break their PA but slowly, so they can continue to develop but it will be hard work. But a player that consistently gets high 7s and has a good attitude will be able to, say, go 10-15 CA higher than their PA and sustain it, so it allows for him to play and develop differently (not just better) should he make a higher career move.

Talent level
When a player develops, instead of testing if they have reached their PA ceiling, test if they have reached some number p such that p is a function of (i.e. generated from) talent level, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, etc. Therefore if a player makes a huge career move (non-League to Premier League, say), the training facilities statistic will increase substantially and therefore his p-value will also increase, possibly substantially. If he gets tutored by Hatem Ben Arfa his professionalism will plummet and therefore his p-value will also drop.

The p-value is essentially a probability distribution possibly like a Normal distribution or negative Weibull distribution with mean/peak the talent level of the player. So if a researcher sets a player to have PA 120, instead they set Talent level to 120 and their true peak CA will be somewhere in this region - not just below it - but on average will be 120. This way it lets peak CA vary not just less-than-or-equal to PA, but slightly greater-than-or-equal to as well.

This way a player is always somewhat constrained by his natural talent but if he finds some niche and has the correct attitude as well as delivering performances on the pitch, he can find a home at a top team, possibly in a limited-yet-effective-within-these-limitations role, which his talent level (i.e. PA) never let him achieve in the first place.

This way players are allowed to overperform (i.e. go above PA) in the same way that they are allowed to fail (i.e. get nowhere near PA), thus completing in some way the "tail" probabilities that are not available as a hard ceiling.

Hammer. Meet Head of Nail.

OK, I love this idea... I use Landon Donovan as an example... Let's say in game he's got a PA of 158 at the start of the 2009 season, at LA Galaxy. Let's also assume he's at a CA of around 156 (forgive if I'm off a few points, I'm not near my game. On the road with laptop)... He's not young anymore, he's unlikely to develop unless he... drumroll... moves to Europe and gets coached by better coaches, trains at a better facility, is exposed to better tactics, is playing against better competition.... That his CA could only go up 2 points with such a drastic change in surrounding influences is silly... so if his PA could also go up due to these outside factors he'd be able to grow as a player...

think of it this way... he's learning new things that he's never exposed himself to, and would never see at LA Galaxy and MLS... if he hit his 'ceiling' at LA Galaxy, he'd be no better despite all these new outside factors. that's not realistic...

Also, Dempsey is another example. I know a few versions ago, he was a CA/PA of 140/145-ish... now, he's up into the 150/155-ish range... why? He left MLS and NE Revolution for Fulham! Better league, better training, better coaching, better teammates, better everything (well, except for weather, but that shouldn't affect CA/PA).

I could name a bunch of Yanks that this is true for--- Bocanegra, Guzan... a few years ago, we'd all have agreed that Guzan was capable of only so much as an MLS goalkeeper... now he's in a bigger league, learning from better teammates and viola! He's suddenly got more CA/PA...

Now, I realize that this is all scouting on SI's part, but i think it's proving the point of the poster I quoted above... It certainly seems to explain Drogba. He wasn't going to be 'Drogba' as we know him if he stayed where he was and never came to Chelsea...

**x42bn6** · 10-05-2010 05:03

Donovan is a poor example in some ways as he's barely been in Europe and his first stint was disappointing as he couldn't adapt.

Personally I feel that players at that age will never really develop much - so their "PA" will increase but there's not much point really as they'll gain very little.

The PA jumps also work backwards. Got a talented player with a shocking attitude? His PA will be relatively high but will fall through the leagues quickly if he doesn't change his attitude till the extent that the training facilities and reputation attributes are so poor his PA will be low. But his talent will always be apparent and one day perhaps another manager will give him a chance at a higher level to make up for it. This case, of course, is somewhat covered in the PA/reputation system at present. It's the "reverse case" which isn't.

**thebluesigns** · 10-05-2010 07:06

Originally Posted by arsenal fan 123

Hi guys,

The best case of a average player turning into a world class player would no doubt be Didier Drogba. An average player (if not even under average) during his time before Marseille. Even then, and when he first joined Chelsea, he was possibly just a 'good' player at best. But his coming to form in his third season really shot him up and his name was thrown around as one of the best strikers in the world. Once again this season he has done the same. But if we were playing an early version of FM/CM, before he had established himself at Marseille or moved to Chelsea, he would be, no doubt, a crap footballer to have in your team. I know this for a fact, i tried to recreate the Chelsea 2006/07 squad back in CM3 and Drogba was rubbish.

I think Drogba being rubbish in earlier incarnations of the game is more to do with researchers rather than statistical fact. A more than healthy return of goals in the French top flight for a smaller club (Guingamp) and a similar haul for one of the countries biggest sides who boast a demanding set of fans. Personally, I wouldn't constitute that as being an "under average player". Surely this is just an example of players not being thought of as being any good until they play in England.

Without a doubt, Drogba has achieved more recognition later in his career than he did earlier, but it doesn't mean he was an "average" player in France.

**Fraggle497** · 10-05-2010 16:54

I usually play without the use of editors/genie scouts until I grow bored of a save, then I open them up and take a look and see what I have code wise. I can agree with the chance of players maybe getting better than what they could ideally attain, but at the same time, stats can drop and come back up again so maybe this could be called "late blooming" ?

The potential ability thing doesn't really bother me. If a player is slapped with 120 and thats the highest he'll ever reach then its tough luck for him, but if he plays incredibly when hitting his max, then I won't complain, he does what I wanted him to do - perform at his highest level. I had a regen on one of my saves, he was a Czech AML who had fairly average stats for playing in the brundesliga, but in the 2nd and 3rd tiers of German football he was a god. Though he seemed average for the brundesliga, he netted 20 goals in the season we won the cup. It turned out he had a CA of 130 and PA of 135 (at this point he was 23). He wasn't going to improve any better than what he was, but the fact was he played at the top of his game and tore apart the league. If he would have had a higher PA then, to me it would seem like his best could have still come BUT would he get better than what he is? Personally I think he wouldnt. The PA thing to me is a signpost saying in a perfect game where he wasn't injured at all and had the best possible factors around his development, he'll hit this and be this good.

Its probably been said lots in different ways, but to me, the whole scouting issue on these coded things would work better if it was to act like this:

Under 18 - scouted on PA
18-23 - Scouted on PA and CA
24+ - scouted on CA, possibly on PA if there was room for improvement

To set something like that up though could require too much complexity in the coding or what not (I'm not tech savvy so I don't get the programming part) but generally, if you're looking to sign someone who has passed their prime development phase, you'd want them to be playing near the top of their game or hitting the top of it. Steven pienaar has been fantastic at everton this season, but to me it is because he has adapted to the situation he is in - he has good support from leighton baines on the left and with the absence of Arteta, he has been given more of a run in the team. he didn't play as well last season for me till arteta was out then he was given a chance to shine. As someone mentioned before, players may always have the skill but they seem to refine them with age - Ryan Giggs was awful in the middle of the park as a youngster but now he's older and doesn't have the stamina to play on the wing all game, he's refined himself as a central midfielder so he can play.

Also with players, reputation can be a factor. IRL, a team coming up against Barca will try their best to isolate Messi because of how good he is, but playing against a defensive team, Messi isn't that effective (See Inter/Barca CL matches, he had some moments but was pretty much out of it). Rooney and Drogba are no exception - They have a huge reputation and players will either try to raise their game to stop them or they'll simply let themselves be blown away (I think FM does this if games aren't simmed on full detail, hence why a team with a "fluke" world cup win (Switzerland in my experience) can suddenly become world beaters)

if i've missed the point completely then I'm a tool who just likes rambling on, but i feel that this system is fine, maybe its just the scouting which could be changed slightly to adapt for specific needs

**Kenco** · 10-05-2010 17:05

Has Drogba actually got miles better as a player since he was at Chelsea? Or was he always a big fish in a small pond that went unnoticed at his previous club, and now he is at Chelsea he is getting the goals and recognition because he is supported by a better midfield?

**SCIAG** · 10-05-2010 17:33

He's got miles better in his time at Chelsea, though he may not have improved immediately after his move. The Drogba of the last 3-4 years is far better than the Drogba who played for Chelsea before that, wasted a lot of chances, scored around 10 goals a season, wasn't guaranteed a start, and so forth, but that may be form, adaption and such.

**J.W.** · 10-05-2010 17:34

Just been reading and a bell rang in my head of the FIFA game a few years ago, where each player was either early, standard or late bloomer. (there were a few more options but i cant remember them all) and this worked really well as it was realistic!!

i also think that player's attribute and PA decrease should be more realistic. Long term injuries and lack of playing time should have more of an affect on attributes. e.g. 5 years ago Michael Owen would have been among the best strikers in the game, now hes crap. there is no way in which the game can simulate this. same with ronaldinho and countless others that have fallen by the wayside. maybe attitude should influence it too

**thebluesigns** · 10-05-2010 22:43

Originally Posted by SCIAG

He's got miles better in his time at Chelsea, though he may not have improved immediately after his move. The Drogba of the last 3-4 years is far better than the Drogba who played for Chelsea before that, wasted a lot of chances, scored around 10 goals a season, wasn't guaranteed a start, and so forth, but that may be form, adaption and such.

Wasn't guaranteed a start? Scored around 10 goals a season?

20 goals from 45 appearances for Guingamp in the French top flight (a small team remember), followed by 19 in 35 for Marseille. That's a goal every other game, coincidentally the same record he has at Chelsea. Since joining Chelsea, he's played on average around 30 games a season. Hmmm, it seems that he is just as much a regular in the starting line up now as he was in France.

Remember, Chelsea paid over £20 for him. He already had pedigree.

**Iñaki** · 12-05-2010 15:12

Agree with the OP. A real life example, Pastore was in second or third division in Argentina, nobody knew about him, was bought by Huracan and ended being Champion, after that year he went to Palermo and now is going to the WC. All in 2-3 years from being nobody to playing in a WC.

**Kenco** · 12-05-2010 15:24

Originally Posted by Iñaki

Agree with the OP. A real life example, Pastore was in second or third division in Argentina, nobody knew about him, was bought by Huracan and ended being Champion, after that year he went to Palermo and now is going to the WC. All in 2-3 years from being nobody to playing in a WC.

Playing in the World Cup doesn't have anything to do with his PA.

**RBKalle** · 12-05-2010 16:24

I feel we just need three little-big adjustments:

1) Soft ceiling for PA

2) original PA can always be reached

3) CA should fluctuate (up AND down) more

Let's see how:

1) Under special and relatively rare circumstances a player should be allowed to exceed his original PA by a certain range.
Let's say a +10% for players <140 and +5-8% for players 140-170. Players >170 don't really need a boost I think.

This is more for competent players who, despite playing well and consistently find themselves "trapped", with no chance to improve while their contribution to the game might say otherwise.

And also for real "late bloomers", those who weren't considered future stars from the beginning. Think of the typical Tier 2 striker who finally gets his chance in Tier 1 and manages to keep an impressive scoring form among the big boys.

2) That's quite easy... Currently the game has an hidden "max attainable PA" [pA from now on], which at the beginning (and until 21 or so) is equal to the db PA.
But over time, due to poor mental skills, lack of first team football, poor training, poor league standard etc, the gap bets bigger and bigger.

So it's not unusial finding some free agents who have/had stellar potential, but said potential is gone forever.

Instead I see no reason for that happening... With a transfer to the right place, a "fizzled star" can recapture most of his talent.
Clearly the longer he flounders in lower leagues, the harder it will get, but at least a fair chance should be given to him and to the human manager

3) As far as I can tell, CA can either go up or freeze, but the occurrence of it going noticeably DOWN after a terrible season is rare (if it exist at all... someone can confirm it?)

As my 19yo youngster will improve a lot after some first team football, why can't my 24yo fullback get dramatically worse after one season of awful performances and much benchwarming?
Just to bounce back in style the following season?

So far it looks to me like CA mainly works as a straight line, going up [with varying steepness, even flatlining] UP before hitting the peak and going straight down from there.

We need more up-and-downs

With those three (simple?) changes we can just keep the negative PA while getting more variety and unpredictability.

And the game wouldn't be a constant chase for the next Wonderkid, because even a 27yo player could become a Star for a couple of years.

**RBKalle** · 12-05-2010 16:40

About "late bloomers", this is THE guy who embodies my idea of late bloomer, and something that I don't think it's possible to see in FM as it is now.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_H%C3%BCbner

Debuted in Tier 2 aged 25 and established himself as a solid goalscorer there
Debuted in Serie A aged 30 and became Topscorer at age 35...

That requires, in FM language, at least TWO huge boosts in terms of CA/PA/attributes.

1st: a player who by age 24 has just player lower league football is unlikely to have an high, unfulfilled, PA
2nd: a player who by age 30 hasn't played at the highest level is unlikely to have adequate CA, and likely has peaked already
3rd: a 35 years old who wasn't a WorldClass striker, won't ever be topscorer at top level

So Mr. Hubner here had an odd curve...

CA 110ish at 22
CA 130ish at 27
CA 140ish at 30
CA 150ish at 35

Totally possible in FM

**Kenco** · 12-05-2010 17:23

Originally Posted by RBKalle

About "late bloomers", this is THE guy who embodies my idea of late bloomer, and something that I don't think it's possible to see in FM as it is now.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_H%C3%BCbner

Debuted in Tier 2 aged 25 and established himself as a solid goalscorer there
Debuted in Serie A aged 30 and became Topscorer at age 35...

That requires, in FM language, at least TWO huge boosts in terms of CA/PA/attributes.

1st: a player who by age 24 has just player lower league football is unlikely to have an high, unfulfilled, PA
2nd: a player who by age 30 hasn't played at the highest level is unlikely to have adequate CA, and likely has peaked already
3rd: a 35 years old who wasn't a WorldClass striker, won't ever be topscorer at top level

So Mr. Hubner here had an odd curve...

CA 110ish at 22
CA 130ish at 27
CA 140ish at 30
CA 150ish at 35

Totally possible in FM

I disagree that just because he went up a division and scored more goals that his attributes have to go up as well. It is entirely possible for him to be of equal ability, just playing in a better team under different tactics, that he was able to score more goals.

**x42bn6** · 12-05-2010 17:44

Not that I know how good (or bad) Serie A in general was back then but I do think it's quite a large jump; we're talking solid goalscorer in two tiers over a long period of time. He "peaked" at 35 rather than 27-28 as is usual for a striker. Static PA wouldn't have let that happen.

**Lankylars** · 12-05-2010 18:22

I will agree with those calling for some changes to how CA is attained over time, and the need for different growth paths for players (reaching their peak early, mid, or late career). But a change to PA is unnecessary and unrealistic. Although the idea of a total PA "capping" someone's abilities seems a little abstract, it's completely true and realistic. If I started playing football today for Liverpool, say, it doesn't matter how good the trainers are, how much mentoring Gerrard gives me, how many games I start, etc etc. There are limits to what I can physically and mentally achieve, and this hard limit (though truly impossible for us to know) exists. My muscles will never grow unendingly, allowing me to sprint faster than Walcott. My concentration will never reach that of Raul's, say. I may perform well if I am in the company of other superstars, but this doesn't mean that somehow these innate limits to my abilities have changed.

I think people are somewhat downhearted that a player they favor is "hindered" by a set PA that they can never get beyond. I think that if SI tweaked the CA system, people would not find these issues. Plus, those saying that a flexible PA adjustment system would only move PA up, say, a maximum of five points total over someone's career need to realize that it's the same as having the original PA value set five points higher. A fixed limit has to exist, and PA does this fine as is. The researchers correct their errors in CA/PA evaluations to the best of their abilities.

**x42bn6** · 12-05-2010 20:01

The very reason a cap isn't required is the same way if you were in the game we wouldn't cap your Pace and Acceleration. You may never be as fast as Walcott so we could in theory cap Lankylars's "Potential Pace" and "Potential Acceleration" as, say, 16 and 16.

Of course we don't need to do that. Quite simply in-game the development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development.

Then why can a similar argument not apply for PA? In practice a Blue Square North player will never become the next Lionel Messi but do you need a PA cap to do that, or do you trust your development model and entrust it to ensure that the odds of a Blue Square North player becoming the next Lionel Messi are simply extremely low?

Quite simply there is no need to consider PA as a ceiling but as some sort of measure of "talent". A talented player will in general be better than a less-talented player but we don't need a "cap" to ensure it will happen. We can simply say, "Player A is more talented so the development model will on average ensure Player A will turn out better". And of course such a model will let Player B be even better than Player A on average despite being less talented - such a model doesn't work with a hard PA.

**Lankylars** · 12-05-2010 20:29

I would argue that PA currently serves as both a measure of talent and as a ceiling. Are you stating that FM already has some development model in place that would prevent unrestricted PA growth, or are you suggesting SI needs to add one? PA is a system that, too me, seems relatively simple to work with, which I imagine is quite important when dealing with a database containing thousands of players.

The growth model you're advocating still deals with a PA (unless you are imagining something far different than any model before it). If the player's growth were to be graphed as a line with CA over time, there would still be a maximum it could achieve by the end of his career, even given all "modifiers" to the growth equation, such as training facilities, mentors, playing time, league, etc.

PA always exists, in some form, as a cap, and you even say that the "in-game development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development." PA is simply reflecting the graphical maximum of whatever development model is being used. If people argue that this "max" is reached all too often, then perhaps I'd agree and suggest, as some have, that SI make it harder for a player to finally reach their PA. Regardless, some hard limit always exists.

**TurkzZ** · 12-05-2010 22:59

here here, i agree, the PA/CA system is slightly outdated now, iv long been of the view it needs a revamp

**x42bn6** · 13-05-2010 00:22

Originally Posted by Lankylars

I would argue that PA currently serves as both a measure of talent and as a ceiling. Are you stating that FM already has some development model in place that would prevent unrestricted PA growth, or are you suggesting SI needs to add one? PA is a system that, too me, seems relatively simple to work with, which I imagine is quite important when dealing with a database containing thousands of players.

It may not have a system to stop unlimited growth but what's to stop SI from making one?

"Talent level" is even easier to work with because researchers no longer need to worry about small increments or decrements - just a rough idea of where they will end up and letting the game deal with where they actually end up, be it plus or minus some value around the talent level assigned.

Originally Posted by Lankylars

The growth model you're advocating still deals with a PA (unless you are imagining something far different than any model before it). If the player's growth were to be graphed as a line with CA over time, there would still be a maximum it could achieve by the end of his career, even given all "modifiers" to the growth equation, such as training facilities, mentors, playing time, league, etc.

I'm not disputing there's a maximum CA value obtained throughout a player's career. I'm saying it makes no sense to assign such a value at the start of a career given that in drastic circumstance shifts because the entire circumstance changes and the player may never fall back to a level lower than before to "balance" it out.

Take Chris Smalling - from non-league to Premier League. Unless he suffers an extremely serious injury it's safe to say he'll be in professional football for the rest of his career. His circumstances at the start of his non-league career which gave him a PA value no longer apply to his current set of circumstances.

Originally Posted by Lankylars

PA always exists, in some form, as a cap, and you even say that the "in-game development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development." PA is simply reflecting the graphical maximum of whatever development model is being used. If people argue that this "max" is reached all too often, then perhaps I'd agree and suggest, as some have, that SI make it harder for a player to finally reach their PA. Regardless, some hard limit always exists.

There exists some limit but again does it make sense to consider it from the start of someone's career?

Fixing a hard cap loses the tail probabilities on the other side of PA.

Consider this: The probability of a 90/150 player having CA 100 at his peak is not zero (low perhaps, but still nonzero) - but the probability of him being 1 CA above his PA (i.e. 151/150) is zero. Does that really make sense? In fact, the probability of him being 1/150 is greater than 151/150.

If a car can't go more than 100 mph you don't stick a limiter in "to prove it can't". The car will simply never go beyond 100 mph barring noise (i.e. going downhill, clean brakes, etc.). The manufacturers simply make a car and test it and show that in normal circumstances the car will never exceed 100 mph.

A hard cap allows players to fail but never exceed expectations by biasing one tail.

So to conclude:

- There is obviously a peak CA which will be reached during a player's career
- It makes no sense to consider it solely based on the player's original circumstances
- Circumstances can drastically change and some changes can be permanent (i.e. Chris Smalling), throwing into doubt the idea that tail probabilities are insignificant
- A "talent level" will allow players on average to have a peak roughly around this talent level but allowing them to have a true peak CA distributed with noise about this level - without hard-coding anything in

Or mathematically:

PA = E(f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...))

Talent level = f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...)
E(Talent level) = PA

Of course, E isn't an average in this case but some metric which denotes perhaps the 99% percentile (as we can never be 100% sure about anything).

Does this mean that a Blue Square Premier player can become the next Messi? In theory yes but you are more likely to win the Euromillions in consecutive years for the rest of your life, ignoring development limits.

If the development model is improved hard-coded limits are not required - we simply trust the model.

**Lankylars** · 13-05-2010 05:38

Originally Posted by x42bn6

It may not have a system to stop unlimited growth but what's to stop SI from making one?

"Talent level" is even easier to work with because researchers no longer need to worry about small increments or decrements - just a rough idea of where they will end up and letting the game deal with where they actually end up, be it plus or minus some value around the talent level assigned.

I'm not disputing there's a maximum CA value obtained throughout a player's career. I'm saying it makes no sense to assign such a value at the start of a career given that in drastic circumstance shifts because the entire circumstance changes and the player may never fall back to a level lower than before to "balance" it out.

Take Chris Smalling - from non-league to Premier League. Unless he suffers an extremely serious injury it's safe to say he'll be in professional football for the rest of his career. His circumstances at the start of his non-league career which gave him a PA value no longer apply to his current set of circumstances.

There exists some limit but again does it make sense to consider it from the start of someone's career?

Fixing a hard cap loses the tail probabilities on the other side of PA.

Consider this: The probability of a 90/150 player having CA 100 at his peak is not zero (low perhaps, but still nonzero) - but the probability of him being 1 CA above his PA (i.e. 151/150) is zero. Does that really make sense? In fact, the probability of him being 1/150 is greater than 151/150.

If a car can't go more than 100 mph you don't stick a limiter in "to prove it can't". The car will simply never go beyond 100 mph barring noise (i.e. going downhill, clean brakes, etc.). The manufacturers simply make a car and test it and show that in normal circumstances the car will never exceed 100 mph.

A hard cap allows players to fail but never exceed expectations by biasing one tail.

So to conclude:

- There is obviously a peak CA which will be reached during a player's career
- It makes no sense to consider it solely based on the player's original circumstances
- Circumstances can drastically change and some changes can be permanent (i.e. Chris Smalling), throwing into doubt the idea that tail probabilities are insignificant
- A "talent level" will allow players on average to have a peak roughly around this talent level but allowing them to have a true peak CA distributed with noise about this level - without hard-coding anything in

Or mathematically:

PA = E(f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...))

Talent level = f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...)
E(Talent level) = PA

Of course, E isn't an average in this case but some metric which denotes perhaps the 99% percentile (as we can never be 100% sure about anything).

Does this mean that a Blue Square Premier player can become the next Messi? In theory yes but you are more likely to win the Euromillions in consecutive years for the rest of your life, ignoring development limits.

If the development model is improved hard-coded limits are not required - we simply trust the model.

I understand your thinking, but I think what you are looking for would be better served by SI making it harder to gain CA points as a player draws nearer and nearer to their PA, sort of an asymptote. I should really stop referring back to math - something that boring deserves no mention alongside football. Anyway, your example of the car isn't the best, in my opinion, because it reinforces my earlier point of a hard, physical limit existing to what that car can do - regardless of who drives or what motor oil they use in the engine.

Your probability example does make PA sound, in a way, absurd, by immediately cutting the chance of a player reaching one point higher. But this is why I would advocate a retweaking of the way in which a player nears their max PA - even if it means adjusting some players' PAs higher for this reason. Then, it would not be "biasing one tail", because the the upper limit of the probability distribution would fall right at PA.

So to conclude:
-I believe that we both would like to see the same thing, but see different ways of achieving it.
-I think that PA serves (or should serve) as a useful 'stat', shall I say, of the 99th percentile of that CA probability distribution, again tying into your car example and my earlier athlete example.
-This set limit is useful because, in the absence of real life properties that govern an athlete or a car, a program needs something to define impossible - everything beyond PA.
-I will agree, and concede, that the current growth and/or 'talent' model may not best serve our, or realism's, interests, and thus could use refining. My argument is that a hard-coded PA will always have some use in the game world.

I will also add that perhaps you are looking for the current negative PA system to be applied in-game? As in, that -10 PA player will carry that rating throughout the game with him. In this instance, there is still an absolute maximum (200), however the player's local max can vary.

If I recall, you were the one doing all of the statistical calculations in the headers vs. CB ratings thread? I must say that your logical approach and supported arguments are a welcome read (and debate) instead of most other stuff people fight about on here

.

**chob** · 13-05-2010 08:07

I think the current system is good. The fact that I and others now know about CA and PA has spoilt the game for us. Knowing that we can just check PAs using an editor kind of spoils the game and if im honest i was better off not knowing.

These days i tend to check out PAs but before I did I used to but players on form etc.

I even went back to 1 of my old games I played on FM07 (before I knew of scouts/editors) and checked out my greatest performers PA and CA and was very suprised to see that my top goalscorer for many seasons has CA 165 PA 166. This was with my Milan team.

Now due to my knowledge of the game I won't consider buying anyone below PA 175 which has spoilt it because my above sentence proves that players with lower CA/PA can perform.

**x42bn6** · 13-05-2010 16:06

Originally Posted by Lankylars

I will also add that perhaps you are looking for the current negative PA system to be applied in-game? As in, that -10 PA player will carry that rating throughout the game with him. In this instance, there is still an absolute maximum (200), however the player's local max can vary.

Negative PA is used to account for unknown factors for youngsters (or youngsters that make a huge break - sometimes going from a fixed PA to a negative one), rather than a varied-about-development sort of model. How I would use the negative PA idea is as follows: Take -9 which has midpoint PA 165 - instead of fixing a PA at the start, the player has an unknown (not even the game knows) peak CA centred (or maybe skewed, more players miss the boat than get on early) about 165, with 99% of the time falling in the range 150-180. I think that's a better explanation, should use these more often.

Hard limits are of course sometimes useful. But CA and PA are essentially weighted averages and therefore you can actually remove them as long as these limits can be "computed" in a computer program. In fact, I think CA and PA will vanish from the game within 5 years (bold prediction perhaps?

) as I believe it's simply a computing simplification - CA is a useful computation to have to compare players roughly in the game engine itself. Removing CA would allow managers to personally assign "CA" values to players - Wenger has no love for Samba-like defenders but would like a Vermaelen-like defender, while Big Sam would prefer Samba over Vermaelen. Therefore you could argue that Wenger's "CA" rating for Vermaelen is higher, while for Big Sam it's the other way round. And other various things too.

The reason I don't like negative PAs is nothing to do with that though; it's just that it's not granular enough. Several players in the database could be considered "-8.5" or "-9.5", for example - too good for -8 but not good enough for -9. The other problem is that the ranges are too wide - 30 points is too wide for relatively smaller leagues like Eastern European and Scandinavian leagues. Custom PA ranges for me are the easiest way to fix it - instead of sampling from a predefined range, sample from the range given in the database.

**2000AD** · 13-05-2010 20:50

Don't forget that CA/PA isn't the be all and end all, they limit the total amount of stat points the player will have but which stats those points go into is also just as, if not more important. In my 'cheating' game, where I use FMRTE to find all the best players, I've had 2 190+ PA players fail to develope into effective players due to poor mental and hidden stats, and could have a 3rd on the way with my 197 PA striker having good tech and mental stats, but not a single physical stat over 13, including pace and aceleration both on 9.
On the flip side I have a 170 PA winger regularly providing just as many goals and assists as my 2 190+ wingers, because although he has a lower PA he has developed the vital stats for his role.
With focused training, players which may be just 'good' can become 'world class' in the current system.

**Menion** · 13-05-2010 21:00

I think the main problem here is that the researchers can't really predict PA for players. Unless a player bursts onto the scene at 17/18, it takes years for the researchers to get the PA right. Now this is no fault of the researchers. How can they predict that a player who was average until he was 25/26 will all of a sudden become a world class player. This is why fixed PAs do not work in long term games. Researchers cannot accurately predict how players will turn out.

**tottivillarossi** · 14-05-2010 04:11

I think the fixed pa should be scrapped completely and a player's potential should be instead determined by professionalism/form/etcetcetc.

**x42bn6** · 14-05-2010 05:16

Originally Posted by tottivillarossi

I think the fixed pa should be scrapped completely and a player's potential should be instead determined by professionalism/form/etcetcetc.

Not true, otherwise Dirk Kuyt would be as good as Lionel Messi.

**Lankylars** · 14-05-2010 16:49

Originally Posted by x42bn6

Not true, otherwise Dirk Kuyt would be as good as Lionel Messi.

Don't I wish that were true this past season...

Anyway, I agree with your assessment of a custom PA system and think that, if implemented correctly, it would be an improvement.

**SCIAG** · 14-05-2010 20:38

Originally Posted by Menion

I think the main problem here is that the researchers can't really predict PA for players. Unless a player bursts onto the scene at 17/18, it takes years for the researchers to get the PA right. Now this is no fault of the researchers. How can they predict that a player who was average until he was 25/26 will all of a sudden become a world class player. This is why fixed PAs do not work in long term games. Researchers cannot accurately predict how players will turn out.

Often, when they do make such mistakes, it is perfectly possible for a player to have become that good anyway.

Let's say Fletcher, next season, sets up twenty goals, starts dribbling really well, pinging passes about, and really dominating the midfield. He's a very good player, but there's no way in game he could become a 20 dribbling or even 20 passing player. However, I reckon he could perform as well as one.

Performances>>attributes>>>>CA. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to view it the other way around.

**Brian Shanahan** · 14-05-2010 21:44

Originally Posted by SCIAG

Often, when they do make such mistakes, it is perfectly possible for a player to have become that good anyway.

Let's say Fletcher, next season, sets up twenty goals, starts dribbling really well, pinging passes about, and really dominating the midfield. He's a very good player, but there's no way in game he could become a 20 dribbling or even 20 passing player. However, I reckon he could perform as well as one.

Performances>>attributes>>>>CA. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to view it the other way around.

I second this, one of my more important players is on a CA/PA of 141/148, good ratings but at the level I'm at (challenging La Liga) some of the posters here wouldn't even bother. He's got the stat distribution I want though (except he's a small bit slow). I generally buy high PA players, but it is only when they're at their peak (I know when I see their stats yo-yo for a few months and then settle) that I check.

Search

Thread: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Thread Tools

Display

New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

Re: New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA