A CA/PA Suggestion

Dont know if this is already suggested

but shouldnt a players attitude(eg.Reo-Coker being a good player,but not playing well,so his CA shouldnt go up). be a parameter for reaching his PA.Another thing is that the PA should be fixed,but a players CA should keep on fluctuating on the basis of his form in every season.Who knows Mwarawai(Man City striker),could be hot on form this season,but next season be completely useless.

To sum up I'm saying that,let the PA be fixed,but CA be based on the last seasons performances and overall player attitude.(lazy,determined).

A lazy player,will never or after a long time reach his PA.But a determined player will easily achieve it

Or just keep the CA/PA on the basis of the players attitudes,and performances.Nothing fixed,just have a hidden stat,called Natural/Gifted Ability(1-20).Who have 15 above are gifted and the better talented players

Dont know if this is already suggested

but shouldnt a players attitude(eg.Reo-Coker being a good player,but not playing well,so his CA shouldnt go up). be a parameter for reaching his PA.Another thing is that the PA should be fixed,but a players CA should keep on fluctuating on the basis of his form in every season.Who knows Mwarawai(Man City striker),could be hot on form this season,but next season be completely useless.

To sum up I'm saying that,let the PA be fixed,but CA be based on the last seasons performances and overall player attitude.(lazy,determined).

A lazy player,will never or after a long time reach his PA.But a determined player will easily achieve it

Or just keep the CA/PA on the basis of the players attitudes,and performances.Nothing fixed,just have a hidden stat,called Natural/Gifted Ability(1-20).Who have 15 above are gifted and the better talented players

pa is fixed and ca does change :S

as far as i know anyway

CA changes rapidy in the 19-23 period,and then decreases after the 31-retirement period.So it is sorta fixed.

I'm suggesting a changing CA every season,according to his performances and his attitude

Btw if people don't know Mwarawai is Benjani.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

CA changes rapidy in the 19-23 period,and then decreases after the 31-retirement period.So it is sorta fixed.

I'm suggesting a changing CA every season,according to his performances and his attitude </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A player's CA will generally continue to increase throughout his career until it reaches his PA - it'll show the greatest increase before his 24th birthday (in general, although of course there are late bloomers), and will begin to decline in general once he passes a certain age.

I'm not really sure what your point is though from this thread. PA is fixed and CA does fluctuate from season to season depending on a number of factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To sum up I'm saying that,let the PA be fixed,but CA be based on the last seasons performances and overall player attitude.(lazy,determined). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is prety much how the game works it at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing fixed,just have a hidden stat,called Natural/Gifted Ability(1-20).Who have 15 above are gifted and the better talented players </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this not essentially what PA represents at the moment? Only on a 1-200 scale rather than 1-20.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

CA changes rapidy in the 19-23 period,and then decreases after the 31-retirement period.So it is sorta fixed.

I'm suggesting a changing CA every season,according to his performances and his attitude </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A player's CA will generally continue to increase throughout his career until it reaches his PA - it'll show the greatest increase before his 24th birthday (in general, although of course there are late bloomers), and will begin to decline in general once he passes a certain age.

I'm not really sure what your point is though from this thread. PA is fixed and CA does fluctuate from season to season depending on a number of factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To sum up I'm saying that,let the PA be fixed,but CA be based on the last seasons performances and overall player attitude.(lazy,determined). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is prety much how the game works it at the moment.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nothing fixed,just have a hidden stat,called Natural/Gifted Ability(1-20).Who have 15 above are gifted and the better talented players </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this not essentially what PA represents at the moment? Only on a 1-200 scale rather than 1-20.

You pretty much summed up how the system works now. A lazy player wont always reach his potential because of it.

BUT the CA rises once,and falls only once

and thats when he's young,and then he's old

i'm saying ups and downs in the CA

I can see your point, but the only CA that should change throughout the season is the physical and possible mental stats. Should be easily fixable with training. Look at the Tottenham team under Ramos this season for the perfect example. All their players' tackling/finishing etc ability didnt change a heck of a lot. But mental attitude and physical prowess has turned them around. Robbie Keane doesn't finish any better; Huddlestone doesn't tackle or pass any better - they just do it [fairly] consistently throughout the game now rather than a good half-hour then going on holiday as they did under Jol.

HOWEVER, with the minor bugs in the game at present, I can't see this working. It's just too complicated and variable and open to bugs; the smallest, most minor error could wreck your season and fill this forum with swearing and name calling aimed at SI.

Nice idea, though.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

BUT the CA rises once,and falls only once

and thats when he's young,and then he's old

i'm saying ups and downs in the CA </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's incorrect though. CA rises (and falls) throughout a players career, not just once. The biggest changes will occur at the start and end of his career but CA will continue to change throughout, even if it is only by small increments.

I don't know where you've heard that it only rises and falls once but you've almost certainly been misinformed. If you like, download one of the programs such as FM Scout and track a players CA over the length of his career and you'll see it continues to change throughout.

it only increases IMO

Can someone please confirm

CA does change relative to a players performance. There was an AI experiment, based on the infamous 'bandits' season, created and monitored for a long long time. every player that was generated that arrived with the bandits had their CA monitored and progress or lack of could be seen. the two 'wildcard' players (perfect ability but bad attitude) were brilliant stat wise but never gor near their full potential. also, regen players sometimes wouldnt reach their potential based on their attitude. This shows that playes who are lazy wont reach their PA and their CA will fluctuate.

I think PA should fluctuate as well more depending on ambition and will, success... why doesnt it...

I dont think PA should change teams would spend millions on a top potential only to see him collapse Big teams with good training facilities would spend pennies for any player then have a multi million player in no time? I dont get much change re CA In my players how can I get into it?

Do you tell players to do what theyre good at or what they cant do in matches i.e. finishing shoot or bad stamina run and run

i dont think it should increase and decrease, i think your confusing this with form. becuase your a bit lazy doesnt mean your skills g odown it just means you may not put those skls to good use. if benjani plays poorly next season does that mean his shooting,pace,composure ect have al got worse? no it just means for some reason his form has dipped.

Surely a players PA should change, take someone at a really really low club and their like 15/16. Pretend they look really good for their age and their CA is about 110 already, but then their PA is only 120. Surely if that player moved to somewhere like barcelona who have great youth training facilities their PA would change.

Staying at the crappy club yeah his PA probably will be 120, but at a huge club like barcelona.. being tutored by the likes of Henry (if a striker) their PA will defiantly be a lot higher.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted bt turn it upto 11:-

i dont think it should increase and decrease, i think your confusing this with form. becuase your a bit lazy doesnt mean your skills g odown it just means you may not put those skls to good use. if benjani plays poorly next season does that mean his shooting,pace,composure ect have al got worse? no it just means for some reason his form has dipped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability is a given, form isn't and that's the one thing this game currently can't replicate (not a criticism, just an observation). Sure there is a consistency rating but you still see player's CA/attributes change from database to database because they didn't play as well from one season to the next. If a player can do it one season then theoretically he has the ability to do it again, but real life football is so complex that the number of variables involved that affect a player's performance can all change from match to match and from season to season.

It's a very difficult thing to implement in a deterministic code and is one of the reasons why if you have a player with a high rated CA then by and large he can perform to that level consistently in FM even when his real life counterpart can be going through a slump (obvious example being Ronaldinho, another one Shevchenko). The complexity of it and the impact of pyschological factors just isn't easily replicated. I think Morale and Consistency effects are as close to real life as we are going to get in FM (for now anyway).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Muncey:

Surely a players PA should change, take someone at a really really low club and their like 15/16. Pretend they look really good for their age and their CA is about 110 already, but then their PA is only 120. Surely if that player moved to somewhere like barcelona who have great youth training facilities their PA would change.

Staying at the crappy club yeah his PA probably will be 120, but at a huge club like barcelona.. being tutored by the likes of Henry (if a striker) their PA will defiantly be a lot higher. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To add on to what i put here i'd like to give a good example. Ashley Chambers for Leicester. Starts off about 16/17, looks very very promising to be a great english national player. Finishing of about 17 and long shots of about 18 already aswell as some other good attributes. But when you look, his PA is only about 50/100 more than his CA... which is pretty damn low for a 17 year old. Now move this already pretty good 17 year old to a team such as barcelona, get him tutored and i think his PA should change. I defiantly think PA should change for young players depending what team their at is like coaching wise. I've seen a lot of young players who look great but their current club is really poor and their CA is pretty much their PA already, at the age of like 16/17. You can't tell me that if players like that went to barcelona and if coaches took the time to work with him aswell as him being tutored he wouldn't improve?

Muncey this debate has happened many times and the fundamental argument against what you are saying is part of the nature vs nurture debate, and quite frankly people a hell of a lot smarter than me who have spent their lives studying this still have not reached agreement on it.

Basically it is a game. Players need to have a fixed PA because the database needs to remain balanced in terms of the spread of quality of players.

Second to that is then any top club could sign whatever crap they wanted and turn them into a world beater which again would make for a messed up database. To add to that argument have a search on the web for former Man Utd/Barcelona etc youth players/reserve youngsters and see how many of them have turned into world beaters.

Thirdly variable PA is in fact in the game in that if you never used a third party tool to look at these values you would see players who had the potential move to top clubs and fulfill that potential because of top facilities/coaching and exposure to higher level football. Now take that same player with low professionalism, ambition and who never moves to a big club with identical CA/PA and he will never reach his potential. So you have a variable PA by proxy.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth about this, but will say that regardless of whether you are in the 'nature' camp, 'nurture' camp or the camp that believes it is a dynamic mixture of both, the same argument about the need for PA to keep the database balanced in the virtual FM world stands.

I never said world beaters, i just feel players with attributes like ashley chambers should improve more at a club like barcelona/united/chelsea then they would at Leicester.

I agree a lot of their youth players aren't doing that well now, but how do we know how much they've improved?

It's not about being crap and turning into a world beater, it's about how much you can possibly improve.

15 year old with PA 100 and CA 85. I've seen players at 28/29 still improving. You can't tell me that if that 15 year old went to barcelona and was with them for 10 years his PA would still be 100.

Maybe this is a case of young players who have good CA's having such poor PA's... i don't know.

I just feel theres too many really young players with really bad PA's but for their age really good CA's.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted bt turn it upto 11:-

i dont think it should increase and decrease, i think your confusing this with form. becuase your a bit lazy doesnt mean your skills g odown it just means you may not put those skls to good use. if benjani plays poorly next season does that mean his shooting,pace,composure ect have al got worse? no it just means for some reason his form has dipped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability is a given, form isn't and that's the one thing this game currently can't replicate (not a criticism, just an observation). Sure there is a consistency rating but you still see player's CA/attributes change from database to database because they didn't play as well from one season to the next. If a player can do it one season then theoretically he has the ability to do it again, but real life football is so complex that the number of variables involved that affect a player's performance can all change from match to match and from season to season.

It's a very difficult thing to implement in a deterministic code and is one of the reasons why if you have a player with a high rated CA then by and large he can perform to that level consistently in FM even when his real life counterpart can be going through a slump (obvious example being Ronaldinho, another one Shevchenko). The complexity of it and the impact of pyschological factors just isn't easily replicated. I think Morale and Consistency effects are as close to real life as we are going to get in FM (for now anyway). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree. A few years ago I had a debate on CA/PA with a group of members, and they, like you, and many others, feel that the current structure is fine, where a player has a CA, and tries to achieve a PA. I on the other hand feel this system is flawed. Let me just analyze a few of the key factors which I'm talking about here...

Youth

I find it very odd how the game can know how good a young player is going to be, before he has even stepped foot on the pitch. On league reset dates, an Nth number of Regens are created, all with static P/A's. When thinking about this in more detail, I find this a very lax structure. Heres an example from me......

Player A

C/A - 25

P/A - 75

So here we have two values assigned to a player, than can no longer excel out of the consignments he has been given.

Lets assume said player is a Striker. and his P/A parameter only allows his Shooting stat to reach 13.* So now, according to the game, no matter what this guy does, in training or otherwise, he will never get higher than this. Comparatively, In real life, theres a lot he could do to further his shooting ability. Training is the first thought, but besides that, he could just get more natural through experience. A part of the game I feel is completely let down is how the Mental attributes rise with experience, but the technical stats don't. A few prime examples of older players getting better technically with age would be Zola and Bergkamp. Its undeniable that they are to of the greatest players to have graced the Premier League, and they only got better with age. If they WERE consigned a "Shooting" stat, they would have broken through it.

On top of the fact that, at such a young age who can tell if a player is going to have a P/A of 2 or 200? No scout, manager or player in the world can guarantee that a Young Hot shot is going to be world class, just the same as they can't say that a player playing in League 2 ISN'T going to be world class. You never really know, because ultimately, its down to the player how good they can be.

For me, another perfect example is Cesc Fabregas. A 16 year old that Wenger gave a chance. Now I'm not entirely sure what his P/A was 4 years ago in the game, but I assure you, its higher now. Which brings me to the OP's point - If SI set their P/A values by way of seasonal performances. (Just like fabregas) and by this I mean, (Just to further the OPs point) Now that Benjani has had such a great season, the chances are his P.A bracket will be higher next season, (and more than likely his C/A) - on the back of one good season, then why cant FM in-game do this too?

As stated, 15 year old promoted through the youth ranks of AFC Wimbledon could go on to be the greatest ever player, Given the right training and tutoring (and I don't mean player tutoring). But more than likely, he will be assigned a random P/A of no more than 50-80. How can you judge that? Seriously?

I understand the game has to have boundaries, and if we follow my example as definite, then potentially you could train every player to be world class as long as you get them from a young age, and I'm not asking for that, I'm just asking for SI to take into consideration that a 15 year olds P/A should NOT have a static value.

One last thing I'm going to mention, something that I haven't been able to let go since I last wrote on this subject.

Physical Attributes

I can't, haven't and wont, for the life of me ever understood how these can be set. If a player maxes his P/A and his strength is only 10, whats stopping him from going to the gym a bit more and bolstering up? Same scenario, but with Stamina. And again, this largely comes down to training facilities. But whats stopping him from getting on the treadmill for an hour a day and getting extra stamina? You can't honestly tell me that a players physical attributes can be set in stone.

On that note, I understand Drogba will never be as fast as Walcott (Age aside) which brings under scrutiny the whole 1-20 ratings thing (A different argument altogether) - but to say "He will run at pace 13 max, for the rest of his days" is just ludicrous.

*I understand, (or at least for FM06 this was true) that with the right style of training, you can increase the stats by 3 more points)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Basically it is a game. Players need to have a fixed PA because the database needs to remain balanced in terms of the spread of quality of players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope thats a joke? In long term games, the database couldn't be further from a "balanced" spread of quality players.

I know I said I wasn't going to get into a back and forth but just to say world beaters was an exaggeration, but the point still stands.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It's not about being crap and turning into a world beater, it's about how much you can possibly improve.

15 year old with PA 100 and CA 85. I've seen players at 28/29 still improving. You can't tell me that if that 15 year old went to barcelona and was with them for 10 years his PA would still be 100.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See what I posted about the nature vs nurture debate for my response to this. It's all about opinions but cards on the table, neither I nor you are in any position to comment on which theory holds true since all we base our opinions on is general observations that are anecdotal rather than scientific. Unless of course you do in fact research this for a living, in which case I withdraw my previous remark.

To relate to the FM world (these are the most base explanations of these things):-

Nature => everybody is born with a certain potential (intellectually, physically, creatively etc) and there is nothing that can be done to make a person reach beyond that potential => fixed PA

Nurture => everybody is born with the potential to be anything they want and it can be achieved with the right development path => variable PA

Your opinion on which it should be is your opinion, but as I said unless you research this for a living then your opinion doesn't hold any scientific value (that includes me and is not meant as an insult to you in any way shape or form )

If you feel a player's PA is too low then that is an argument to have with the official researcher in the Data Issues forum, or alternatively change it yourself using the editor. For whatever reasons they have decided that a given player is close to their potential despite their young age, and it is from them that you will get the reasons for Ashley Chambers (or whichever player you have this opinion of) having so little room for improvement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by isuckatfm:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted bt turn it upto 11:-

i dont think it should increase and decrease, i think your confusing this with form. becuase your a bit lazy doesnt mean your skills g odown it just means you may not put those skls to good use. if benjani plays poorly next season does that mean his shooting,pace,composure ect have al got worse? no it just means for some reason his form has dipped. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ability is a given, form isn't and that's the one thing this game currently can't replicate (not a criticism, just an observation). Sure there is a consistency rating but you still see player's CA/attributes change from database to database because they didn't play as well from one season to the next. If a player can do it one season then theoretically he has the ability to do it again, but real life football is so complex that the number of variables involved that affect a player's performance can all change from match to match and from season to season.

It's a very difficult thing to implement in a deterministic code and is one of the reasons why if you have a player with a high rated CA then by and large he can perform to that level consistently in FM even when his real life counterpart can be going through a slump (obvious example being Ronaldinho, another one Shevchenko). The complexity of it and the impact of pyschological factors just isn't easily replicated. I think Morale and Consistency effects are as close to real life as we are going to get in FM (for now anyway). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to disagree. A few years ago I had a debate on CA/PA with a group of members, and they, like you, and many others, feel that the current structure is fine, where a player has a CA, and tries to achieve a PA. I on the other hand feel this system is flawed. Let me just analyze a few of the key factors which I'm talking about here...

Youth

I find it very odd how the game can know how good a young player is going to be, before he has even stepped foot on the pitch. On league reset dates, an Nth number of Regens are created, all with static P/A's. When thinking about this in more detail, I find this a very lax structure. Heres an example from me......

Player A

C/A - 25

P/A - 75

So here we have two values assigned to a player, than can no longer excel out of the consignments he has been given.

Lets assume said player is a Striker. and his P/A parameter only allows his Shooting stat to reach 13.* So now, according to the game, no matter what this guy does, in training or otherwise, he will never get higher than this. Comparatively, In real life, theres a lot he could do to further his shooting ability. Training is the first thought, but besides that, he could just get more natural through experience. A part of the game I feel is completely let down is how the Mental attributes rise with experience, but the technical stats don't. A few prime examples of older players getting better technically with age would be Zola and Bergkamp. Its undeniable that they are to of the greatest players to have graced the Premier League, and they only got better with age. If they WERE consigned a "Shooting" stat, they would have broken through it.

On top of the fact that, at such a young age who can tell if a player is going to have a P/A of 2 or 200? No scout, manager or player in the world can guarantee that a Young Hot shot is going to be world class, just the same as they can't say that a player playing in League 2 ISN'T going to be world class. You never really know, because ultimately, its down to the player how good they can be.

For me, another perfect example is Cesc Fabregas. A 16 year old that Wenger gave a chance. Now I'm not entirely sure what his P/A was 4 years ago in the game, but I assure you, its higher now. Which brings me to the OP's point - If SI set their P/A values by way of seasonal performances. (Just like fabregas) and by this I mean, (Just to further the OPs point) Now that Benjani has had such a great season, the chances are his P.A bracket will be higher next season, (and more than likely his C/A) - on the back of one good season, then why cant FM in-game do this too?

As stated, 15 year old promoted through the youth ranks of AFC Wimbledon could go on to be the greatest ever player, Given the right training and tutoring (and I don't mean player tutoring). But more than likely, he will be assigned a random P/A of no more than 50-80. How can you judge that? Seriously?

I understand the game has to have boundaries, and if we follow my example as definite, then potentially you could train every player to be world class as long as you get them from a young age, and I'm not asking for that, I'm just asking for SI to take into consideration that a 15 year olds P/A should NOT have a static value.

One last thing I'm going to mention, something that I haven't been able to let go since I last wrote on this subject.

Physical Attributes

I can't, haven't and wont, for the life of me ever understood how these can be set. If a player maxes his P/A and his strength is only 10, whats stopping him from going to the gym a bit more and bolstering up? Same scenario, but with Stamina. And again, this largely comes down to training facilities. But whats stopping him from getting on the treadmill for an hour a day and getting extra stamina? You can't honestly tell me that a players physical attributes can be set in stone.

On that note, I understand Drogba will never be as fast as Walcott (Age aside) which brings under scrutiny the whole 1-20 ratings thing (A different argument altogether) - but to say "He will run at pace 13 max, for the rest of his days" is just ludicrous.

*I understand, (or at least for FM06 this was true) that with the right style of training, you can increase the stats by 3 more points) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great post mate

you've stated my points

OK

Take Mark Noble for example.Why do the West ham fans love him,he might not be skillful like Lampard,but he is determined and tries.And that determination is shown in his performances.When Lampard was at West Ham,he was lazy,didnt want to play.Was gifted,but did he fulfill it.No.Some more seasons there,playing without heart,he would have declined.

06/07-Tevez was friggin determined to score a goal for West ham,he eventually did it.

Who knows Noble will surpass his 'PA',because of determination.Bentley to didnt look talented at Arsenal,but now isnt he called a good player

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

OK

Take Mark Noble for example.Why do the West ham fans love him,he might not be skillful like Lampard,but he is determined and tries.And that determination is shown in his performances.When Lampard was at West Ham,he was lazy,didnt want to play.Was gifted,but did he fulfill it.No.Some more seasons there,playing without heart,he would have declined.

06/07-Tevez was friggin determined to score a goal for West ham,he eventually did it.

Who knows Noble will surpass his 'PA',because of determination.Bentley to didnt look talented at Arsenal,but now isnt he called a good player </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're getting a little confused there. No looking good at one club, but great at another has nothing to do with static P/A IMO. It just means that at Arsenal, bentlys CA was only at 50% of his PA, but at Blackburn, its closer to 100% - and the same goes for Frank Lampard. Completely different scenario, imvho.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

OK

Take Mark Noble for example.Why do the West ham fans love him,he might not be skillful like Lampard,but he is determined and tries.And that determination is shown in his performances.When Lampard was at West Ham,he was lazy,didnt want to play.Was gifted,but did he fulfill it.No.Some more seasons there,playing without heart,he would have declined.

06/07-Tevez was friggin determined to score a goal for West ham,he eventually did it.

Who knows Noble will surpass his 'PA',because of determination.Bentley to didnt look talented at Arsenal,but now isnt he called a good player </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're getting a little confused there. No looking good at one club, but great at another has nothing to do with static P/A IMO. It just means that at Arsenal, bentlys CA was only at 50% of his PA, but at Blackburn, its closer to 100% - and the same goes for Frank Lampard. Completely different scenario, imvho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but what about Noble.Not that skillful,but can play good football,because of his determination

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

OK

Take Mark Noble for example.Why do the West ham fans love him,he might not be skillful like Lampard,but he is determined and tries.And that determination is shown in his performances.When Lampard was at West Ham,he was lazy,didnt want to play.Was gifted,but did he fulfill it.No.Some more seasons there,playing without heart,he would have declined.

06/07-Tevez was friggin determined to score a goal for West ham,he eventually did it.

Who knows Noble will surpass his 'PA',because of determination.Bentley to didnt look talented at Arsenal,but now isnt he called a good player </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're getting a little confused there. No looking good at one club, but great at another has nothing to do with static P/A IMO. It just means that at Arsenal, bentlys CA was only at 50% of his PA, but at Blackburn, its closer to 100% - and the same goes for Frank Lampard. Completely different scenario, imvho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

but what about Noble.Not that skillful,but can play good football,because of his determination </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not that skilful, but maybe because his C/A is low? I don't think debating players IRL on a C/A v P/A status is worth the hassle, because you just cant judge. And thats exactly the point about having variable P/A in game. You cant judge.

iscukatfm - While I am in disagreement with you over this , I do have to agree on the fact that P/A should not be seen by gamers, and that in itself makes it variable.

However, thanks to Genie, Mini, FMM and even the Data Editor (To some extent) - this discussion has aroused, and answer are to be had.

@ Nepenthez

I'm not going to quote everything you said so as not to clog up the thread but let me state that I do not disagree with you on many of the points. I did not say I think the system is fine, but stated that the CA/PA concept in of itself is a good way to maintain the database assuming it works the way I believe it works (again having no knowledge of the code my theory on how it works may well be completely wrong).

But as you said the linking of certain attributes to CA/PA does not make any sense in the real world. Your examples of strength and stamina are exactly the ones I think should be separated from CA/PA in some manner. The way pace/acceleration work I also have issues with.

Again I'm not disagreeing with the idea of real life players who have PAs that have changed from year to year a la Fabregas. All I am saying is that from a programming perspective the CA/PA model to me as it stands is the most efficient way to keep the distribution of players aligned, as well as not adding to the processing time required to decide which actual players should have their PA change and for what reasons. That's all I am saying.

To the Striker example I refer you to my previous posts on nature vs nurture. I am not in a position that my opinion holds any kind of weight, but personally I think it is a combination of both. As I said my argument was not about the realism or not of the system as for me this depends on where you fall in the debate, and as I said before unless you research this area for a living your opinion is meritless (I use 'your' not in direct reference to you but in general, and I include myself in that bracket). My argument was that it is the most efficient way to have it working and does in fact have a variable PA by proxy.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by Nepenthez:-

I hope thats a joke? In long term games, the database couldn't be further from a "balanced" spread of quality players. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again no argument here. I think that theoretically CA/PA is used to keep the database balanced as that makes most sense to me, but at the same time if that indeed is the intention then it is not working as well as it could be. I've posted on players aging and could post similarly on lack of development/slow development of youngsters by looking at the database using MiniScout. But as I said this is all based on my theory of how it works based on observation and could be completely wrong.

To sum up I don't disagree with the idea of a variable PA as that is my opinion on the nature vs nurture debate. But if SI are on the nature side of the argument then you will never see variable PA (unless some new staff come in ). If SI are not firmly in the nature camp, then the optimist in me would hope that they have looked into ways of having variable PA but for whatever reasons have decided against it (processing time, bugs, complexity of the calculations, effect on the scouting system etc.)

My brain and fingers hurt after that

Just to clarify before I get flamed to within an inch of my life, when I said opinions are meritless I meant from a purely scientific perspective. It came across as 'I think you are an idiot and your opinion is therefore meritless' which was not my intention, so if I offended anyone please accept my apologies.

My opinion on fixed vs variable PA is also meritless because I have never studied nor researched this area, nor do I have any scientific research to back it up. It is purely observational/anecdotal.

Again sorry for any offence caused

isuckatfm

Don't worry, nobody to offense to your subliminal shot at the forums

I agree, perhaps the thought of variable P/A's would host a plethora of problems, but the realist in me would prefer that, over the current system. (Until naturally, when all the bugs are causing my game to be carp, I ask for the "old system" back ).

I'm not even asking for complete variation. Just a little bracketed section, mainly for young players, to allow P.A to be determined over the early years of their career, and not on the day they think they want to be a footballer. Also, as you stated, the whole Physical side of the argument needs to be dealt with, (by that, I don't mean we're going to set up a stand off a la 'Anchorman' with SI and battle it out) - and shouldn't be affected by P.A

While its in my head, my other argument on Physical attributes is this.

The premiership is known for its bunch of handbaglads running and dropping at first contact. Yet League 2 and lower, is like playing rugby with your feet, yet rarely, in FM do you see a League 1/2 player with great physical attributes, when in my very honest opinion, that is one of the only areas that caliber of player should be "good" in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by Nepenthez:-

The premiership is known for its bunch of handbaglads running and dropping at first contact. Yet League 2 and lower, is like playing rugby with your feet, yet rarely, in FM do you see a League 1/2 player with great physical attributes, when in my very honest opinion, that is one of the only areas that caliber of player should be "good" in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the crux of the issue right there. There is absolutely no reason in real life that a player in the lower leagues could not have the stamina of a marathon runner or the pace of an olympic 100m runner, but in game the CA/PA system makes that very very unlikely. And even if they do have high physical attributes the CA/PA system as it stands will mean all their other attributes will be so bad as to make them redundant as a virtual footballer.

I remember on one thread about this someone from SI mentioned Henry as the perfect example of why pace (and other physical attributes) should be linked to CA i.e. would Henry be the player he was without his speed. It is a strong argument in of itself, but it doesn't mean that there are no lower league players out there who are just as quick. Yet if a researcher makes that decision then he will have to drop the other attributes of this League 2 'fast as Henry' player to make the fit, in other words the CA model tells the researcher that the values he sees in a real life player are not possible within the constraints of the CA/PA system in the FM world.

To me that makes no sense but I suppose they have to have some control that is automated so that researchers don't go overboard and give attributes that will 'break' the match engine (Dean Ashton and Kaka are examples of players with lower physical attributes than the researchers wanted to give them because of the CA system and how they would perform in the match engine).

And then to add to the difficulty of it is how do you quantify attributes based purely on observation? I remember I was watching Wigan against Man Utd some time ago and Tevez was playing. Tevez had just tore my defence apart in the FM world because of his pace yet as I was watching the match I saw him and Kevin Kilbane running after the same ball and they were more or less right beside each other when they reached the ball. Yet in the game Tevez has pace of 16 and Kilbane 11. Was that a one off? I honestly don't know but did Kilbane's CA rating mean the researcher couldn't give him physical attributes that would match up with real life? Again I don't know.

I guess it depends on how the researchers work. Do they go CA then attributes or do they assign attributes and then readjust to fit CA? But when they can't assign attributes based on their honest judgement for fear of over performing players in the match engine, then for me this points to a problem. Whether that's a match engine problem or a problem with perception of what the attribute values actually mean (i.e. how they translate to the real world and vice versa), as before I don't know .

I am definitely with you on the variable PA thing though as it would make the evolution of the in game database from one season to the next more like the evolution in the database from version to version. If they could pull it off without the whole thing crashing to the ground, it would make for a much more interesting long term game. But having written that one thought crosses my mind: How would you feel if one of your youth players suddenly had a drop in PA (as judged by your coaches)? There would need to be a specific reason for this to occur, and it would have to be communicated to the Human manager to prevent them feeling robbed.

Love these arguments For the life of me cannot get my head round how anyone can argue that an individual's PA is variable, even in real life. The whole, 'but look at player x, he got much better late in his career' argument falls flat, if you consider that he simply hadn't reach his PA until then.

I do agree that the variations in rate and scope of development could be increased enourmously.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">originally posted by bermybhoy:-

Love these arguments For the life of me cannot get my head round how anyone can argue that an individual's PA is variable, even in real life. The whole, 'but look at player x, he got much better late in his career' argument falls flat, if you consider that he simply hadn't reach his PA until then. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true if you assume that fixed PA exists in real life and therefore should do so in the game, but it still comes down to nature vs nurture and even the experts have not reached a consensus on which has a greater influence.

I think the issue is not the idea of PA but the exactness of it in game. So for example Nepenthez uses Fabregas as an example and points to PA changing for him from version to version. In this case the fixed PA argument would not be that his PA has changed but that the researcher got it wrong in the first place.

So this brings us to the judgement of players in game. So

A fixed PA system but less accurate judgement by scouts/coach reports

would give us the same effect as a player's PA changing from one version to the next (i.e. from one season to the next in a save game). But as I stated earlier if we had no access to PA values then we do indeed have that system in place. Staff reports have become much more unpredictable than previous versions thus without looking at PA you can have a circumstance where a player's PA as judged by a staff report does indeed vary. Whether or not the current system is too accurate or too consistent in terms of how staff reports judge players is up for debate, but it has improved on the far too precise scouting of FM 2007 where with the right scout every player you signed turned into a star because your scout said he would.

P.S. I realise my posts seem schizophrenic as I jump from one side of the argument to the other but my defense is I am terrible at making my mind up

Also this system works perfectly for regens since you have no preconceived notion of them as a player and no comparisons to make, but does allow for the forming of arguments against the system based on real life players and how their PA changes from one version to the next. Until the day researchers gain the ability to see into the future (maybe we should round some up and bury them in the snow so that they wake up in the future like Cartman in South Park ), the variable PA opinion will always have a strong foundation for it's argument because researchers are fallible and will get PA judgements wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by isuckatfm:

That is true if you assume that fixed PA exists in real life and therefore should do so in the game, but it still comes down to nature vs nurture and even the experts have not reached a consensus on which has a greater influence.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you've picked the hole in my argument. I don't get how experts (whoever they are) are debating it either. As far as I can see, there's only so good you get at anything. Most things in life, you will never, ever reach that potential regardless or circumstance, but given the appropriate dedication and right conditions, you will come as close to it as you can. I mean, who knows for sure that Pele actually ever got to his potential? Maybe he could have been a bit better?

Anyway. I basically agree with the rest of it, although cryogenically freezing all your researchers now is a flawed principle, it would surely just leave a lack of researchers I think what you're looking for are time travelling ones. But even then, they wouldn't know that each player had maxed out his potential, would they?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> originally posted by bermybhoy:-

Anyway. I basically agree with the rest of it, although cryogenically freezing all your researchers now is a flawed principle, it would surely just leave a lack of researchers I think what you're looking for are time travelling ones. But even then, they wouldn't know that each player had maxed out his potential, would they? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Researchers are a dime a dozen these days. For the big clubs they are like the head of the mafia, if one gets deposed there are 100s there ready to take his place. As long as we staggered them out each one would be at the right point in time to see every player at the peak of their career, then when they send the numbers back using the 'Crank Prank Time Phone' you could compare them to see what the real potential is.

I realise as I type this how ridiculous it looks that I appear to be debating how to send researchers into the future, but I've typed it so I'll post it

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bermybhoy:

As far as I can see, there's only so good you get at anything.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't disagree more.

To take your point slightly off topic, when Maurice Green ran 9.79 in the 100 Meters in Athens, (99) - no one EVER thought that would be beaten, (as can be said for records before it). But the way the world is evolving, from training equipment, to training techniques, dietary choices and even as far as undetected drugs, who's to say what a boundary is at getting any where? it did take over 8 years before Asafa Powell run the 9.74 (Twice) - but he did it. It was faster, and a new boundary was set that no one from now, "would be able to break". I give it 5 years before someone runs under 9.7

The same can be correlated over to FM. Whose to say that a guy with PA 150 in 2008, cant have PA 170 in 2015, due to the technological advances in world sport? Now obviously, this would be completely impossible to implement into FM (See: isuckatfm's South Park reference) - but it further argues the point that you can. not. assign a person a fixed value as to how good they can get. Its just that simple.

Just a little word of agreement with isuckatfm too, in regards to the Tevez/Kilbane situation. Thats just one that he's seen, but it happens everywhere.

(Excuse so many Arsenal references, but I'm a gooner )

Theo Walcott would be a prime example. His pace and Acceleration are 19/19 - which is fine, but then Gabby Agbonlahor has 20/20. I fail to see how Agbonlahor is faster than walcott, with or without the ball* 0 Walcott is by far and away one of the quickest players I've seen in my life.

* - Which brings me to this. How on earth, after so many installments of FM have we not got the "pace with ball at feet" attribute? Thierry Henry was just as quick with the ball at his feet as without, but on the other hand, Michael Owen, who is blisteringly fast, looks like Tony Adams with a back problem when he had the ball at his feet (Excluding the "Hi, I'm 18 and brilliant so I'll do what I want" goal v Argentina)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NepentheZ:

To take your point slightly off topic, when Maurice Green ran 9.79 in the 100 Meters in Athens, (99) - no one EVER thought that would be beaten, (as can be said for records before it). But the way the world is evolving, from training equipment, to training techniques, dietary choices and even as far as undetected drugs, who's to say what a boundary is at getting any where? it did take over 8 years before Asafa Powell run the 9.74 (Twice) - but he did it. It was faster, and a new boundary was set that no one from now, "would be able to break". I give it 5 years before someone runs under 9.7

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To keep with the analogy, does that mean that you think Asafa Powell is definitely a better sprinter than, say Jesse Owens? What if he had run in this day and age, and had the exact same facilities and knowledge available?

Basically, I still think the 'potential ability' of each was massive. The 'CA' of each varied because of the very factors you mentioned.

Just because you don't know how good someone will be, doesn't mean it's not limited.

No longer sure if this proves the point I was making earlier at all, but it's certainly going further off topic by the post

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by creature_from_ottawa:

it only increases IMO

Can someone please confirm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It can fluctuate, see Kipfizh's Bandits thread for proof.