Potential Ability

[x42bn6]

That's false logic; one does not imply the other.

It does.

A researcher cannot tell the future. Therefore any guess at a player's limit can be wrong (in both directions).

If there was some value (say 170) where the researcher would define a player's limit, that would be wrong because that implies the researcher can tell the future (cannot be greater than 170).

Therefore P(player becomes Messi | researcher makes guess) > 0 - i.e. it is possible, because you never know - that player might turn out to be the next Messi.

Good players aren't limited to top clubs. Simulating a match is not the same as creating a binomial distribution, I don't see why you're equating apples and oranges.

Those are only examples of where a lack of limits does not lead to a lack of balance.

You don't need limits to ensure balance.

Sure, it becomes more difficult, but then again, why is that a customer's problem?

I said it SHOULD create the same result; if it didn't your first point above wouldn't be true. Again this is due to the binomial distribution you'd expect in any population.

You used the word "should" to describe the ideal model, not the difference between the two:

By having a fixed and relatively consistent distribution, the game ensures a good spread of players of varying abilities, with only a few very very top players. That's the way it should be.

The quote you quoted was to do with this:

Now, unless you disagree with that premise, changing the way PA works would simply replace one system - one that's really easy to code and manage because you just assign a single value to each player on creation - with another system that has the same result, but which requires incredibly detailed testing and maintenance. There's no point in simulating something in a complicated way of you can get the same results with a very simple method.

Bold bits added by me which I was referring to when I say "they aren't the same".

See above; if it's not creating the same distribution, you get problems. If it is, you get the same result.

Why do you think the current game's distribution is correct? Could it not be wrong?

The overall distribution might be the same, but the mechanics might be different yet one might still be wrong.

Imagine if the underling FM model was that: Every player is guaranteed to reach their PA and PA is just generated from a random number distribution that exists in FM12 today. The distribution would be exactly the same as the supposedly-perfect model, but this new model is wrong, because it makes no sense to state that every player reaches their PA and PA is generated the same for every single player regardless of where they are.

I'm not sure the distribution of a PA-less model will be exactly the same but I don't see why having the same result as before should be a necessary goal. The distribution needs to be compared against real-life data to justify (or not) realism.

Where didn't you?

I can't prove a negative.

[sjm]

But seriously, if you really are interested in understanding this properly, I'll write you a lengthier explanation later this evening so that you can hopefully understand why it's the correct design choice for a computer game.

If however all you're interested in is evangelising, I won't bother. This isn't a philosophical issue up for debate but a question of how you go about approximating and abstracting real life phenomena. In software design, it's the end result that matters, not how it works under the hood. There are very good reasons for the current system, and equally, there are very good reasons to avoid dynamic PA.

The question is, do you want to understand them and are you willing to accept that FM is all about abstraction; not just in terms of PA but all across the board? If you want real life, you need to go and get your coaching badges

Because you're right, you could implement a different system, but there would be no point apart from that you don't personally like the concept of fixed PA from a philosophical point of view. But that's no different to people not liking the way matches are pre-computed, even though there are loads of design reasons for why it has to be this way, and no difference in terms of results. But this aversion is purely a philosophical one; the end result is still the same - and that's what matters at the end of the day. Once you realise that it doesn't actually matter you'll be a much happier person...

[x42bn6]

but you already can...

Only if the player has a CA-PA gap sufficiently large enough to develop.

If they don't? No chance whatsoever. Because some researcher thought so.

It's laughable to think that a player in real-life won't develop because someone doesn't think they will. An opinion is just that - an opinion. It's not right for FM to treat it anything more than that.

[x42bn6]

But seriously, if you really are interested in understanding this properly, I'll write you a lengthier explanation later this evening so that you can hopefully understand why it's the correct design choice for a computer game.

Go ahead. It will boil down to "it makes things easier because it is an assumption". An incorrect assumption, of course (that a researcher's vague opinion is a definite concrete limit).

Assumptions make models wrong.

If however all you're interested in is evangelising, I won't bother. This isn't a philosophical issue up for debate but a question of how you go about approximating and abstracting real life phenomena. In software design, it's the end result that matters, not how it works under the hood. There are very good reasons for the current system, and equally, there are very good reasons to avoid dynamic PA.

It's both because end results do not always tell the whole story. If distribution X is desired, then a model where everyone is guaranteed to reach their PA and the PAs are generated randomly distributed with distribution X regardless of where they are would satisfy the end result but it would not be desirable at all because you would have world-class players all over the world.

The end-result currently in-game is wrong because a researcher can underestimate a player and hence the peak CA of a player cannot always correspond to reality. Wrong end-result.

Comparing end-results is the result of testing but does not guarantee correctness. Correctness is looking at the model, not the results.

The question is, do you want to understand them and are you willing to accept that FM is all about abstraction; not just in terms of PA but all across the board? If you want real life, you need to go and get your coaching badges

FM is an abstraction and every abstraction can be made more complex.

I think we need to make it more complex.

Because you're right, you could implement a different system, but there would be no point apart from that you don't personally like the concept of fixed PA from a philosophical point of view.

There is a point. A player is no longer bound by a researcher's opinion, which can be wrong.

This will allow for things like late-bloomers (where the CA-PA gap is low, because a late-bloom is unexpected), as well as make the game more interesting.

It isn't just because I don't like the philosophy behind it. A player peaks - that's true. It does not mean, however, that we need to generate a peak.

But that's no different to people not liking the way matches are pre-computed, even though there are loads of design reasons for why it has to be this way, and no difference in terms of results. But this aversion is purely a philosophical one; the end result is still the same - and that's what matters at the end of the day. Once you realise that it doesn't actually matter you'll be a much happier person...

Matches being computed in advance would be a gigantic waste of processing resource and hence there is a good reason to not compute too far in advance (because a player can change tactics) - because it would make the game quicker.

The end-result of a PA-less system will be different. It's not the same. It might have the same distribution but once you break it down, it will have subtle differences and I think this matches reality better.

[Diamond Dan]

I don't see what the big deal is to be honest. If you play the game properly you would never even know 'PA' existed. By properly I mean without fiddling with players using the pre-game editor (which SI originally provided as a kindness rather than because they had to), or using programs like FMRTE or Genie Scout.

As others have articulated the model used is irrelevant if the end result looks correct in game. I've not noticed any glaring issues with the way existing players are represented on the game.

[Elsu]

I don't see what the big deal is to be honest. If you play the game properly you would never even know 'PA' existed. By properly I mean without fiddling with players using the pre-game editor (which SI originally provided as a kindness rather than because they had to), or using programs like FMRTE or Genie Scout.

As others have articulated the model used is irrelevant if the end result looks correct in game. I've not noticed any glaring issues with the way existing players are represented on the game.

Of course you notice it when a young player doesn't develop any further for 8 years while being a first team player and playing CL.

[Barside]

Isn't that a case of a manager blindly persisting with a player who is not capable of playing at the level he is asking of him?

Was Brown* didn't seem to get any better during his time in the Manchester United first team & eventually Fergie gave up on him.

*Other never fulfilled their expected potential players are available.

[Elsu]

Why should it be? He is playing fine, otherwise he wouldnt be playing at all. My point is how a player can play for 8 years in the premier league and not improve a bit, even mentally. He needs to wait till he gets old enough for his body to start failing to improve his mental skills.

[reo hustler]

As a former researcher myself, this is partially why I decided to step down from my position, because there is no universal way to justify it all(a players PA). Listen to "x42bn6." He's right on the money. There have been a few players I was initially wrong about, but because we update the database every year. Things get corrected. I then think, but what about if my players didn't have restricted PAs on last years game(say FM 2011)? Would I have played a few more years(seasons - think in-game on that save? It's an interesting thing to think about. I know once the majority of my players hit their ceiling on a save and I've won everything a few times, and there is nothing left to win, I retire the save.

[Barside]

Are players hitting their ceiling because you're training & tutoring them to within an inch of their life or are AI managed players also regularly hitting their PA value?

The reason I ask is to figure out if a fixed PA is the problem or is it more an issue of the training module being too easy to manipulate to the users advantage.

I still stand by my ascertain that at a certain point a player will not improve their technical ability, where FM & in the main the ME falls down is that players do not learn from their on-field experience so they continue to try the same moves against the same opponents regardless of whether they have succeeded or failed in the past.

What should happen is that an intelligent player will remember that wide attacker A likes to cut inside when playing on the left so he'll show him to the outside or that CM who has often been caught out by late runs from deep when playing against opponent B decides to naturally sits a little deeper without any prompting from his manager.

Neither of these two instances would be an example of the player improving his FM attributes but they do demonstrate a player improving through experience which IMHO is the direction FM should be taking.

[Elsu]

Well I always micromanage my players. Training schedule fits their role in the team, and they are tutored at a young age too. For the second question, I don't know as I don't use any tool to see the PA. I see that they have reached their maximum when their development stops suddendly and the next change is when they get old enough for their body to start failing or get injured.

[Elsu]

I still stand by my ascertain that at a certain point a player will not improve their technical ability

Yes, but for example you have the player on heavy individual focus for 5 years, and he won't improve one point in the skill being trained?

Again, I don't think that you should be able to make any youth a 1st division player, but there should be no hard limit. The system should be a little bit more flexible, especially when players age and get more experienced.

I think there is a FM tip in the loading window saying "players improve their mental ablities with age". Thats great, but if you manage a player since he's 17, he's going to reach his potential at 23 and not improve his mental skills one bit past that.

[Barside]

Again, I don't think that you should be able to make any youth a 1st division player, but there should be no hard limit. The system should be a little bit more flexible, especially when players age and get more experienced.

Which is why I gave the examples of players learning to cope with different situations without the need to increase their attributes, in essence their mental attributes will dictate how they use their technical & physical abilities on the pitch & over time this will vary how they play dependant upon the opponent & how much tactical flexibility they are afforded by the manager. The better players will be able to adapt whereas others will stagnate in their development.

As another example, I'm playing at right back & for the last 3 games Billy Whizz has skinned me with his ability to turn quickly & accelerate down the line, I cannot get any quicker but as I have good anticipation & positioning skills I drop a little deeper than usual when playing against him for the 4th time & my performance is much improved. Have I improved my technique or have I just used my skills in a different way to address a particular problem?

I think there is a FM tip in the loading window saying "players improve their mental ablities with age". Thats great, but if you manage a player since he's 17, he's going to reach his potential at 23 and not improve his mental skills one bit past that.

Again, is this the fault of a fixed PA or an easily focused training module? I'd say it is more a problem with the latter.

[lucas95]

I don't agree that "researchers predictions" are a real problem. For me, the big problem is that if the player reaches CA = PA at a young age (for example, 22 years) he won't be able to increase a single atribute (even mental that should increase with age) until he loses some point at a physical atribute. I don't think that if some player develops fast, he should become slower to be more creative or stay exactly the same for 6 years... doesn't make sense.


I think players should have CA and some sort of developing curve, where it says how much it will tend to grow, at which pace and so on.

[x42bn6]

I can finally pick this one up as I've been getting back home really late from work...

I still believe that the answer to your problem is not to make up a new system of changing PA in-game (because aside from the research data not always being accurate, the system is OK), but to distribute the set PA randomly at the beginning of the game, the range determined by base CA and age. This will give a PA within reasonable limits but at the same time random so that any player could potentially be a star or a dud. I did some work on excel and put in some calculations but I'm not at home so I'll just write what I did:

1) I started by thinking about a player at age 16, when they first enter the game. I assumed that CA should predict PA, because if a young player is better than their peers at a young age (the researcher's ability to judge CA is not in question here), then they are likely (not always) to be better than their peers when they grow up. I also assumed that PA can never be below CA or above 200, and that the range of possible PA gets more narrow as players get older (until they reach the age that they do not improve anymore, when it should be equal or almost equal to their CA) because their trajectory of development is more easily determined holistically.

2) I also assumed that globally, PA should have a mean of 100.5

3) I drew a normal distribution with the 0 point being at the player's CA and the mean being the midpoint between that CA and 200 and used CA 50 as an example. What I mean is, if you count up all players beginning the game (age 16) at CA 50, then the total PA should have a mean of 125.

4) I worked out using PA values in the game that the top .135% of players with PA over 50 have PAs of around 161, and used this figure to estimate that a player at age 16 with CA 50 should have a PA within the range of 89 - 161 99.73% of the time. I worked out a standard deviation that would allow a random PA to fall within that range and generated 30,000 random samples of possible PAs for a new player and ended up with a normally distributed set of PAs, with a similar spread as that of the game.

5) I then divided the PA and standard deviation by 14 (with the assumption that players stop growing at 30 - this was a test run, numbers are not fully accurate) to model the predictions with players of increasing ages (modelling the increased knowledge that a researcher has for an older player and better knowledge of their limits). For example, I divided 75 by 14, and then took the result off 125 as used the new mean to predict for players at age 17, then took off another 75/14 for age 18 and so on. I generated another 30,000 random samples from this distribution for players with the ages 21, 26 and 29 and found reasonable-looking distributions that seem logical.

6) I tried to do the same with different CA levels and got a nice range of distributions with CAs of 100 and also 150. The sample distributions are shown below.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In conclusion, if we are going to keep PA, then we should at least make it reasonable and logical. Random PA with a probability density function across the whole board of possible PAs is better than having a negative number and choosing a totally random PA in a small range. The way that I have suggested removes researcher's role to guess a player's PA, which we have agreed is not always accurate. This way, a player's development in the game will be less predictable, can change every game, but will not have to be dynamic and change the whole point of PA. For newgens, the game can decide a player's starting CA at random but modified by nation and club factors, and then the system can generate a realistic PA based on that CA. It means that players who come through better systems (who tend to be better) have a PA range with a higher mean, but this will not guarantee that they will come good. This will also control the PA distribution of wonderkids that show up with high CA but have an unrealistically low PA (it will still happen, but less often). It also makes it possible for older players to improve, without their PA being blown out of proportion.

Yes, I finished a huge assignment last night and chose to do this to celebrate.

Good work with the models. I somewhat agree with the way you randomise PAs, but on the bold bit: I fail to see why the aim should be to keep the point of PA.

The randomised PAs lack explainability and still rely on players aiming to reach them. For example, if a player draws a low random number his PA is screwed but he can still perform really well in-game, making a mockery of the random number generator.

I think your models will work to a certain degree (like my diagram above, I think it should be skewed somewhat), but as the "final conclusion" of a player's peak. So we take PA out of the picture and simulate several thousand times, and the final distributions will look like your graphs.

Isn't that a case of a manager blindly persisting with a player who is not capable of playing at the level he is asking of him?

Was Brown* didn't seem to get any better during his time in the Manchester United first team & eventually Fergie gave up on him.

*Other never fulfilled their expected potential players are available.

What if the player does play at the level expected? This is possible if, say, his attributes are really well-balanced despite the low CA and PA.

Wes Brown definitely got better but let's assume he didn't - there are two scenarios - that Brown had a high PA and didn't fulfill it, or he had a low PA and fulfilled it. I don't think either scenario really matters because what matters is that he didn't perform worthy of a CA 150 (or whatever it was when he left United) right-back, so regardless of a low EPA or high EPA, he wouldn't have developed anyway.

[x42bn6]

Which is why I gave the examples of players learning to cope with different situations without the need to increase their attributes, in essence their mental attributes will dictate how they use their technical & physical abilities on the pitch & over time this will vary how they play dependant upon the opponent & how much tactical flexibility they are afforded by the manager. The better players will be able to adapt whereas others will stagnate in their development.

As another example, I'm playing at right back & for the last 3 games Billy Whizz has skinned me with his ability to turn quickly & accelerate down the line, I cannot get any quicker but as I have good anticipation & positioning skills I drop a little deeper than usual when playing against him for the 4th time & my performance is much improved. Have I improved my technique or have I just used my skills in a different way to address a particular problem?


Again, is this the fault of a fixed PA or an easily focused training module? I'd say it is more a problem with the latter.

To be honest this sounds very much like having another attribute "experience" or "memory" that could arguably be tossed into the CA calculation. Since you aren't, what you are actually doing is trying to model the "reason" why a player performs beyond his peak into this single variable rather than folding all that variability into all the attributes like CA.

i.e. You are suggesting you have a player CA 130 EXP 80 performing better than a player CA 130 EXP 40m while I'm suggesting that the former has CA/EPA 130/125 and the latter 130/135.

In other words, the "error" of the researcher's error in the EPA model is equivalent to the "additional performance boost" by your experience attribute.

The issue with this "experience" or "memory" attribute is that this could easily be explained by the current set of attributes:

What should happen is that an intelligent player will remember that wide attacker A likes to cut inside when playing on the left so he'll show him to the outside

An increase in the decisions attribute perhaps?

or that CM who has often been caught out by late runs from deep when playing against opponent B decides to naturally sits a little deeper without any prompting from his manager.

Decisions + positioning?

In a lot of ways, we could include some form of "experience" or "memory" in a PA-less model as well. Having players "disobey" your tactics would also be a plausible addition because no player follows their manager's word rigidly (they can't, for one thing).

[x42bn6]

As a former researcher myself, this is partially why I decided to step down from my position, because there is no universal way to justify it all(a players PA). Listen to "x42bn6." He's right on the money. There have been a few players I was initially wrong about, but because we update the database every year. Things get corrected. I then think, but what about if my players didn't have restricted PAs on last years game(say FM 2011)? Would I have played a few more years(seasons - think in-game on that save? It's an interesting thing to think about. I know once the majority of my players hit their ceiling on a save and I've won everything a few times, and there is nothing left to win, I retire the save.

Precisely. The point of this game, to me, is to live your fantasy of being a better man-manager than Ferguson, a better judge of talent than Wenger, a better tactician than Guardiola, a more mythical figure than Mourinho, and an infectious optimism better than Steve Kean. Any of these managers would be likely to get the best out of a lower-league side, but most lower-league sides never consider the case where Ferguson takes over their club, so that never factors into your PA calculations (and if it did, you would be slapped down by your head researcher).

Imagine the scenario where you have a confidence crisis in your team and an unheralded youngster is forced into the side - and he actually does so well he forces his way into the team permanently. He should be able to do that - and reap the rewards of doing so (in the form of player development) - regardless of what someone's opinion of him was. I don't know what that player's PA is but if it were low, he wouldn't be able to do what he has done today.

The ultimate game should be able to create many weird and wonderful realities, where the weird can be explained without resorting to exploits or bugs.

[Barside]

An increase in the decisions attribute perhaps?



Decisions + positioning?

Nope, we'd use the existing attributes to drive his ability to learn rather than his experience driving the attributes upwards.

[x42bn6]

Nope, we'd use the existing attributes to drive his ability to learn rather than his experience driving the attributes upwards.

I still don't see how this is really different to raising the attributes. You are basically creating a new attribute "experience" that allows a player to play "better" than his attributes suggest while coping with "development increases" while being constrained by PA. You are basically then creating a new attribute that is not factored into the CA calculations to get around the fact that a player can still reach their PA yet still develop (i.e. a zero-weighted attribute like flair).

I think this is a very "hacky" solution because then this attribute affects every single attribute and you would get difficult comparisons like a player with low experience but high attributes, versus high experience and low attributes (kind of how like if height and Jumping were fully independent - to get the most aerially-dominant players, you would need to search on two attributes, which is more difficult than one).

I just think that a player who figures how to show a player to another player's less dangerous foot or by positioning themselves better implies a raise in attributes and that this is much less messy than a PA-less model.

Certainly, some form of "learning" attribute is a good idea but I am unconvinced that it needs to affect pretty much every single attribute as a boost to get round the low PA peak... When it's probably less hacky to allow players to breach their PA.

[junwenteh]

A very interesting, posting now would make me look like a late-comer.

Human genetics and muscle coordination limits do play a factor. Guys, I have a different point of view for this. PA is certainly something that annoys us FM lifelong fanboys, what if "Flair" and "Natural Fitness" be taken as improvement coefficients for technical and physical attributes respectively; while mental attributes improvement coefficient is constant for all players, rendering it as sort of "learning experiance" attribute. If we do start all regens from age of 14, instead of 14-20 of the current game has to offer, all 14 year old kids should start with rather low CA, may be 40-60 by elite standard, while there is no PA limit (lets say 200 for all player to prevent super-humans). Whether they make it to the elite level or note, then Flair and Natural Fitness play a role. At the correct rate, we should see young technical brilliant players, and late-booming experiance head that peak without relying on those two. (Old "Sami Khedira's?")

Randomizing PA would bring back the same old rigid PA debate. Dynamic improvement coefficients without limiting PA give more fun, even if you are running third party software.

[Seismica]

Not all players reach their PA. PA is only a maximum value, players with very high PA values very seldom reach it. Often how good a player can be is determined by their starting stats. I've found that the CA value does not always reflect their actual stats. I've seen players with 120 CA have better stats (Both overall and key stats) than players with 160 CA.

The problem is, players have become too good at recognising how to train a youngster to reach the maximum PA. A combination of the right training schedules, tutoring and occasional first team appearences means any player can reach his PA under the players guidance This in turn means that players with moderately good PA (Say 140-160) will reach their maximum far too early. The PA system only really caters for the world class players.

The negative values are put in place so the developers didn't have to predict how good a player will be. But perhaps more can be done, perhaps the PA can have some lee-way i.e. if a player reachers it at the age of 19-20, then maybe their growth is simply slowed and not stopped if they reach it.

Because the values are hidden, I think it's unfair that players should reach their peak so early when the game itself states that players reach their peak between the ages of x and y.

[Ackter]

Fixed PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life
Dynamic PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life
No PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life

Nothing's going to change because every system will be flawed when compared to real life. The current method maintains a good estimation of real life without the need for spending vast resources on designing, implementing and testing an alternative method which will actually produce the exact same results when seen from an unbiased view.

[milnerpoint]

But what about Luca Toni? How will he cope knowing FM has let him down?

[TOUGHGUY]

Nothing's going to change because every system will be flawed when compared to real life. The current method maintains a good estimation of real life without the need for spending vast resources on designing, implementing and testing an alternative method which will actually produce the exact same results when seen from an unbiased view.

Simply by the virtue of a player having the possibility to improve a single point in an attribute he focuses on for years the proposed alternatives will not produce the exact same results as the current system in which a maxed out PA means the player will under no circumstances be able to achieve that.

[Ackter]

Simply by the virtue of a player having the possibility to improve a single point in an attribute he focuses on for years the proposed alternatives will not produce the exact same results as the current system in which a maxed out PA means the player will under no circumstances be able to achieve that.

That will happen in the current system, but you'll have to sacrifice a different part of his game in order to do it. Focus training is only useful for older players if you do it in conjunction with his actual training.

[junwenteh]

Fixed PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life
Dynamic PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life
No PA = most players' PA will be wrong when compared to real life

Nothing's going to change because every system will be flawed when compared to real life. The current method maintains a good estimation of real life without the need for spending vast resources on designing, implementing and testing an alternative method which will actually produce the exact same results when seen from an unbiased view.

Agreed, no PA = PA will always be wrong.

Think this way no PA, but introduce more improvement rate altering coefficient, such as rate of improvement for technical and physical, age on the other hand is the ceiling to reduce this coefficient.

[milnerpoint]

PA will never be right for researched players, even if its unlimited the restrictions that will stop said player becoming Messi will be wrong. All you will do is replace one wrong restriction with another, for no benefit in the long run.

[Ackter]

Agreed, no PA = PA will always be wrong.

Think this way no PA, but introduce more improvement rate altering coefficient, such as rate of improvement for technical and physical, age on the other hand is the ceiling to reduce this coefficient.

It would still be wrong, so what would be the point?

We need to be looking for ways to improve the current system as the current one isn't going to get ditched for something else any time soon.

Basically every system I've ever seen touted that includes no PA would end up with a human manager team full of 200CA players - no matter how you try and change that, it'll still be the same.

I'd rather we looked at the development system in the game and think of ways to improve that to make it behave more realistically. it should all continue to be developed under the idea of end users being unable to see CA and PA. People who do so bring any sort of unhappiness from the system on themselves. It's like activating God mode and complaining it's not realistic.

[milnerpoint]

*Cue car analogy*

[Ackter]

Don't you dare.

[junwenteh]

It would still be wrong, so what would be the point?

We need to be looking for ways to improve the current system as the current one isn't going to get ditched for something else any time soon.

Basically every system I've ever seen touted that includes no PA would end up with a human manager team full of 200CA players - no matter how you try and change that, it'll still be the same.

I'd rather we looked at the development system in the game and think of ways to improve that to make it behave more realistically. it should all continue to be developed under the idea of end users being unable to see CA and PA. People who do so bring any sort of unhappiness from the system on themselves. It's like activating God mode and complaining it's not realistic.

Man, you may score well in debate competition. Yes I admit it, removing one limiting factor and replacing it with another. The idea is to remove the ceiling factor, but introduce improvement rate limiting factor, which answers the few posts in first page about physical genetics and muscle coordination. Scouts in this system now do not report on the ceiling, but give idea of the magnitude of the coefficient. If things work out correctly (which I am not the mathematician behind this), not all shall reach 200, let alone 170. In short, the improvement rate could be rather slow since it is broken down into a number of coefficients (Flair for technical and Natural Fitness for physical), making young players which good initial PA gems. Whether or not they make to the elite...

[milnerpoint]

Why replace the PA system if you want a better development system in place? What difference would you notice in the game?

[Ackter]

Man, you may score well in debate competition. Yes I admit it, removing one limiting factor and replacing it with another. The idea is to remove the ceiling factor, but introduce improvement rate limiting factor, which answers the few posts in first page about physical genetics and muscle coordination. Scouts in this system now do not report on the ceiling, but give idea of the magnitude of the coefficient. If things work out correctly (which I am not the mathematician behind this), not all shall reach 200, let alone 170. In short, the improvement rate could be rather slow since it is broken down into a number of coefficients (Flair for technical and Natural Fitness for physical), making young players which good initial PA gems. Whether or not they make to the elite...

All of that would be achievable with the current PA system if the development system was better and you weren't able to see CA/PA.

[junwenteh]

Why replace the PA system if you want a better development system in place? What difference would you notice in the game?

A really good question. It is down to personal believe in philosophy, no man has limts but only those who are not working hard enough. (I know I will get punches for writing this, literally)

Yes, we often see bright prospect's development coming to a halt and end up being run of the mill, and making the real elites stand out. The reason is straightforward with a third party software. Please don't jump into the "unhappy with God mode" again. Should the global PA of 200 be set, we wouldn't see the issue again. Instead, breaking down into a few improvement coefficients should allow us to see some naturally technical gifted players with weak physic, and also some brute with not much football brain. Adding into this, I propose the idea of high stats consuming more PA than lower stats, eg:

Dribbling 20, consuming PA of lets say (30 / 200)
Dribbling 10, consuming PA of lets say (5 / 200)
I know this a new regime of topic by itself, making the PA consumption exponential instead of linear. (is that correct?)

With these systems, we may well slower the rate of improvement of all players, and make training run-of-the-mill players easier. What I obserse now is that there are just too many "exploits" to crank up the PA of the players. Whether or not a third party software is used, it is just "too easy" to train a player.

Still I can't tell the outcome yet, This is not something that can be simulated by MATLAB or COMSOL Physics though.

[Ackter]

Personally I believe mental attributes should rule the game. Good physicals and technicals should go some way to making up for this if they're good enough, but the match engine priority should be on mentalities.

Maybe mental attributes should have their own CA/PA, but I feel they should work differently to the others. Technical and physicals would improve in training, whereas mental attributes would only really improve with experience and being involved with good role models (be they other players or the manager).

Personality attributes should determine the natural growth of the player's mental attributes without external influence.

That way an average technical/physical player (such as Teddy Sherringham (not the ideal example, but he'll do)) can be a world beater as he uses those attributes he does have much better than those around him, making him stand out.

[junwenteh]

Personally I believe mental attributes should rule the game. Good physicals and technicals should go some way to making up for this if they're good enough, but the match engine priority should be on mentalities.

Maybe mental attributes should have their own CA/PA, but I feel they should work differently to the others. Technical and physicals would improve in training, whereas mental attributes would only really improve with experience and being involved with good role models (be they other players or the manager).

Personality attributes should determine the natural growth of the player's mental attributes without external influence.

That way an average technical/physical player (such as Teddy Sherringham (not the ideal example, but he'll do)) can be a world beater as he uses those attributes he does have much better than those around him, making him stand out.

Brings me a new idea: position dependent mental atribute. (Out of topic) Match engine should emphasis more on mental attribute to the point of exageration. But if:
Actual mental stats = position rating / natural position rating * mental stat
There might be difference, say:

Decision = 18. Natural position = AM - 20, striker = accomplished - 18, Wing = competent - 14,
When playing as AM, actual Decision = 20/20 * 18 = 18,
When playing as SC, actual Decision = 18/20 * 18 = 16.2,
When playing as R/LAM, actual Decision = 14/20 * 18 = 12.6,

While technical and physical should not be affected. Of course, this effect applies to all mental attribute including, Anticipation, Off the ball, Positioning... Highlighting the importance of position familiarity; in real life, if you are good at dribbling, you can dribble well at any part of the pitch. How's it sounds?

[The Hand of God]

Maybe mental attributes should have their own CA/PA, but I feel they should work differently to the others. Technical and physicals would improve in training, whereas mental attributes would only really improve with experience and being involved with good role models (be they other players or the manager).

Maybe?! DEFINITELY! Dividing CA/PA into separate attribute categories solves all kinds of problems relating to player development, regen variety, overabundance of high-PA regens, representation of youngsters (most 18 year-olds are, in fact, not years away from their physical peak), representation of skill levels in the lower leagues (high physical attributes, low technical/mental), aging effects, injury effects, etc., etc., etc.

[TOUGHGUY]

That will happen in the current system, but you'll have to sacrifice a different part of his game in order to do it. Focus training is only useful for older players if you do it in conjunction with his actual training.

As I am sure you knew perfectly well when replying to my post, I meant a player improving - and not at a cost to his other attributes. The point stands, the proposed alternatives would not provide the exact same results, and right now a player will not improve (as in: will not become worse in other areas) an attribute even if he undergoes ten years of the most intense and specific training available in-game

[Ackter]

As I am sure you knew perfectly well when replying to my post, I meant a player improving - and not at a cost to his other attributes. The point stands, the proposed alternatives would not provide the exact same results, and right now a player will not improve (as in: will not become worse in other areas) an attribute even if he undergoes ten years of the most intense and specific training available in-game

So?

I assume you're one of the people who believes that they could have been a footballer if only they got the right breaks? Sorry to say, but not everyone has the potential to be a footballer, that's just life. Everyone has an in-built limit to the amount they can do, and when they reach that ability the only way they'll be able to improve certain areas further is by sacrificing the time spent on other areas of their game. You can only do so much in 24 hours, and once you've reached the limits of natural development you can only maintain or change.