Potential Ability

[Cougar2010]

This is false. It happens with newgens as well. They have a PA just like the rest of the players in the game. I once sold a 22 year old, in-form, French national team striker b/c it was obvious he reached his peak. How did I know this? His ratings dropped across the board (he wasn't injured) which told me he hit is PA limit. No matter how well he played (he was top scorer in European championship and won the CL) I knew he wouldn't improve. This is pretty silly and wouldn't happen in the real world.

It has very little to do with real players and newgens.

Its not false.

You can't say its wrong as there is nothing to compare it to. The newgen created doesn't exist in the real world so you have nothing to match his career path or performance against like you have with a real player.

Do we get newgens that start with a low CA and go on to be top quality players - Yes
Do we get newgens at big clubs that turn out rubbish - Yes
Do we get newgens at big clubs who go on to have good careers at a lower level - Yes

Whether you like it or not there are loads of examples of players who look good at age 18yo-21yo that just never develop in the real world.

Go back and look at the U21 squads from 7/8 years ago and see how many are playing at top flight clubs, you'll be surprised at how many aren't - Just like your 22yo French ST.

I also don't know what you mean by "ratings" but a player's in match rating doesn't lower just because he has reached his PA. It also begs the question if he was playing well and scoring goals why would you sell him??


EDIT
Reading some of your other posts I'm not even certain you understand the CA/PA system and how it translates into attributes and their use in the ME.

[Äktsjon Männ]

So that his attributes reflect that he exceeded expectations. The same way Torres' ratings dropped b/c he didn't meet expectations. Unless you think ratings should stay the same? No offense but that question is little silly.

During the course of the season, the worlds top scorer should definitely improve. It happens in real life and every time a new version of FM is released, so why is it so crazy that it can't happen in the game world? Once again, if it's gradual there shouldn't be a problem. He wouldn't just turn into a world class striker overnight, nor would the attribute increase be unrealistic.

You have that part slightly the wrong way round. Attributes determine player performance in the ME. If a player seems to perform above what you'd expect from his visible attributes then there are usually other reasons - hidden attributes, morale, etc. If a lowish CA player is the worlds top scorer he's just having a wonder season where all other factors 'click' for him. Doesn't mean he's outperforming his attributes - this isn't possible.

[milnerpoint]

Please stop with the straw man arguments. NO, WE ARE NOT SAYING EVERY PLAYER SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE MESSI. The main point is the relationship between CA and PA shouldn't be so rigid. You guys keep dumbing down this debate with the same baseless accusation.

This striker's ratings were good but not great. His production exceeded his ratings for a while but his ratings either dropped or hovered around the same level b/c of his PA. The same way his rating would drop if he has a bad season, they should increase if he plays well.

Your mixing up form and ability, its possible in game for the worlds best player to have a bad season if various things happen, just like its possible for an average player to have a brilliant season, it doesnt mean these players have become better or worse players, it just means they either didnt perform or constantly performed to their attributes, no player can out play his in game attributes but a player in good form will make full use of said abilities a player not in form will not.

Where the issue really comes up with all this is when we have hindsight on real players in the game and we can look back at how players have progressed and compare them to how they were in the game, this wont change because there will always be a human in control of the database. With regen players this really isnt an issue, because you should never know the ca/pa numbers of these players, and there is nothing to compare them too. Football is full of stories of players being world beaters at 22 and stagnating, players not coming of age until they are slightly older, wonderkids, massive flops, you name it, all of which are possible with regens in FM.

[obinna]

Its not false.

You can't say its wrong as there is nothing to compare it to. The newgen created doesn't exist in the real world so you have nothing to match his career path or performance against like you have with a real player.

It has nothing to do with real world players. This has been stated countless times in the thread. It's about how rigid PA is. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

Do we get newgens that start with a low CA and go on to be top quality players - Yes
Do we get newgens at big clubs that turn out rubbish - Yes
Do we get newgens at big clubs who go on to have good careers at a lower level - Yes

Whether you like it or not there are loads of examples of players who look good at age 18yo-21yo that just never develop in the real world.

The main issue is with PA. Nobody in this thread has disputed any of the above. Of course players that start at low CA can go on to be world class players. Why? Because their PA is high. This is obvious and doesn't need to be restated. The question is what happens when a player consistently plays better than his attributes even though he's reached his PA.

Go back and look at the U21 squads from 7/8 years ago and see how many are playing at top flight clubs, you'll be surprised at how many aren't - Just like your 22yo French ST.

Not even close to the same situations. How many 22 year old top flight, national team strikers in great form (35+ goals a season) have ever been sold? It's worse with AMCs and FBs.

I also don't know what you mean by "ratings" but a player's in match rating doesn't lower just because he has reached his PA. It also begs the question if he was playing well and scoring goals why would you sell him??

I use ratings and attributes interchangeably. I sold him b/c his rating weren't that stellar, he had 2 years left on his contract, and most importantly, he obviously hit his PA wall and there was no chance of him getting better.

EDIT
Reading some of your other posts I'm not even certain you understand the CA/PA system and how it translates into attributes and their use in the ME.

I understand clearly. I think you just don't understand the argument.

[Barside]

The main issue is with PA. Nobody in this thread has disputed any of the above. Of course players that start at low CA can go on to be world class players. Why? Because their PA is high. This is obvious and doesn't need to be restated. The question is what happens when a player consistently plays better than his attributes even though he's reached his PA.

The player is not consistently exceeding his ability, he is consistently playing to his full potential which is entirely different to how you are perceiving the situation.

Not even close to the same situations. How many 22 year old top flight, national team strikers in great form (35+ goals a season) have ever been sold? It's worse with AMCs and FBs.

You decided to sell him despite being in form, you're problem not FM.

I use ratings and attributes interchangeably. I sold him b/c his rating weren't that stellar, he had 2 years left on his contract, and most importantly, he obviously hit his PA wall and there was no chance of him getting better.

See previous point about you selling him, as for the PA wall you speak of & assuming that the player had already hit is peak why is this a problem? As has been repeatedly said not every player continues to progress in terms of their technical ability & how much more do you expect from a striker who is scoring 35+ goals per season?

[obinna]

You have that part slightly the wrong way round. Attributes determine player performance in the ME. If a player seems to perform above what you'd expect from his visible attributes then there are usually other reasons - hidden attributes, morale, etc. If a lowish CA player is the worlds top scorer he's just having a wonder season where all other factors 'click' for him. Doesn't mean he's outperforming his attributes - this isn't possible.

When I say ratings, I mean attributes. I don't mean match ratings.

Attributes should be adjusted for wonder seasons the same way attributes are adjusted for bad or injury plagued ones. It happens in the real world and in every new release.

[whilewolf]

When I say ratings, I mean attributes. I don't mean match ratings.

Attributes should be adjusted for wonder seasons the same way attributes are adjusted for bad or injury plagued ones. It happens in the real world and in every new release.

Attributes aren't adjusted due to bad seasons attributes are adjusted then the bad season is the result.

[tylerazevedo]

Everyone who says they should scrap the PA system and then presents their alternative solution have one thing in common. That is their alternative solutions are exactly how the game behaves currently if you don't ever cheat and look at PA. Think about it.

[obinna]

The player is not consistently exceeding his ability, he is consistently playing to his full potential which is entirely different to how you are perceiving the situation.

I've played enough games of FM to know that a players performance can exceed what you would expect based on his attributes. This also happens in the real world.

You decided to sell him despite being in form, you're problem not FM.

Thank you captain obvious for that analysis but that isn't the point. The issue is b/c of how rigid the CA/PA system is at 22 years old I new exactly how good he would turn out.

See previous point about you selling him, as for the PA wall you speak of & assuming that the player had already hit is peak why is this a problem? As has been repeatedly said not every player continues to progress in terms of their technical ability & how much more do you expect from a striker who is scoring 35+ goals per season?

Not much more, but I don't expect him to know with certainty that he won't get any better. This isn't realistic at all.

[obinna]

Everyone who says they should scrap the PA system and then presents their alternative solution have one thing in common. That is their alternative solutions are exactly how the game behaves currently if you don't ever cheat and look at PA. Think about it.

1) I never said scrap the PA system
2) You don't have to look at the numerical CA or PA to know when a player has reached his PA limit. Scout/coach reports and unexplained drops in attributes are all you need.

Pretty ignorant to assume anyone who would like to see the system changed is cheating.

[Barside]

I've played enough games of FM to know that a players performance can exceed what you would expect based on his attributes. This also happens in the real world.

It does not, it is impossible for a person to consistently perform beyond their ability, you are perceiving it as such because the norm is for people to consistently perform below what would be expected given their talent.

As for the attributes & again this has already been pointed out to you but it's worth repeating, the game assigns hidden attributes to players so what you see on screen might only be 80% of the picture.

Not much more, but I don't expect him to know with certainty that he won't get any better. This isn't realistic at all.

This is where you are going wrong, for some reason you are expecting a player who is already scoring at a rate reserved for the very best to improve season after season, such behaviour would go against what is normal in reality.

I think we've strayed far enough off-topic for now.

[Cougar2010]

It has nothing to do with real world players. This has been stated countless times in the thread. It's about how rigid PA is. I shouldn't have to keep repeating myself.

There is a significant difference between real & newgen players when it comes to CA/PA.

Newgens are created by the game which is God.

Real players have their CA & PA estimated by a human being and this is adjusted from version to version to mirror their real life performances.

The main issue is with PA. Nobody in this thread has disputed any of the above. Of course players that start at low CA can go on to be world class players. Why? Because their PA is high. This is obvious and doesn't need to be restated. The question is what happens when a player consistently plays better than his attributes even though he's reached his PA.

This has already been covered numerous times.

Then he is making the most of what is given to him on a regular basis - ie he is being consistent and has the relevant attributes for the position he plays.

Not even close to the same situations. How many 22 year old top flight, national team strikers in great form (35+ goals a season) have ever been sold? It's worse with AMCs and FBs.

Barside has already covered this - You made the choice to sell him.

I use ratings and attributes interchangeably.

Well don't, it very confusing for everyone else. If you mean ratings say ratings, if you mean attributes say attributes - Its not rocket science!

[TheBetterHalf]

In My opinion, the only weakness with the PA system is that most players in the CCC or league one etc have à Set Value that is too low. If implemented correctly, one could set à higher value but instead let his personality, ambition and à few more mental stats along with morale and the relationship with the coaches have à bigger impact whether he actually CAN reach this PA.

.....or....

Perhaps more stats should NOT take up CA points as such but instead be able to raise through experience, such as positioning, anticipation, decision. I think à player with à CA and PA Of 120 should be able to raise his anticipation stat simply because he gets more experienced. Naturally, not all players should be able to get really high stats here( like decision, positioning) as some people Will never have this " vision".

( the mentioned stats att only examples and perhaps the positioning is à poor example as its something that actually is one tjat tje players train everyday in the trainingground)

[marty78]

Everyone who says they should scrap the PA system and then presents their alternative solution have one thing in common. That is their alternative solutions are exactly how the game behaves currently if you don't ever cheat and look at PA. Think about it.

Are you not getting PA stars on your scout reports then? I don't think the PA system should be scrapped, just that PA star ratings should be hidden from us as it pretty much is IRL, hence why researchers are re-adjusting figures twice annually.

The people asking for a complete overhaul want the players to continue improving CA once the set PA has been reached, which most others disagree with.

[Barside]

Dragging this thread back on-topic it would be interesting to know what percentage of players (either default &/or newgen) actually achieve their full potential.

My perception of this topic is that people are assuming players will more often than not reach their full PA value at some point whereas I think it is actually quite rare.

[TheBetterHalf]

Dragging this thread back on-topic it would be interesting to know what percentage of players (either default &/or newgen) actually achieve their full potential.

My perception of this topic is that people are assuming players will more often than not reach their full PA value at some point whereas I think it is actually quite rare.

My guess would be very, very few. If speaking about those players at MY club, most Of them probably come really close but thats simply because I only sign and develop ambitious players with the correct personality.

[Cougar2010]

Dragging this thread back on-topic it would be interesting to know what percentage of players (either default or newgen) actually achieve their full potential.

My perception of this topic is that people are assuming players will more often than not reach their full PA value at some point.

Just from playing the game and looking at my own team I would say the bulk of players with a decent personality/hidden attributes reach their PA. This is judging from coach reports rather than 3rd party applications though.

In terms of overall number of players probably much lower but one of the problems is that most experienced human users target those players with good personalities leading to a high conversion rate so to speak.

[tylerazevedo]

1) I never said scrap the PA system

I never said you did, because I never read your posts, nor do I have any clue who you are.

2) You don't have to look at the numerical CA or PA to know when a player has reached his PA limit. Scout/coach reports and unexplained drops in attributes are all you need.

So your saying that it should be harder to see when a player has reached his limit? What's funny is that a player hasn't reached their limit until their CA actually starts to decline without increasing back to the PA limit. For example: I train the balls out of my players physical attributes until they hit 21. Sometimes players reach their PA before then and it starts taking from their other skills. Crazy thing, that player hasn't reached his limit, yet he has reached his PA limit. As said player ages, he loses some of his physical beastery, but makes up for it with his technical skills. Another crazy thing, this player is actually a better player at 25 even though he hit his PA limit at 21. So using this PA system, you can mimic real life. That's why the best players in the game don't always have 190+ PA. I mean, what's the point of a high PA when 90% of it is tied up in useless attributes?

Pretty ignorant to assume anyone who would like to see the system changed is cheating.

Pretty arrogant to assume anyone who makes a generalized statement is ignorant.

[Barside]

Just from playing the game and looking at my own team I would say the bulk of players with a decent personality/hidden attributes reach their PA. This is judging from coach reports rather than 3rd party applications though.

In terms of overall number of players probably much lower but one of the problems is that most experienced human users target those players with good personalities leading to a high conversion rate so to speak.

As I do not have Genie or FMRTE I cannot research this for myself. I'd be surprised if SI haven't run soak tests to check on player development & be equally surprised if there wasn't a decrease in full PA realisation scaled against increasing PA values.

[tylerazevedo]

Are you not getting PA stars on your scout reports then? I don't think the PA system should be scrapped, just that PA star ratings should be hidden from us as it pretty much is IRL, hence why researchers are re-adjusting figures twice annually.

The people asking for a complete overhaul want the players to continue improving CA once the set PA has been reached, which most others disagree with.

Those scout reports can be wrong, as well as it is not based 100% off of PA. Yes PA goes into it, but so does their hidden attributes. So if you never look at PA, you can have a 5 star player who has only 160 PA as long as his attributes are distributed properly.

[achilles-the-victorious]

This isn't a good example. I think everyone accepts that players don't pan out in FM. A better example would be Kobe Bryant. Under the FM system he could never be the player he is b/c he was drafted in the middle of the first round. How many youngsters with less than 3 star potential have you ever seen become world class? I haven't seen any, and this is the problem.

I had a youngster rated 2.5 stars by all my scouts and coaching staff, but I liked the look of him. I didn't think he would develop much, so sent him out on loan his 2nd season (1st season was spent entirely on the bench of the first team). He scored more goals than I expected in Ligue 1. I brought him into the first team the next season. He scored WAY more goals than I expected. He is now rated 3 stars by all my staff, and is genuinely world class. But my scouts told me for YEARS he was a 2.5 star player, at best. Maybe I had a very good striker all that time, that caused him to be rated 2.5 stars, but still, he is going to end up with the all-time record for league goals, and if a 2.5 star (as a youth) player can do that then I think the system works quite well.

My view is that a 3 star player with the 'right' attributes can be better than a 3.5 star player who is inconsistent, doesn't like big games, injury prone, bad attitude, or has the 'wrong' attributes. Similarly for a 2.5 star player being able to be better than a 3 star player.

I used to think a PA of 150-160 wasn't great. Actually, provided the points go to the right attributes it is VERY good.

[tylerazevedo]

My guess would be very, very few. If speaking about those players at MY club, most Of them probably come really close but thats simply because I only sign and develop ambitious players with the correct personality.

I've actually been doing my own research. To do this, I buy every player with 180 PA and up and make sure my training/coaches are always at 20/20. I would say about 10%-20% still don't reach their PA under ideal circumstances. What I've seen is that is usually lack of professionalism that kills a player.

I also never coach games, and I usually simulate an entire year at a time. Then just move all the newgens to my team in June, set up their training schedule, and then simulate again.

Doing this I have never won the Champions League, but I have won my league for a few years straight. Which makes it seem like to win the champions league, you need the best players, not the players with the highest PA.

[obinna]

It does not, it is impossible for a person to consistently perform beyond their ability, you are perceiving it as such because the norm is for people to consistently perform below what would be expected given their talent.

As for the attributes & again this has already been pointed out to you but it's worth repeating, the game assigns hidden attributes to players so what you see on screen might only be 80% of the picture.

I perceive it as such b/c I look at his performance in comparison with other strikers in the game world. Sure formations, tactics, morale, and team strength affect his performances affect his performance, but in the real world and in each release of FM attributes are determined by performance. There is no denying this.

I know what hidden attributes are and to suggest he is playing that well only b/c of hidden attributes is at best a guess. I'm enjoying people telling me things I already know.

This is where you are going wrong, for some reason you are expecting a player who is already scoring at a rate reserved for the very best to improve season after season, such behaviour would go against what is normal in reality.

I think we've strayed far enough off-topic for now.

Once again, straw man. The fact of the matter is I know he won't get any better b/c his PA is fixed. Never said he should have the ability to have unlimited increases in his attributes. No manager in the world can tell you for certainty if a player has peaked, but in FM this is common place

[marty78]

Those scout reports can be wrong, as well as it is not based 100% off of PA. Yes PA goes into it, but so does their hidden attributes. So if you never look at PA, you can have a 5 star player who has only 160 PA as long as his attributes are distributed properly.

Yes they can be wrong but not wrong enough for me. I tend to sign determined/professional types anyway and also avoid players with a low match rating so in most cases I'd guess my players hidden attributes are pretty good. A scout report also gives a personality type and lists weaknesses.

I have no problem with the system itself but think that PA stars should not be shown to create greater uncertainty. The actual PA values would still be there though just in the background. If you hide PA then you won't know whether or not that 16 year old 1* player can be great or average and only youngsters with an early high CA(wonderkids) will stand out as future stars. The rest(high PA) will then be spotted by user and AI if their CA ever becomes high enough. I very much agree with Cougar's post below.

Personally I think the CA/PA system is a good one but I would like to see improvements in the following areas:

A) Only a very small % of players should reach their PA within a save (say 1%) even given ideal conditions. It should also be more difficult for the player to improve the closer he is to his PA (This is possibly already included, I'm not sure).

B) Staff estimate PA via stars far too easily, there should be an obvious difference between staff with good, average & bad scouting attributes and even the best staff should be wrong far more often. I would even extend this to maybe getting rid of PA stars altogether and just showing CA stars along with maybe a comment, "Reached limit", "Can improve", "Can improve significantly".

C) More "Fog of War", this has been suggested in the past but an extension would see attributes shown first as arrows, then as a range before being narrowed down to an actual number as you scout a player over time.

[x42bn6]

This only happens with real players, its a total non-issue with newgens.

It is an issue with newgens because:

- If I had a regen with the exact same statistics as a real player who performed in-game exactly the same way, he would have the same issue
- It is possible to construct a hypothetical real-world player from a regen
- If the game wants to become the best simulation in the world, the simulation cannot and should not distinguish between real player and regen

and in reality its a very minor issue as even though the game progresses into the future it is still currently 2012 in real life. The players we consider stars now are stars within FM, the players we think will be stars of the future will be stars in the future as we progress through a save and those players that are "Late Bloomers" who will get noticed in the next few years we don't really care about as we don't know anything about them at present.

What about late-bloomers in a saved game?

It's okay plucking values out of the air for Cleverly, he's already at a big club with good facilities etc. It's a hell of a lot harder doing it for some random young player in league 2 as there are so many variables that could potentially affect him. You are making a huge guess at his EPA because you are also guessing at his likely career trajectory (i.e. whether a bigger club buys him, plays him etc). In fact it's a much bigger guess that just guessing at a players actual PA which the researchers do now - actual PA factors as much out as possible by assuming that a player gets perfect training etc to give an absolute maximum and then determines whether a player actually reaches that based on his other factors.

I'd argue it's no harder right now where League Two researchers always have to factor in the possibility that they can do a Kightly or Smalling and shoot up the ranks very quickly.

In this system, a League Two researcher doesn't care about this possibility. The possibility of him shooting up the ranks is an outlier and rare case that few people would really spot. The researcher only needs to consider realistic scenarios, and "take an average".

Not every researcher can take a guess on what "perfect training" might be. A researcher in amateur leagues - does he consider the possibility that this player moves to Barcelona and gets La Masia training and first-team football, getting 10.00 ratings all over the park? No! He just worries about realistic scenarios.

So let's say you have a 20 year old playing fairly regularly in league 2, and doing fairly well - what EPA should he have? He has a chance of making the prem, but he probably won't. So do you give him the EPA of a league 2 journeyman and allow the other factors to massively affect his actual PA (so he could potentially become a prem star), which is nonsense, since anybody could potentially become a prem star if you allow this. Or you give him a prem level PA and make sure he doesn't reach it often, which is exactly what we do now so nothings changed.

You give him an EPA of a potential League Two star or perhaps higher depending on where you think his potential is (League One/Championship perhaps).

You don't give him PA. In my system, PA is changed.

Anyone can become a Premier League star, yes - it is just that for 99.9% of the population, you are probably more likely to win the lottery. The reality is that my system will be of course balanced to ensure that the average case is sensible and that outliers are rare. But importantly - outliers can happen.

And I doubt that it's easier for researchers. If you give Cleverly an EPA of 155, but give him a very high determination, he's almost always going to exceed that EPA, so you have the stupid situation of a researcher saying "I think Cleverly will be EPA 155, but I'm going to have to give him EPA 140 since he's always going to exceed what I give him" or vice versa, you have a researcher giving a player an EPA which he knows will be almost always ignored.

Determination doesn't really affect it that much - that's how a player responds to things like going down a goal. Do you mean professionalism?

And I don't agree with your reasoning above. EPA 155 implies that given his professionalism of 15 (say), he will peak at CA 155 on average. If for some reason we could "freeze" his attributes now except his professionalism (drop to 10), then we could simulate the game several hundred times and measure his average peak CA. We will likely find that his average peak CA will likely be lower (150, say), due to the lower professionalism. The 155 is a "baseline" or guideline. If Cleverley deviates from this baseline slightly, then his average peak CA would deviate correspondingly.

This will allow us to do things like:

- Tutor Cleverley with someone with outstanding mental attributes => average peak CA might rise to 160, say, beating the Manchester United researcher's opinion
- Tutor Cleverley with Antonio Cassano => average peak CA might plummet to 120
- Give Cleverley an excessively hard training schedule => More injuries => average peak CA might fall to 145

You do raise a good point in that the EPA assigned is inevitably tied to the underlying attributes, of course, but I don't see why this can't be mitigated with guidelines, balancing and soak tests.

All I'm saying is, you either have a development model that is based on an average + factors that wil let the player exceed the average, or you a model that is based on a maximum with factors that determine whether you reach that maximum or not. Either way the outcome is exactly the same. In either model the player will ultimately reach a point where he can develop no further (either because he has reached his max PA, or because he has reached the limit at which the other factors will allow him to exceed his average PA). Of both systems, the Max PA one is much easier to use for researchers and for database balancing and it makes much more sense to stick to it.

Not true. Say a player has PA 120 and EPA 100 (in two different worlds, of course). For the first world, P(peak CA > 120) = 0, while for the second world, P(peak CA > 120) > 0. They are not the same.

In both models, a player will inevitably peak, in the same argument that every finite list of numbers has a maximum value (can be repeated). But importantly, the peak CA distribution is not the same. The first world has a hard limit, while the second does not.

I'm not convinced the peak CA model is easier for researchers since thinking about outlandish scenarios is more difficult than mundane, sensible scenarios. A researcher in the PA world has to think of difficult, rare scenarios (and weight these accordingly) while a researcher in the EPA world doesn't care. If everyone is assigned a boring, mundane EPA, then it is possible for any one of these to blossom given the correct support. The EPA is not taken as gospel.

@ x42

Also how do you propose your system would deal with the millions of players who have a reputation of being a good/star player in the mid-lower leagues but struggle when promoted/transferred into higher leagues?

As far as I can see with your system the player would stand out in say League 1, get an improved PA as a result which would lead to a better performance in the Championship whereas in real life the player struggles in the Championship but plays well again when dropping back to League 1.

One idea that springs to mind is that one of the factors that determines the "PA rise" is the quality of the league (or opposition). A quick-and-dirty (not recommended without testing!) approach might be to multiply the rise by the reputation of the league divided by 10000 (in the database, reputation goes from 1-10000 I believe).

An alternative is not to consider small timescales like 1 year. Maybe a rolling average is better.

I also want to point out in general that far too much emphasis is placed on CA/PA rather than looking at attributes.

This last season I've had three DLs:

A) 31yo rated at 3*
B) 21yo rated at 2.5* with 3.5* potential
C) 34yo rated at 1.5*

Despite the difference in stars the best performer of the three has been the 34yo this season and if you looked at the relevant attributes for the position there actually isn't that much difference between any of the three.

This is true, but the reason I look at CA is because it's an easy way to compare apples and oranges (i.e. left-backs with right-wingers). We could go into individual attributes but there are too many of these to look at. In addition, we don't have "potential attributes" (i.e. "Cleverley's passing will never exceed 15") and the capping at 20/100 is a model and scaling issue. Oddly enough, do any PA defenders think it is a good idea to have "potential passing"? After all, everyone's passing has a limit...

If a top flight player is bossing games and scoring more then a goal a game but FM doesn't treat him as a equal to Messi and Ronaldo that is a problem with the way FM uses PA\CA in determining value and reputation.

If a player scores more then a goal a game and creates half as many again then he does rival Messi and Ronaldo if you can't reconcile his attributes with his performances that is a problem with the match engine.

Under the present system when Kevin Phillips improbably performed beyond expectations and scored 30 goals in 99/00 the researcher would have amended his attributes and CA to a number that would make that possible. Under your proposed system the AI would increase his attributes and CA to a level where he could score 35 goals the next season.

Your proposing a system where good performance leads to improved ability but in any sporting activity I have been involved in its always been the case that improvements in fitness, skill, mentality or understanding happen before or contemporaneously with improvements in competitive performance.

I would argue that being able to perform in ever-increasing difficulty (i.e. opposition teams taking a well-performing player more seriously) implies that a player is actually learning and hence should develop in terms of technique (perhaps learning a new skill to get past tighter defences, or by practicing in tighter areas) or mentality (i.e. thinking quicker or reading the game better).

First-team football is vital for player development - hence it must be key to player learning.

The scenario you posed above (30 goals, then 35): If a player defies all odds and gets better, then why should he not develop further?

Alternatively, it could be that the rise in individual ability cannot trump the rise in defensiveness of the entire team. I think that's perfectly reasonable, since one man does not make a team. So realistically, if a player scores 30 goals in one season, it is going to be difficult to match that tally next season, and in reality, this happens (second-season syndrome). If they do manage to match (or better) that tally, though - they should be raised even further. We then repeat this process (opposition treats the player as an even larger threat).

Everyone who says they should scrap the PA system and then presents their alternative solution have one thing in common. That is their alternative solutions are exactly how the game behaves currently if you don't ever cheat and look at PA. Think about it.

Nope.

A player has CA 120 and PA 120. He does not develop further despite performing outstandingly well. You know this because he never gets any more green arrows on his profile screen.

A player has CA 120 and EPA 100. He develops further as the opposition perceives him as a greater threat, due to him performing outstandingly well. You know this because he has green arrows on his profile screen.

Two scenarios that are different, and you never look at PA.

[tylerazevedo]

Nope.

A player has CA 120 and PA 120. He does not develop further despite performing outstandingly well. You know this because he never gets any more green arrows on his profile screen.

A player has CA 120 and EPA 100. He develops further as the opposition perceives him as a greater threat, due to him performing outstandingly well. You know this because he has green arrows on his profile screen.

Two scenarios that are different, and you never look at PA.

I might be misunderstanding your post, but how does that prove you can see their PA without cheating?

[Cougar2010]

A player has CA 120 and PA 120. He does not develop further despite performing outstandingly well. You know this because he never gets any more green arrows on his profile screen.

Absolutely wrong.

With the right training you can alter the balance of his attributes within the restrictions of his CA/PA to improve the players performances within the ME. You will continue to see red/green arrows as these attributes change.

This is something that I would expect someone like yourself to already know when entering these discussions.

[x42bn6]

I might be misunderstanding your post, but how does that prove you can see their PA without cheating?

You can't, but you could easily deduce it by the fact that a player stops developing despite all the performances (he has reached his PA).

[obinna]

I had a youngster rated 2.5 stars by all my scouts and coaching staff, but I liked the look of him. I didn't think he would develop much, so sent him out on loan his 2nd season (1st season was spent entirely on the bench of the first team). He scored more goals than I expected in Ligue 1. I brought him into the first team the next season. He scored WAY more goals than I expected. He is now rated 3 stars by all my staff, and is genuinely world class. But my scouts told me for YEARS he was a 2.5 star player, at best. Maybe I had a very good striker all that time, that caused him to be rated 2.5 stars, but still, he is going to end up with the all-time record for league goals, and if a 2.5 star (as a youth) player can do that then I think the system works quite well.

My view is that a 3 star player with the 'right' attributes can be better than a 3.5 star player who is inconsistent, doesn't like big games, injury prone, bad attitude, or has the 'wrong' attributes. Similarly for a 2.5 star player being able to be better than a 3 star player.

I used to think a PA of 150-160 wasn't great. Actually, provided the points go to the right attributes it is VERY good.

Good scouts are usually within .5 stars of a player's CA and PA. Also the PA rating by itself isn't that helpful, but if you look at the difference between PA and CA while taking into account their attributes, you can easily gauge which players will be good or not. This is problem I have.

[x42bn6]

Absolutely wrong.

With the right training you can alter the balance of his attributes within the restrictions of his CA/PA to improve the players performances within the ME. You will continue to see red/green arrows as these attributes change.

This is something that I would expect someone like yourself to already know when entering these discussions.

Yes, but you won't be able to shift them much. And the fact that you see red arrows to compensate from the green arrows is in no way comparable to lots of green arrows with no red.

With low CA levels, there is also a limit to the number of red arrows you can have, too, as eventually, every non-key attribute will hit 1. Then where do you go?

[tylerazevedo]

Yes they can be wrong but not wrong enough for me. I tend to sign determined/professional types anyway and also avoid players with a low match rating so in most cases I'd guess my players hidden attributes are pretty good. A scout report also gives a personality type and lists weaknesses.

One thing I've noticed in my research is that usually players that start out with 3+ stars for potential drop a star or two by the time they reach their potential. Which would make the scouts initial report wrong. And that means that scouts are usually wrong. Basically the scout thought he was going to be a great player and it turns out he is only a good player. And that's a good strategy for finding great players anyway. I would agree that most players with determination and professionalism turn out to be good players, however, how many times in real life is that not the case if you think about it? More often than not I would assume a real life extremely professional and determined player will end up as a good player (barring injuries).

I have no problem with the system itself but think that PA stars should not be shown to create greater uncertainty. The actual PA values would still be there though just in the background. If you hide PA then you won't know whether or not that 16 year old 1* player can be great or average and only youngsters with an early high CA(wonderkids) will stand out as future stars. The rest(high PA) will then be spotted by user and AI if their CA ever becomes high enough. I very much agree with Cougar's post below.

Dude, how are you seeing PA without using a third party app? And if you are using a third party app and wish to not see PA, then stop using the app. I'm confused.

[tylerazevedo]

You can't, but you could easily deduce it by the fact that a player stops developing despite all the performances (he has reached his PA).

And how is that different from real life? At some point EVERY player hits a wall.

[tylerazevedo]

With low CA levels, there is also a limit to the number of red arrows you can have, too, as eventually, every non-key attribute will hit 1. Then where do you go?

At that point, you are probably working at Burger King.

[x42bn6]

And how is that different from real life? At some point EVERY player hits a wall.

You hit a wall when you simply can't do any better. This usually implies that you have reached a point where the opposition has "found you out" in a competitive sport.

However, if a player is making a mockery of opponents even if they keep trying to make his life harder and harder, then he hasn't hit a wall. He's still developing.

[x42bn6]

At that point, you are probably working at Burger King.

Grow up.

A player with an optimal training schedule and low PA will reach a point where he has the optimal attribute distribution for his CA. Then where does he go? Any further movement in his attributes would actually be detrimental...

[tylerazevedo]

You hit a wall when you simply can't do any better. This usually implies that you have reached a point where the opposition has "found you out" in a competitive sport.

However, if a player is making a mockery of opponents even if they keep trying to make his life harder and harder, then he hasn't hit a wall. He's still developing.

That's not true, he could have hit his wall, but his wall was miles above the opponents. Just because a player is performing well doesn't mean he is still developing, it just means hes already developed to a higher level than the opponent.

[achilles-the-victorious]

One thing I'd like to say. A player with CA of 160 does not = another player with CA of 160. Period.

You can have a player reach their maximum CA and still become a better player. But other attributes will be sacrificed slightly. How is this unrealistic? Imagine a player in their physical prime, a lot of their training goes to maintaining that level. Now that player's physical levels decrease slightly with age, his technical training will probably become more frequent and more intense. Why? Because he is at a stage in his career where you start to use your head/experience/all your tricks for an advantage, as opposed to looking more for that edge in physicality.

So if you have a player who is a physical beast but low mental skills, and they have reached their CA, guess what, they can get better! Not better in the absolute sense, because not all attributes can continue increasing, but better relative to their current ability. For eg. a players strength decreases from 16 to 15. But Decision making then goes up from 9 to 10. This actually made the player better! The 10% increase in decisions is more significant than the 6% decrease in strength! So if decisions are important to this players role (almost always the case) then he will have now become a better player, whilst maintaining the same CA.

People who don't like the PA cap should just use FMRTE to boost their favorite's PA. I personally find it completely empty, hollow, and unfulfilling to do this, but to each his own.

[obinna]

Well don't, it very confusing for everyone else. If you mean ratings say ratings, if you mean attributes say attributes - Its not rocket science!

Most American games refer to individual attributes as ratings, which is why I use them interchangeably.

[x42bn6]

That's not true, he could have hit his wall, but his wall was miles above the opponents. Just because a player is performing well doesn't mean he is still developing, it just means hes already developed to a higher level than the opponent.

He's playing well on a consistent, long-term basis - i.e. opponents are trying to adapt to him but he keeps delivering the goods.

In other words, he is slowly wading through a list of ever-increasingly-difficult obstacles, very much like a student is working his way through increasingly-difficult pieces of coursework.

In other words - he is developing. He hasn't hit a wall yet. He'd hit a wall if opponents find him out and his performances falter, before stabilising at some mediocre, average level.

[obinna]

I never said you did, because I never read your posts, nor do I have any clue who you are.



So your saying that it should be harder to see when a player has reached his limit? What's funny is that a player hasn't reached their limit until their CA actually starts to decline without increasing back to the PA limit. For example: I train the balls out of my players physical attributes until they hit 21. Sometimes players reach their PA before then and it starts taking from their other skills. Crazy thing, that player hasn't reached his limit, yet he has reached his PA limit. As said player ages, he loses some of his physical beastery, but makes up for it with his technical skills. Another crazy thing, this player is actually a better player at 25 even though he hit his PA limit at 21. So using this PA system, you can mimic real life. That's why the best players in the game don't always have 190+ PA. I mean, what's the point of a high PA when 90% of it is tied up in useless attributes?



Pretty arrogant to assume anyone who makes a generalized statement is ignorant.

You made a silly general statement that was meant to troll. Calling people cheaters b/c they don't agree with you is ignorant anyway you slice it.

[tylerazevedo]

Grow up.

Holy crap it was a joke dude. Have a sense of humor!

A player with an optimal training schedule and low PA will reach a point where he has the optimal attribute distribution for his CA. Then where does he go? Any further movement in his attributes would actually be detrimental...

That's the point of the entire system. Players have limits. Once players reach their limit (as in real life) it's about maintaining oneself and longevity. Regardless of potential, players that can produce at a consistent level for a long period of time usually are dubbed "legends" by the masses in real life, provided that level is a high level.

[x42bn6]

That's the point of the entire system. Players have limits. Once players reach their limit (as in real life) it's about maintaining oneself and longevity. Regardless of potential, players that can produce at a consistent level for a long period of time usually are dubbed "legends" by the masses in real life, provided that level is a high level.

But a player who is performing really well despite the opposition getting harder hasn't hit their limit.

Of course a player eventually finds their level and settles to some more sensible level of performance. But a player who is still performing really well hasn't reached that point yet.

[achilles-the-victorious]

Use an editor to make the game how you want it. If a player has a good season for you bump his PA. But remember to do the same for your rivals top prospects as well

[tylerazevedo]

You made a silly general statement that was meant to troll. Calling people cheaters b/c they don't agree with you is ignorant anyway you slice it.

Right, and calling random strangers ignorant trolls because they disagree with you is so much better.


EDIT: I should mention, I think the PA system should be scrapped. But every time I come up with a better system or read an idea of how it should work, I take a step back and realize that the game already works that way if you don't look at a players PA.

[tylerazevedo]

But a player who is performing really well despite the opposition getting harder hasn't hit their limit.

Of course a player eventually finds their level and settles to some more sensible level of performance. But a player who is still performing really well hasn't reached that point yet.

Just because the opposition has "figured you out" doesn't mean the opposition is getting harder. To steal from someone elses reference: look at Kobe Bryant. He is obviously on the decline, yet he still is outperforming his opponents to this day. It just means that he is better, not that he is getting better because he's actually getting worse if anything. But Kobe's "getting worse" still puts him at a level that is higher than 99% of the players who have ever played the game. FYI I hate the Lakers.

When a player performs, it means he is better, not that he is getting better (although that may be the case if he has yet to reach his limit).

[obinna]

Right, and calling random strangers ignorant trolls because they disagree with you is so much better.

Are you serious? How old are you?

1) Accusing anyone who doesn't agree with your position of being a cheater is ignorant
2) Your were obviously trolling

Truth hurts but luckily for us its in the thread. Next time don't make such absurd accusations and you won't get called out.

[marty78]

Star ratings Tyler. You do not need anything but scouts and coaches and the ability to look at attributes and report cards. Take youth intake for example, you get 15 players and at a glance your coach tells you they all have a 1* PA. Thats means none will ever make an impact even as a back-up player and even worse than that most will probably never even secure a professional full time contract. That is because we, and the Ai, can accurately write them off at a glance. Why couldn't they all have 1/2* CA and the "ability to improve further due to young age"(that could be the extent of the scouts/coaches imput on PA) and then it will take the length of the youth contract to gauge whether this player is improving enough to become worth a professional.

These players still have the same PA ( 1*) as before and will not get contracts so the only thing that has changed is how easy is has been to come to the conclusion they are not good enough. But you had to keep them and check their development so you don't unwittingly release a future star. With star rating PA being as accurate as I believe it to be currently most users would never release a future star as they would have a star rating similar or higher than a first teamers CA rating at creation.

I don't check actual PA's for players and if I did I probably would not be asking for star ratings to be removed as it would be contradictory.

I hope you now understand me.

[obinna]

Use an editor to make the game how you want it. If a player has a good season for you bump his PA. But remember to do the same for your rivals top prospects as well

Why do you assume we are trying to make our players better? The current system actually favors users and makes its way too simple to secure youngsters. When playing in the top flight, by at least year 5 my squad is guaranteed to be the best in the league b/c the AI has no chance against me in the transfer market.

[obinna]

Star ratings Tyler. You do not need anything but scouts and coaches and the ability to look at attributes and report cards. Take youth intake for example, you get 15 players and at a glance your coach tells you they all have a 1* PA. Thats means none will ever make an impact even as a back-up player and even worse than that most will probably never even secure a professional full time contract. That is because we, and the Ai, can accurately write them off at a glance. Why couldn't they all have 1/2* CA and the "ability to improve further due to young age"(that could be the extent of the scouts/coaches imput on PA) and then it will take the length of the youth contract to gauge whether this player is improving enough to become worth a professional.

These players still have the same PA ( 1*) as before and will not get contracts so the only thing that has changed is how easy is has been to come to the conclusion they are not good enough. But you had to keep them and check their development so you don't unwittingly release a future star. With star rating PA being as accurate as I believe it to be currently most users would never release a future star as they would have a star rating similar or higher than a first teamers CA rating at creation.

I don't check actual PA's for players and if I did I probably would not be asking for star ratings to be removed as it would be contradictory.

I hope you now understand me.

You put into words what I could not.

[Barside]

Why do you assume we are trying to make our players better? The current system actually favors users and makes its way too simple to secure youngsters. When playing in the top flight, by at least year 5 my squad is guaranteed to be the best in the league b/c the AI has no chance against me in the transfer market.

That's a very valid yet entirely different subject, how would the AI transfer & player development record be any better under a flexible PA system?

[whilewolf]

He's playing well on a consistent, long-term basis - i.e. opponents are trying to adapt to him but he keeps delivering the goods.

In other words, he is slowly wading through a list of ever-increasingly-difficult obstacles,

So now not only does the way players develop need to be rewritten in a way that's going to need to be very finely balanced to stop virtuous and vicious circles occurring but the AI tactics are going to need to get much better at adapting to specific players to make it work. That's a lot of work to get underrated youngsters to perform above researchers estimates in some games.

[tylerazevedo]

Are you serious? How old are you?

does it matter? are you inherently smarter/more right than someone based on age?

1) Accusing anyone who doesn't agree with your position of being a cheater is ignorant

I WASN'T ACCUSING. If you were offended, that's your problem.

2) Your were obviously trolling

So anyone who tries to comment on a thread is trolling if they start posting halfway through the thread?

Truth hurts but luckily for us its in the thread. Next time don't make such absurd accusations and you won't get called out.

Am I talking to Barry Bonds??? Why does the word "cheater" provoke such hostility from you? I wasn't making an accusation to anyone. And in fact I said that my position was that I thought we should scrap the PA system, thus calling myself a cheater. Are you too dumb to realize that? (that is an accusation, see the difference?)

[Barside]

I think we can officially call this a train wreck.

[tylerazevedo]

Star ratings Tyler. You do not need anything but scouts and coaches and the ability to look at attributes and report cards. Take youth intake for example, you get 15 players and at a glance your coach tells you they all have a 1* PA. Thats means none will ever make an impact even as a back-up player and even worse than that most will probably never even secure a professional full time contract. That is because we, and the Ai, can accurately write them off at a glance. Why couldn't they all have 1/2* CA and the "ability to improve further due to young age"(that could be the extent of the scouts/coaches imput on PA) and then it will take the length of the youth contract to gauge whether this player is improving enough to become worth a professional.

These players still have the same PA ( 1*) as before and will not get contracts so the only thing that has changed is how easy is has been to come to the conclusion they are not good enough. But you had to keep them and check their development so you don't unwittingly release a future star. With star rating PA being as accurate as I believe it to be currently most users would never release a future star as they would have a star rating similar or higher than a first teamers CA rating at creation.

I don't check actual PA's for players and if I did I probably would not be asking for star ratings to be removed as it would be contradictory.

I hope you now understand me.

I do now, and I agree. It's just hard to tell the difference when people use CA interchangeably with star ratings. I assumed when you said PA, you meant...PA. Which you did, but the difference is you meant the star rating not the actual PA rating.

I do recall someone getting on to someone for using the words attribute and rating interchangeably. It's the same thing, but this time I really don't care.

[obinna]

That's a very valid yet entirely different subject, how would the AI transfer & player development record be any better under a flexible PA system?

The reason why I suggested a more flexible PA system is so that users are less accurate in pinpointing how good a player will pan out. As it stands, I just hire good scouts, look at a the difference between a player's CA and PA and buy. Way too easy.

Now I think about it, another solution would be to make scouting reports less accurate. Based on my experiences, scouts are usually within .5 stars of a players potential. Perhaps it should 1 star? I really don't have a concrete solution but I do think the system can be tweaked.

[tylerazevedo]

I think we can officially call this a train wreck.

It's actually kinda funny.

[marty78]

EDIT: I should mention, I think the PA system should be scrapped. But every time I come up with a better system or read an idea of how it should work, I take a step back and realize that the game already works that way if you don't look at a players PA.

I think we actually agree, at least to some extent. What I want is to hide that PA in game even if it is more loosely represented using simple star ratings. I want to leave the system as it is (unless of course a better method can be found) and just take PA star ratings out. CA star ratings should remain as they are and we should judge a players potential on the things we know. CA, personality, age, performance and training improvement. With scouting and new players/youth intake I would also like to see attributes displayed as a range rather than an absolute until further knowledge has been gained over time.

[obinna]

does it matter? are you inherently smarter/more right than someone based on age?



I WASN'T ACCUSING. If you were offended, that's your problem.



So anyone who tries to comment on a thread is trolling if they start posting halfway through the thread?



Am I talking to Barry Bonds??? Why does the word "cheater" provoke such hostility from you? I wasn't making an accusation to anyone. And in fact I said that my position was that I thought we should scrap the PA system, thus calling myself a cheater. Are you too dumb to realize that? (that is an accusation, see the difference?)

I wasn't offended. I just thought your post was ignorant and still do.

Your insinuation was clear. It's nice to see you backtracking though.

[tylerazevedo]

I think we actually agree, at least to some extent. What I want is to hide that PA in game even if it is more loosely represented using simple star ratings. I want to leave the system as it is (unless of course a better method can be found) and just take PA star ratings out. CA star ratings should remain as they are and we should judge a players potential on the things we know. CA, personality, age, performance and training improvement. With scouting and new players/youth intake I would also like to see attributes displayed as a range rather than an absolute unitl further knowledge has been gained over time.

What you are talking about is FIFA 12 manager mode. From my understanding of your post, that's almost exactly how it behaves. Not that that's bad. I love how the youth academy works in FIFA 12 more so than FM.

However, in real life young players are judged on a potential. If you remove potential from the game, then what's the need for scouts at all? You can figure out how good a player is based on their attributes, match ratings, etc. But how can you judge his potential?

[tylerazevedo]

I wasn't offended. I just thought your post was ignorant and still do.

Your insinuation was clear. It's nice to see you backtracking though.

Not sure how I can backtrack when I haven't changed my opinion. In fact in my original post i didn't even state my opinion, you just made the assumption that I didn't think the PA system should be scrapped since I threw the word "cheat" out there for those who think it should be and then started labeling me a troll and ignorant.


Edit: And isn't it ignorant to make an assumption about me and my position without knowing my position?

[Barside]

However, in real life young players are judged on a potential. If you remove potential from the game, then what's the need for scouts at all? You can figure out how good a player is based on their attributes, match ratings, etc. But how can you judge his potential?

That's part of the problem, in most situations you should not be able to judge potential.

You can take a best guess based on current ability, recent progression & past experience but the actual potential should be an unknown, what appears to be an issue is the accuracy of scouting & on that point I do agree.

I cannot agree with the idea of a flexible PA because it is far too open to abuse through glitches & focused training once the rules of the system are unlocked.

Edit: Almost forgot, stop with the petty bickering.

[TheBetterHalf]

That's part of the problem, in most situations you should not be able to judge potential.

You can take a best guess based on current ability, recent progression & past experience but the actual potential should be an unknown, what appears to be an issue is the accuracy of scouting & on that point I do agree.

I cannot agree with the idea of a flexible PA because it is far too open to abuse through glitches & focused training once the rules of the system are unlocked.

Edit: Almost forgot, stop with the petty bickering.

Totally agre with this. I think The scouts should provide information about his progress and current standard along with à description Of his character. By using this info, make à recommendation about how good he is now, and how good he would be if he continued to grove as à player, but more in the lines Of roles. Like stating that he " already at the age Of 18, he looks like à good choice as à starting Poacher/attacking wingback etc for our club/ à club in the league one. With some guidance, I see no reason why he could not make it at the top level in the future, having got some more experience".

[tylerazevedo]

That's part of the problem, in most situations you should not be able to judge potential.

Agreed for under 14. But in this game it only generates 15 and up (or 14 and up, I can't remember). Either way, by that time most scouts start making serious predictions of talent.

You can take a best guess based on current ability, recent progression & past experience but the actual potential should be an unknown, what appears to be an issue is the accuracy of scouting & on that point I do agree.

Absolutely right. The only change I would make to this game would be the accuracy of player's star potential under the age of 18.

I cannot agree with the idea of a flexible PA because it is far too open to abuse through glitches & focused training once the rules of the system are unlocked.

aaaaaagreed

Edit: Almost forgot, stop with the petty bickering.

I'd love to, but for some reason he won't let me have the last word, and I'm an internet troll so I'm trying to live up to expectations. /sarcasm

[marty78]

What you are talking about is FIFA 12 manager mode. From my understanding of your post, that's almost exactly how it behaves. Not that that's bad. I love how the youth academy works in FIFA 12 more so than FM.

However, in real life young players are judged on a potential. If you remove potential from the game, then what's the need for scouts at all? You can figure out how good a player is based on their attributes, match ratings, etc. But how can you judge his potential?

How can you judge potential though that is the question? Players potential are estimated by scouts/researchers IRL by their performances(CA) combined with what they can find out about the players strengths, weaknesses and personality. They only believe a player has a lot of potential if they are performing to a high standard.

[Barside]

Totally agre with this. I think The scouts should provide information about his progress and current standard along with à description Of his character. By using this info, make à recommendation about how good he is now, and how good he would be if he continued to grove as à player, but more in the lines Of roles. Like stating that he " already at the age Of 18, he looks like à good choice as à starting Poacher/attacking wingback etc for our club/ à club in the league one. With some guidance, I see no reason why he could not make it at the top level in the future, having got some more experience".

The key aspect would be removing the scouts ability to see the actual PA value while still allowing them to make a best guess at what they think it could be, might be an interesting train of thought to follow & in particular how this would affect the AI in its transfer decision making process.

Agreed for under 14. But in this game it only generates 15 and up (or 14 and up, I can't remember). Either way, by that time most scouts start making serious predictions of talent.

You've just stumbled across another aspect of the game I do not like, we [senior team manger] get to see & influence a player at too young an age, newgens being visible at 14/15 is IMHO too young & we certainly should not be able to ask our 26 year star striker to mentor some 14 years kid.

The game should generate them at 14/15 but they should not be hitting the final stage youth team until they are 16/17, before then they should be developed solely by the youth coach(es), if you want to ensure that they get the best training possible then you need to ensure you have the right man running your youth system.

[achilles-the-victorious]

If I pay a scout $1m a year, and I send him specifically to watch a kid (for whatever length of time) then I am going to put some stock into what that scout says. to have it any other way makes it a waste to pay the scout $1m a year. Or to have scouts, or to send scouts to watch kids, when you could just look at his stats and attributes, and decide!

Its really not a bad system. If you aren't happy with the PA of your team, you can always use an editor. If you think the AI teams don't have high enough PA you can always use an editor. I don't see why the game mechanics are what should be changed.

[tylerazevedo]

How can you judge potential though that is the question? Players potential are estimated by scouts/researchers IRL by their performances(CA) combined with what they can find out about the players strengths, weaknesses and personality. They only believe a player has a lot of potential if they are performing to a high standard.

Since FIFA has an overall attribute (which should be dropped IMO anyway) the youth are given an overall range that they could reach. Once they are promoted from the youth squad, you can't even see the potential (which is kinda annoying). All you can see is their current ability. From then whenever they stop progressing you can assume they have reached their potential. That is eerily similar to how FM works, except for the youth academy part. I like FM's progression system much better than FIFA, but in regards to youth academies, its not even close as FIFA wins hands down IMO.

In real life, would any high quality youth academy accept a player they didn't believe had the potential to be a first teamer one day? Whether or not they reach the first team remains to be seen, but why would they pay for a player they know they have no use for? That's the only flaw in FM, which is why I like FIFA's scouting and youth academy implementation.

[TheBetterHalf]

The key aspect would be removing the scouts ability to see the actual PA value while still allowing them to make a best guess at what they think it could be, might be an interesting train of thought to follow & in particular how this would affect the AI in its transfer decision making process.

Exactly. Along with à more dynamic way Of how the players develop( making it possible for more factors to play its part), one would also see late bloomers.

[Barside]

If I pay a scout $1m a year, and I send him specifically to watch a kid (for whatever length of time) then I am going to put some stock into what that scout says. to have it any other way makes it a waste to pay the scout $1m a year. Or to have scouts, or to send scouts to watch kids, when you could just look at his stats and attributes, and decide!

Real life scouts make mistakes, FM scouts generally do not, this is what needs to change.

[marty78]

Since FIFA has an overall attribute (which should be dropped IMO anyway) the youth are given an overall range that they could reach. Once they are promoted from the youth squad, you can't even see the potential (which is kinda annoying). All you can see is their current ability. From then whenever they stop progressing you can assume they have reached their potential. That is eerily similar to how FM works, except for the youth academy part. I like FM's progression system much better than FIFA, but in regards to youth academies, its not even close as FIFA wins hands down IMO.

In real life, would any high quality youth academy accept a player they didn't believe had the potential to be a first teamer one day? Whether or not they reach the first team remains to be seen, but why would they pay for a player they know they have no use for? That's the only flaw in FM, which is why I like FIFA's scouting and youth academy implementation.

I have played Fifa manager mode but not enough to form an opinion. It is completely different anyway as you can control players making a conference striker top scorer in the premier league if you are good enough. I do remember though that they have ranged attributes for players which I like but even if it is ranged the overall PA is a numerical figure meaning you have an exact value that player will never go beyond. I don't care that there is a figure but I don't wanna know that in any game. Give me some suspense and some nice surprises and disappointing duds.

[tylerazevedo]

The key aspect would be removing the scouts ability to see the actual PA value while still allowing them to make a best guess at what they think it could be, might be an interesting train of thought to follow & in particular how this would affect the AI in its transfer decision making process.

Isn't he goal of scouts is to give us some idea of how good a player will be with all the factors taken into account (PA, CA, Professionalism, etc). So I don't think removing their ability to see the actual PA would work. Rather, youth shouldn't even be given an actual PA at all (rather a -10 or something) until some arbitrary set of circumstances are reached (first team football, youth academy training, current CA, etc). If you think about it, if your youth squad intake consisted of a bunch of -9 & -10 players, you would be pretty excited until 90% of them generated PA's on the low side of the range. Which brings me to another point, the negative PA range would need to be expanded...in other words, a -10 could be from 150 to 200 or something.

You've just stumbled across another aspect of the game I do not like, we [senior team manger] get to see & influence a player at too young an age, newgens being visible at 14/15 is IMHO too young & we certainly should not be able to ask our 26 year star striker to mentor some 14 years kid.

Completely agree with the mentor stuff.

The game should generate them at 14/15 but they should not be hitting the final stage youth team until they are 16/17, before then they should be developed solely by the youth coach(es), if you want to ensure that they get the best training possible then you need to ensure you have the right man running your youth system.

But the problem with that is when you have people like Fabregas who are playing first team football at age 16. Would you rather the game hide these kids and then all of a sudden they are playing first team football for a team like Arsenal? He was picked up from the Barcelona youth squad. To mimic that in the game, you have to be able to see players at the age of 14/15 and be able to purchase them.

[tylerazevedo]

I have played Fifa manager mode but not enough to form an opinion. It is completely different anyway as you can control players making a conference striker top scorer in the premier league if you are good enough. I do remember though that they have ranged attributes for players which I like but even if it is ranged the overall PA is a numerical figure meaning you have an exact value that player will never go beyond. I don't care that there is a figure but I don't wanna know that in any game. Give me some suspense and some nice surprises and disappointing duds.

Agree that the FIFA system can be worked to the players advantage if the person playing the game is good enough. However, I do think showing us a numerical range for a player is actually a good idea as long as it's done correctly (which FIFA does pretty well for the youth academy).

The reason a numerical range can work is because it mimics the real life terms that real scouts use when judging potential: floor and ceiling.

Say FM adopts some hybrid of this model, then we would see that all of our youth intake has a range of 2-5 stars with some having a higher floor (3*) and some having a lower ceiling (4*). As they play (and CA increases), their floor and ceilings converge on what their actual potential is. Add the ability for scouts to be wrong, and you can have a guy with a floor of 3* and a ceiling of 5* while their actual star rating should be a 2.

However, that's just a different representation of the exact same engine that we are using today. The current CA/PA model would work just fine in this case (unless you cheat and use a 3rd party app to look at their actual numerical PA).

[Barside]

But the problem with that is when you have people like Fabregas who are playing first team football at age 16. Would you rather the game hide these kids and then all of a sudden they are playing first team football for a team like Arsenal? He was picked up from the Barcelona youth squad. To mimic that in the game, you have to be able to see players at the age of 14/15 and be able to purchase them.

I probably wasn't all that clear on the last point you quoted, a 14/15 year old is still generated & is visible put as the senior team manager you have no control over his development or contractual status at the club, that will be the responsibility of the bloke you employed to look after your youth system & to an extent will reduce some of the advantage we have over AI managers.

[marty78]

But the problem with that is when you have people like Fabregas who are playing first team football at age 16. Would you rather the game hide these kids and then all of a sudden they are playing first team football for a team like Arsenal? He was picked up from the Barcelona youth squad. To mimic that in the game, you have to be able to see players at the age of 14/15 and be able to purchase them.

Arsenal probably (I don't have Wenger's phone number so can't check) would of signed Fabregas because he had a high CA for his age and perhaps they found out he was a hard worker, very professional and loved football. That is all the information they can gather and how he would develop from then on was completely unknown. If his high potential was that easy to see at the time then Barcelona would have moved Heaven and Earth to keep him and if he had still gone they would of sued Arsenal for a high compensation fee.

[tylerazevedo]

I probably wasn't all that clear on the last point you quoted, a 14/15 year old is still generated & is visible put as the senior team manager you have no control over his development or contractual status at the club, that will be the responsibility of the bloke you employed to look after your youth system & to an extent will reduce some of the advantage we have over AI managers.

Ahh I did misunderstand. However, to do what I think you're talking about, the only thing that would need to happen would be to hide the training schedules for youth players all together. Would that be preferable? I'd rather be able to properly train a player so that he isn't messed up when I finally get him in the first team. But then again, that's just my opinion.

[tylerazevedo]

Arsenal probably (I don't have Wenger's phone number so can't check) would of signed Fabregas because he had a high CA for his age and perhaps they found out he was a hard worker, very professional and loved football. That is all the information they can gather and how he would develop from then on was completely unknown. If his high potential was that easy to see at the time then Barcelona would have moved Heaven and Earth to keep him and if he had still gone they would of sued Arsenal for a high compensation fee.

But since Messi and Fabregas were in the academy at the same time, why would they pick up Fab over Messi? Maybe Arsenal's scouts thought that Fabregas had a higher ceiling than Messi (jury is still out on that, but it's looking painfully obvious that Messi will end up the better player as both seem to be finished progressing, but ya never know)

[Barside]

Ahh I did misunderstand. However, to do what I think you're talking about, the only thing that would need to happen would be to hide the training schedules for youth players all together. Would that be preferable? I'd rather be able to properly train a player so that he isn't messed up when I finally get him in the first team. But then again, that's just my opinion.

That's pretty much how I'd like to see youth development changed, as things stand we have a huge advantage over the AI & this would be a small step in redressing the balance.

I'd be surprised if there are any managers who are as actively involved in youth coaching as we are currently allowed to be, the idea certainly needs more thought to cater for those you like to have some input on youth development.

But since Messi and Fabregas were in the academy at the same time, why would they pick up Fab over Messi? Maybe Arsenal's scouts thought that Fabregas had a higher ceiling than Messi (jury is still out on that, but it's looking painfully obvious that Messi will end up the better player as both seem to be finished progressing, but ya never know)

Work permit issues & probably Messi's uncertain physical growth.

[tylerazevedo]

That's pretty much how I'd like to see youth development changed, as things stand we have a huge advantage over the AI & this would be a small step in redressing the balance.

I'd be surprised if there are any managers who are as actively involved in youth coaching as we are currently allowed to be, the idea certainly needs more thought to cater for those you like to have some input on youth development.

That's an excellent point. It would actually be cool if you could start out as a youth coach as well and only control the progression of the youth squad.

Work permit issues & probably Messi's uncertain physical growth.

True, I didn't think of the work permit issues. But by the time he moved to Barcelona they had already decided to cover the medical costs for his physical growth.

Which makes me wonder, maybe the star ratings for youth should be based more on how quickly they progress rather than what their actual final potential could be. It'd be like seeing a 14 year old kid who's pretty good, and then in 6 months he's completely dominating his field. Just throwin out ideas though.

[marty78]

But since Messi and Fabregas were in the academy at the same time, why would they pick up Fab over Messi? Maybe Arsenal's scouts thought that Fabregas had a higher ceiling than Messi (jury is still out on that, but it's looking painfully obvious that Messi will end up the better player as both seem to be finished progressing, but ya never know)

Why wouldn't a club like Barcelona keep both? They have a great acadamy, plenty of money and a history of blooding their own talent. It seems more likely they misjudged his potential and his transfer back there for a massive fee, and that he claims he always loved the club and was desperate to play for them seems to back that up. Messi is out on his own as the player of his generation and arguably the best ever though IMO.

I'm not against your ranged PA star rating idea either a long as it is very vague, open to error and combined with ranged attributes (narrowing to accurate as player knowledge improves). I wouldn't want any star ratings at all if attributes are visible like they are now.

[tylerazevedo]

Why wouldn't a club like Barcelona keep both? They have a great acadamy, plenty of money and a history of blooding their own talent. It seems more likely they misjudged his potential and his transfer back there for a massive fee, and that he claims he always loved the club and was desperate to play for them seems to back that up. Messi is out on his own as the player of his generation and arguably the best ever though IMO.

Actually the fee wasn't massive considering how good Fabregas was at the time and how long he had left on his contract. Fabregas actually kinda screwed Arsenal out of money by refusing to go to another club. Not that he was trying to screw Arsenal in anyway, it's just Barcelona could get him for 35 mil rather than the 60 mil a player of his caliber could reap in the transfer market at the time.

I'm not against your ranged PA star rating idea either a long as it is very vague, open to error and combined with ranged attributes (narrowing to accurate as player knowledge improves). I wouldn't want any star ratings at all if attributes are visible like they are now.

Oh it's completely vague if you look at how FIFA shows you. By the time the player in the youth academy is ready to be moved to the first team, his actual overall ratings are like 60-70 and his potential is like 82-85. Of course the ranges differ where you have some guys who have a 50-55 overall CA and a 78-86 PA. If you think about those two players, who would end up the better player? Possibly the 78-86 guy, but he could also be much worse. And sometimes you get a pretty close range, like 84-86 potential, but thats rare.

I just think their idea for determining potential is extremely well thought out.

Edit: and when you first sign a prospect to your youth academy, you hardly even know what position he plays, you usually get a few different possible positions and then a player type, IE Technically Gifted, Physical, Defensive Minded, etc. It's just brilliant and is the best representation of assessing potential in a video game to date IMO.

[marty78]

£35m is quite big compared to the £0 they got for Fabregas. They basically loaned Arsenal a world class player for 8 years and gave them £35m for the privelage. i know what you mean though he could have perhaps fetched more. I'm gonna have a look at Fifa tomorrow and jog my memory. Its been a while.

[tylerazevedo]

£35m is quite big compared to the £0 they got for Fabregas. They basically loaned Arsenal a world class player for 8 years and gave them £35m for the privelage. i know what you mean though he could have perhaps fetched more. I'm gonna have a look at Fifa tomorrow and jog my memory. Its been a while.

It's pretty well done, but the scouting is limited to 3 at a time (which is lame IMO). If FM could just incorporate some of the youth squad ideas from FIFA 12 into the game, it would make FM darn near perfect IMO.

[Harper]

EHM, before it was an SI product, had a feature that at the end of the season occasionally re-evaluated a player's potential and increased or decreased it accordingly. Perhaps something similar could be reflected in FM?

Obviously should happen with every player, but a combination of things could be taken into consideration: transferring to a club with better training and/or coaches, increased quality of competition, effective tutoring, quality of appearances at u18/reserve/first team/national team level.

Injuries, lack of game time, etc could decrease PA.

[bleventozturk]

The players actual potential does not increase though just the researchers view has changed from judging CA.

X42bn6 can't understand this, therefore it is hopeless to convince him that his idea of increasing the PA's as a result of good performance is probably the worst idea ever I've heard in these forums.

[MSCCG]

Why not take researcher opinion out of it and create an algorithm that assigns semi-random PA levels to all real players at the beginning of the game? Match performance should impact CA, not PA. By definition, PA cannot change.

[hursty2]

How about PA levels, each player has the potential to become the best player in the world but the chances vary from player to player.

For example, let's take a young player that is so promising that in real life they are potentially world class; Neymar, only 19 but you could see when he was younger that he had the potential to be a star.

NEYMAR, Santos, Brazil.
PA Levels        Percentage Chance of Reaching Level (%)

   10                             100

   20                             100

   30                             100

   40                             100

   50                             100

   60                             100

   70                             100

   80                             100

   90                             100

   100                            100

   110                            100

   120                            100

   130                            100

   140                            100

   150                             97

   160                             88

   170                             85

   180                             60

   190                             58

   200                             40

Now this shows that he is guaranteed to become a good player, or that he has already reached this PA and this is his current ability. It also shows that he still has a very good chance of becoming one of the best players in the world but it is not guaranteed at all but with the correct training and game time there is a good chance that he will. This can all be worked out inside the game with complex algorithms and these percentages can increase and decrease as the game progresses. Let's say he moves to a team with the best youth facilities and coaches with a manager that has 18+ for working with youngsters his chance of becoming a better player increases. The percentage chance of reaching PA level 200 increase by 5% maybe even 10%, meaning that he has a 50/50 chance of becoming the best player in the world. However let's say that he breaks his leg and remains in Brazil these percentages go down and he still has this chance of being the best but the percentage is slashed.

I'm calling it Dynamic Potential Ability.

Now let's looks at a player that no one thinks will become a world beater but who knows? Nick Powell, who has just won the league 2 young player of the year award.

Powell, Crewe Alexandra, England.
PA Levels        Percentage Chance of Reaching Level (%)

   10                             100

   20                             100

   30                             100

   40                             100

   50                             100

   60                             100

   70                             100

   80                              95

   90                              91

   100                             87

   110                             75

   120                             69

   130                             52

   140                             48

   150                             30

   160                             23

   170                             16

   180                             12

   190                             6

   200                             2

He clearly is not as good as Neymar but he has shown glimpses of becoming at least a very good player. However the chances of this are low but like with Neymar if some team, with all the attributes that will help him develop into a much better player, comes in for him his percentage of being a good player are greatly increased. That's not to say that even with good training and coaching that he will be a good player but the chance for him to be that 140+ PA player have massively improved.

I hope this is within what people are looking for.

[marty78]

The problem I see with your idea is that all players should not be able to reach 200PA even if those chances are only 1% for most. Also with a flexible PA system with % chances such as that Neymars example shows too high a percentage for top PA. I think all players should have a ceiling set and a league two player such as Powell should never be able to reach the PA of Neymar due to the fact that Neymar is already identified as a wonderkid.

If % are going to be used then I think Neymar should look more like this:

Starting CA - 150
Potential PA - 150 = 100%
160 = 80%
170 = 60%
180 = 40%
190 = 20%
200 = 0%

The only way he is going to each 190+ is if he moves to a high rep European team in a high rep league with superb facilities and has almost perfect progression with no injuries or sustained poor form.

Edit - actually after thinking about it I don't like this idea because how would you decide which players got what % chances of increasing? At what stage does a percentage scale get decided on for individual players as all players would need their own scale? It sounds too complicated a change for too little reward and also there could be potential problems compared to the current system which, by and large, actually works.

Why not just give slightly higher PA's in general but make it less likely for that potential to be realised? Couple that with hiding star ratings and then, without looking at an editor, you won't know whether you have a world class or a championship player until he hits his maximum CA and "finds his level". This way the current mechanics do not have to change just the representation of those hidden numbers to the user.

[TOUGHGUY]

For a long time I have thought a dynamic PA should be somehow implemented - but I realized that it would ultimately lead to the same thing we have now, i.e. a certain limit, basically what PA is now. Only calculated differently. The only difference would be that some players (high professionalism etc.) at some clubs (with top staff and facilities) would get a high PA (in current terms). Sure it would be a nice addition but ultimately nothing that revolutionary or huge.

Not content with the system in place now either, however, I think the whole CA-PA-form dynamic being much more, err, dynamic, would be the solution.

There should be much more fluctuation in stats, players should reach their total peak much slower and/or undergo several transitions and iterations of their stat distribution as opposed to what we have now, where they 'get good at 23 and never get any better'. Perhaps above all, form should be something much more 'tangible' for a lack of a better word. It should have some sort of actual impact on player's ability, on how the game rates him and more importantly how you rate him. Players are bought based on form in real life, in FM, you will only look at the attributes you see on a player's profile.

You know what I mean. 'That guy scored 30 in 30 last season but I'm Chelsea and he has 13 composure and finishing, makes no sense for me to buy him.' If the game somehow acknowledged his form and presented this to you in a manner you could work with, it would be great.

I don't really have an idea as to the 'how', maybe something like 'This guy actually has 13 finishing/composure but his form over the past three months has improved because he works hard in training and yadda yadda so he's more like 16/16 but pushing above his weight and this won't last forever or whatever,' I'm just thinking aloud here.

Or something. I don't know. Make the cold numbers intertwined with the malleable form much more, have CA/PA/form provide a much more interesting challenge than just buying the highest numbers.

[r0x0r]

If a player is hitting 8.50 ratings, upping his PA/CA will only increase his ratings, thus forcing his CA/PA up, in an unending cycle.

If a player is performing as well as Messi and has 150CA, who cares? He's performing as well as Messi. He doesn't need to be a 180CA player with better stats. Otherwise he'd outperform Messi.

As long as you don't use external tools, the current PA system works okay for real players (with the caveat that people misjudge, but there's no good solution here) and perfectly for regens.

The system even already accounts for things like a Mansfield player moving to Man U automatically becoming better because who he's surrounded by / coached by. Once a player hits his PA, he can still improve as a player if he learns better PPMs, picks up a new position, or just via the "training points" aspect of stats. Two players with equal CA/PA could have 14's all round and 15's all round based on who is at the better club with better facilities. Buy mr.14 and train him alongside mr.15 and he'll also become a mr.15.

[marty78]

As long as you don't use external tools, the current PA system works okay for real players (with the caveat that people misjudge, but there's no good solution here) and perfectly for regens.

Already been discussed. External tools are not required to gauge a players approximate potential via star ratings. While there may be some innaccuracies within these, they are still too accurate and along with being able to see accurate attributes (other than hidden atts) it is pretty easy to see whether a player will reach that potential. The current system does work well on the whole and what some, myself included, have suggested is removing the potential star rating from all coach and scout reports. This would mean having to gauge a younger players potential from nothing but there current star rating and attributes, their personalities and there current development.

My issue is more to do with scouting and coaching reports and the accuracy of them with regards potential. The CA star accuracies are fine since it is much easier to judge a players current ability simply by watching but potential is something that is an educated guess at best and and a wild speculation at worst. I would be happy for the current system to remain unchanged if just the way that the information is displayed to the user was tweaked.

No potential star ratings? People wouldn't be so quick to discard their own youth intake the second they can if they didn't have a good idea immediately they were not good enough.

I would also like to see "fog of war" taken one step further alongside this. Instead of getting a report card and being able view all a players attributes it should take many matches of scouting a player to reveal accurate attributes. So when you first start scouting a player it would show attributes in ranges. For example they have passing
13-18 and after scouting for a number of matches scouted they show passing as 14-15. If a player was scouted for a long time the final figure could end up being revealed as passing 15. Of course if you want that player before others show an interest you can take a chance without viewing attributes accurately but thats presents more risks for failed transfers and rightfully so.

I would also like to see the youth players (under 18's) have the same ranged attributes that slowly reveal themselves over the course of their youth contract and along with no PA stars I would actually have to think about what players deserve a contract. At the moment I get my intake, view the squad page and offer one or two contracts, if I am lucky, and allow the rest to leave.

[x42bn6]

So now not only does the way players develop need to be rewritten in a way that's going to need to be very finely balanced to stop virtuous and vicious circles occurring but the AI tactics are going to need to get much better at adapting to specific players to make it work. That's a lot of work to get underrated youngsters to perform above researchers estimates in some games.

Ooh, poor SI, too much work!

I don't think it matters how much work it is. You're not doing it.

A game that fixes both these issues sounds awesome, don't you agree?

X42bn6 can't understand this, therefore it is hopeless to convince him that his idea of increasing the PA's as a result of good performance is probably the worst idea ever I've heard in these forums.

Oh, I do understand. The researcher's opinion has changed, therefore it was wrong to begin with. Which isn't surprising, given there is a degree of uncertainty about the figure in the first place - both optimistic and pessimistic uncertainty. Sadly, the game only models optimistic uncertainty.

The problem I see with your idea is that all players should not be able to reach 200PA even if those chances are only 1% for most.

Isn't that true, though? There exists a probability for everyone to reach Messi's level - it is just that for 99.9% of the population, you are probably more likely to win the lottery.

At no point does the probability hit zero (except when the person dies).

Also with a flexible PA system with % chances such as that Neymars example shows too high a percentage for top PA. I think all players should have a ceiling set and a league two player such as Powell should never be able to reach the PA of Neymar due to the fact that Neymar is already identified as a wonderkid.

If % are going to be used then I think Neymar should look more like this:

Starting CA - 150
Potential PA - 150 = 100%
160 = 80%
170 = 60%
180 = 40%
190 = 20%
200 = 0%

How would you decide where the 0% is

The only way he is going to each 190+ is if he moves to a high rep European team in a high rep league with superb facilities and has almost perfect progression with no injuries or sustained poor form.

Edit - actually after thinking about it I don't like this idea because how would you decide which players got what % chances of increasing? At what stage does a percentage scale get decided on for individual players as all players would need their own scale? It sounds too complicated a change for too little reward and also there could be potential problems compared to the current system which, by and large, actually works. [/quote]

Modelling and testing.

Why not just give slightly higher PA's in general but make it less likely for that potential to be realised?

Because you can never every rule out a player hitting CA 200. At no point does it hit probability zero. Although it can certainly be a very small number.

Couple that with hiding star ratings and then, without looking at an editor, you won't know whether you have a world class or a championship player until he hits his maximum CA and "finds his level". This way the current mechanics do not have to change just the representation of those hidden numbers to the user.

A player doesn't "find their level" when they hit a point where some random third party thinks they will peak. A player "finds their level" when they can no longer progress any further. A researcher just guesses where that will be. But we do not have to make that a solid guess.

If a player is hitting 8.50 ratings, upping his PA/CA will only increase his ratings, thus forcing his CA/PA up, in an unending cycle.

Not true. A player that plays really well becomes more tightly-marked/heavily-closed down/etc. This results in players' ratings usually dropping after a while. Look at second-season syndrome - the opposition now sees the overachieving team as a threat and starts to play more tight and controlled. One-trick ponies or one-season wonders will struggle. True class, however, shines through - players who can still consistently perform should still develop

If a player is performing as well as Messi and has 150CA, who cares? He's performing as well as Messi. He doesn't need to be a 180CA player with better stats. Otherwise he'd outperform Messi.

You should care because the implication is that this player isn't learning.

As the player's reputation increases, the scrutiny increases by the opposition, and if he is still consistently making them look stupid, then he has adapted to a more difficult situation - therefore he is learning.

As long as you don't use external tools, the current PA system works okay for real players (with the caveat that people misjudge, but there's no good solution here) and perfectly for regens.

Nope. The difficulty bug was partly solved using an external tool. Things can be wrong under the hood. You don't get to sweep things under the carpet.

The system even already accounts for things like a Mansfield player moving to Man U automatically becoming better because who he's surrounded by / coached by. Once a player hits his PA, he can still improve as a player if he learns better PPMs, picks up a new position, or just via the "training points" aspect of stats. Two players with equal CA/PA could have 14's all round and 15's all round based on who is at the better club with better facilities. Buy mr.14 and train him alongside mr.15 and he'll also become a mr.15.

Yes, but this player won't develop as well as a player who actually has "spare CA". A player who is 120/120 will only develop with red arrows compensating for green arrows, while a 120/140 player will develop with more green arrows and fewer (if any) red arrows, regardless of performances. If these two players were playing and training exactly the same, why should the latter develop better than the former? Because the researcher thought he would? Why should the researcher's opinion override what is happening in your virtual world, where the virtual world could be very, very different to the real world?

[Barside]

Isn't that true, though? There exists a probability for everyone to reach Messi's level - it is just that for 99.9% of the population, you are probably more likely to win the lottery.

I showed some promise as a footballer in my youth but there was not a single set of circumstances in existence that could have aligned in a way that I would ever have reached the ability of Messi.

You're talking utter nonsense & it's to such an extent that I truly question your knowledge of elite sport & more specifically football.

[milnerpoint]

Ah the old "everyone has the potential to be as good as messi" line. To be honest, that alone sums up why that particular suggestion is terrible, if that is in mind when devising this system then it will fail. I showed no promise as a kid, none at all, there isnt anything in the world that could have been done to make me a player of that caliber, anyone who says different knows very little about football.

[achilles-the-victorious]

All I can think is imagine the exploits if PA wasn't fixed.

"You should care because the implication is that this player isn't learning."

A player's job is to perform, not learn. Once they perform at a high level it is usually near impossible to continue to make big strides in all-round development. At some point you have to spend LESS time doing physical work so that you can spend MORE time, for e.g. analysing your own game, and your upcoming opponent. So the player doesn't stop learning, really, what happens is they have to start prioritizing their development, sacrificing one sort of training for another.

Re: scouting accuracy, I already related my (FM11) story of a player who I signed that was rated as having 2.5 stars potential by my scouts. Then my coaches rated his potential as 2.5 stars for years, even when he became a regular member of the starting XI and was banging in just under a goal a game (as a hard-working, physical goal poacher) and an assist (from corners) every 3 games. Well, he is now 26 and he is undeniably world class, IMO, but the game still rates him as a $13m player, while I consider him probably a $30 or $40m player. He is FINALLY rated 3 stars by my staff, but even then, the level he performs at is as good as any 3.5 star poacher I have ever had. So whats the problem? The scouts were wrong, the player overachieved, and I had to go on developing him based on my gut for YEARS.

[tylerazevedo]

I showed some promise as a footballer in my youth but there was not a single set of circumstances in existence that could have aligned in a way that I would ever have reached the ability of Messi.

You're talking utter nonsense & it's to such an extent that I truly question your knowledge of elite sport & more specifically football.

Honestly I agree that not everyone has the potential to reach Messi level. However, I do think that more people do than most of us realize...say some arbitrary 60% of young professional footballers (young = U17). The case with that 60% is that 99.9% of them will not reach it due to different circumstances. Now that doesn't mean that I think 60% of youth prospects in the game should be -10 potential. However, the number of -10 potential guys is quite limited. My suggestion would be to increase the range for -10,-9,etc by 10 or so on each end and then bump most prospects up a level or two. It would create more prospects that have great potential, but still the math would produce roughly the same amount of actual super stars.

Again, those numbers are random that I just threw out.

[obinna]

For a long time I have thought a dynamic PA should be somehow implemented - but I realized that it would ultimately lead to the same thing we have now, i.e. a certain limit, basically what PA is now. Only calculated differently. The only difference would be that some players (high professionalism etc.) at some clubs (with top staff and facilities) would get a high PA (in current terms). Sure it would be a nice addition but ultimately nothing that revolutionary or huge.

Not content with the system in place now either, however, I think the whole CA-PA-form dynamic being much more, err, dynamic, would be the solution.

There should be much more fluctuation in stats, players should reach their total peak much slower and/or undergo several transitions and iterations of their stat distribution as opposed to what we have now, where they 'get good at 23 and never get any better'. Perhaps above all, form should be something much more 'tangible' for a lack of a better word. It should have some sort of actual impact on player's ability, on how the game rates him and more importantly how you rate him. Players are bought based on form in real life, in FM, you will only look at the attributes you see on a player's profile.

You know what I mean. 'That guy scored 30 in 30 last season but I'm Chelsea and he has 13 composure and finishing, makes no sense for me to buy him.' If the game somehow acknowledged his form and presented this to you in a manner you could work with, it would be great.


I don't really have an idea as to the 'how', maybe something like 'This guy actually has 13 finishing/composure but his form over the past three months has improved because he works hard in training and yadda yadda so he's more like 16/16 but pushing above his weight and this won't last forever or whatever,' I'm just thinking aloud here.

Or something. I don't know. Make the cold numbers intertwined with the malleable form much more, have CA/PA/form provide a much more interesting challenge than just buying the highest numbers.

Good post and the bolded is completely true. This is what happens in real life. Look at how much the ratings of players fluctuate from different versions of FM. Player development isn't so linear and rigid in real life so why should it be so in game world?

But then again, according to tylerazevedo, we only see these issues b/c we cheat. lol

[Barside]

This isn't what happens irl, people need to separate changes in research opinion from in-game player progression/regression & the vagaries of form which IMHO FM simulates quite well.

[obinna]

IRL and in every FM version a players attributes (or the perception of them) changes continuously based on his form. For people to argue that this shouldn't be true in the game world is absurd. In FM, Demba Ba 2 years ago wouldn't have a chance of being the players they are today.

[whilewolf]

Good post and the bolded is completely true. This is what happens in real life. Look at how much the ratings of players fluctuate from different versions of FM. Player development isn't so linear and rigid in real life so why should it be so in game world?

But then again, according to tylerazevedo, we only see these issues b/c we cheat. lol

For a long time I have thought a dynamic PA should be somehow implemented - but I realized that it would ultimately lead to the same thing we have now, i.e. a certain limit, basically what PA is now. Only calculated differently. The only difference would be that some players (high professionalism etc.) at some clubs (with top staff and facilities) would get a high PA (in current terms). Sure it would be a nice addition but ultimately nothing that revolutionary or huge.

Not content with the system in place now either, however, I think the whole CA-PA-form dynamic being much more, err, dynamic, would be the solution.

There should be much more fluctuation in stats, players should reach their total peak much slower and/or undergo several transitions and iterations of their stat distribution as opposed to what we have now, where they 'get good at 23 and never get any better'. Perhaps above all, form should be something much more 'tangible' for a lack of a better word. It should have some sort of actual impact on player's ability, on how the game rates him and more importantly how you rate him. Players are bought based on form in real life, in FM, you will only look at the attributes you see on a player's profile.

You know what I mean. 'That guy scored 30 in 30 last season but I'm Chelsea and he has 13 composure and finishing, makes no sense for me to buy him.' If the game somehow acknowledged his form and presented this to you in a manner you could work with, it would be great.

I don't really have an idea as to the 'how', maybe something like 'This guy actually has 13 finishing/composure but his form over the past three months has improved because he works hard in training and yadda yadda so he's more like 16/16 but pushing above his weight and this won't last forever or whatever,' I'm just thinking aloud here.

Or something. I don't know. Make the cold numbers intertwined with the malleable form much more, have CA/PA/form provide a much more interesting challenge than just buying the highest numbers.

Sounds to me that you two don't really want a dynamic PA but player attributes that are generated by what the player does in matches you observe. Players real attributes would be hidden from gamers the way CA is now, instead we would see a player profile that reflects the players recent observed performances. For example if you scouted a guy for one match and he missed two open goals you would see a Finishing attribute of 3 if you managed him and say that he scored one chance in two all season you would see he had a finishing attribute of eighteen.
That would certainly make scouting more interesting and long term scouting more important but It would add a hell of a lot of extra processing to keep separate observed player profiles for every AI entity that looks at a player.

[marty78]

Isn't that true, though? There exists a probability for everyone to reach Messi's level - it is just that for 99.9% of the population, you are probably more likely to win the lottery.

At no point does the probability hit zero (except when the person dies).

If the probability ends when he dies then it starts when he is born. After being born that player has 15/16 years before entering the game where their development will be different from anyone else and therefore, by the time we get them, they have already lost some of their initial potential. This means that at the stage of entering the game it is impossible already for them to be the best player of all time(200). Of course a player can still develop but physically the way the player has grown as a child will already be set and also a persons intelligence is pretty much set by then also. Of course they can still learn things but if your stupid at 16 you will be at 26.