Is CA(Current Ability)/PA(Potential Ability) flawed??

I'd like to start by saying any figures i use in this topic number wise are not the real values of those in Football Manager 2014.

I was recently thinking about Football Manager 2014 and how CA/PA works in the game and started wondering if it was flawed or not, and in my honest opinion i think it is. MY argument comes in the form of players potential mainly, for example if I'm in the Premier League managing say Everton, and i spot a player that looks brilliant, hes a young 20 year old striker (not a regen) and he scored 30 goals in League One for say Walsall, 30 goals in League One is a very good record, but its not something you'd really base buying him for someone like Everton, the striker in question then moves onto a team in the Championship say Nottingham Forest for example, again scores a decent return that season with 20 goals, at this point you'd be of the opinion that hes young, hes got 49 goals in 2 seasons at two different levels so he could improve in the future, you sign said player for Everton and he doesn't really do anything for you, out of curiosity you look at his Current and Potential Ability and they are only 100 & 120.

So whats my point?

My point is he will never ever be good enough for the Premier League as his PA has been reached once he gets to that level so whats point in signing him in the first place? I think we've seen it before when players in real life have come through the system from non league, Jermaine Beckford, he's never been brilliant on FM and never had a very high potential ability, but hes played in every league from League One to the Premier League with a lot of success, same could be said for Jamie Vardy.

On Football Manager their is no way to replicate any of those two players due to CA/PCA, could there be a reason to making the PA able to rise due to training? Amount of time spent on the pitch, the clubs facilities he plays for, etc?

Not only that but individual stats don't really mean anything as they're also detemined by the CA/PA system.

I believe the PA system is the one that lets it down, is anyone else of the same opinion, or have i got it totally wrong?

The PA system works almost perfectly as long as you don't cheat and look at the values.

CA is something that people should not get hung up on & looking at the values can only lead to confusion or anger, obviously each player has a general CA value but it is how the attributes that are distributed that is important. The attribute distribution creates a role CA which is a key factor in defining how good a player actually is & it is not unheard of for a player rated at CA120 to have a specific role CA of 160 or for a player with a CA of 140 to have a role CA of 105.

I get that but if a said player has a CA of 100 but only had a PA of 100 then he can never ever get any better right? A PA of 100 is about League One quality, so he'd never be able to play any higher?=, say the Permier League, no matter how well he does in League One.

I get that but if a said player has a CA of 100 but only had a PA of 100 then he can never ever get any better right? A PA of 100 is about League One quality, so he'd never be able to play any higher?=, say the Permier League, no matter how well he does in League One.

Like the vast majority of football players in the world

I get that but if a said player has a CA of 100 but only had a PA of 100 then he can never ever get any better right? A PA of 100 is about League One quality, so he'd never be able to play any higher?=, say the Permier League, no matter how well he does in League One.

Why is that a problem? For the vast majority of footballers in the world, no matter how good the training is, it is impossible for them to become a top class player.

Why is that a problem? For the vast majority of footballers in the world, no matter how good the training is, it is impossible for them to become a top class player.

I'm sure Leicester didn't think that about Vardy, or Leeds thinking that about Beckford... and they never had good potential on any other FM. So were virtually unknown, if you find an unknown in FM you already know his level if you know his PA.

I'm sure Leicester didn't think that about Vardy, or Leeds thinking that about Beckford... and they never had good potential on any other FM. So were virtually unknown, if you find an unknown in FM you already know his level if you know his PA.

Beckford had basically half a good season in non league football and Leeds took a gamble on him. It wasn't some massive long scouting mission to establish his potential, it was a hunch.

If you think sensibly, then it is perfectly understandable that he wouldn't have been rated very well at all on Football Manager.

It's not about the CA or the PA or the gap inbetween these values, it's the distribution of attributes that matter.

In theory you could bring in a striker of CA 100 to a premier league team starting lineup, and he would score goals - given his attribute distribution is good enough as a striker type you are playing him as, and you have a tactic to make him shine, as well as a good group of teammates to support.

It is hard, but not impossible. (And on the other hand, I think the AI clubs lack this skill/courage to buy these players even they shone the previous season, hence the lack of these transfers in FM)

I'm sure Leicester didn't think that about Vardy, or Leeds thinking that about Beckford... and they never had good potential on any other FM. So were virtually unknown, if you find an unknown in FM you already know his level if you know his PA.

Thats because the potentials given in FM can be re-evaluated over the years by the research team. Potentials in FM14 aren't set in stone for all time to be used in FM15, FM16, FM17, they can fluctuate but in real life a player's potential is at a level and only injury and illness can change it. This debate often comes up and is usually is due to a misunderstanding of the word "potential".

No matter what world class athletics training I do or you do we won't ever be as fast as Usain Bolt. Genetics plays a part and is a limiting factor, all world class training does is help get as close as possible to our "potential", you can reach your potential but it is impossible to exceed you potential - that would be an oxymoron. It doesn't mean everyone can become world class, most people no matter what training you have won't get remotely close to world class levels of performance.

If Beckford or Vardy now have a CA that exceed their PA on previous FM's, that doesn't mean the CA/PA system is wrong its just that the research team have re-evaluted the player and deemed the previous PA to be incorrect. Beckford and Vardy, no matte what training they have will never be as good as Messi so it would be wrong to make it possible for every player to potentially have a CA of 200.

Jermaine Beckford had a shot in the Premier League, didn't work out & he went back to the football league where his record has been at best average.

Yes that comes with age, and i don't think 8 goals in 34 games was a bad return for a players first season in the EPL, a lot was from the bench too.

Beckford had basically half a good season in non league football and Leeds took a gamble on him. It wasn't some massive long scouting mission to establish his potential, it was a hunch.

If you think sensibly, then it is perfectly understandable that he wouldn't have been rated very well at all on Football Manager.

Again this is my point, you can't do that on FM, if i be Sheffield United on the game, i get them up to the Championship, by the time i reach the Premier League if i got sueccessive promotions, i'd have a totally different team, and no players from league one any more, which doesn't happen in real life.

See Southampton/Norwich IRL, they still have a few players that they had in League one, or recently sold them on to other Premier League clubs.

Another way of putting it, if i be Sheffield United now, on the game by the time im in the Premier League i'd not be able to play someone like Chris Basham, when IRL we could quite easily go up in 2-3 seasons with him still in our Premier League side, something which i couldn't do with him on FM.

I'm sure Leicester didn't think that about Vardy, or Leeds thinking that about Beckford... and they never had good potential on any other FM. So were virtually unknown, if you find an unknown in FM you already know his level if you know his PA.

But you don't know his PA unless you cheat.

You can scout him and get an opinion but that is only PPA. There has been plenty of discussion that PPA is too accurate and it should be less accurate which I agree with.

I would like to see at least the option of random potential being set for every real player at the start of a save which would make saves more interesting and add more variety. Its something thats been used for a number of years and works well in PCM.

That's not true either, on my FM13 save I had a player in my Championship play-off match squad who was signed for the club when we were in Conference North (poached him from another Conference North side) & a handful of players who joined the club when we were in Leagues 1 & 2.

So by this your saying that a player playing for a League One club who has a CA of 110 and a PA of 113 could play in the Premier League at some point on FM 14?

But you don't know his PA unless you cheat.

You can scout him and get an opinion but that is only PPA. There has been plenty of discussion that PPA is too accurate and it should be less accurate which I agree with.

I would like to see at least the option of random potential being set for every real player at the start of a save which would make saves more interesting and add more variety. Its something thats been used for a number of years and works well in PCM.

You don't need to know the PA, as generally you'll know that all League One players can't play in the Permier League on the game as their Potentials will be low and can never change.

I agree with the OP's sentiment. It would make sense to me that PA would be somewhat flexible (maybe 5-10% on an annual basis).

So by this your saying that a player playing for a League One club who has a CA of 110 and a PA of 113 could play in the Premier League at some point on FM 14?

He's never going to get a CA higher than 113 in FM14, so he'd struggle to play in the Premier League. But the researcher has deemed him to have a PA of 113 for a reason... i.e. he doesn't believe him to ever be capable (no matter what training he has) to be better than 113. If in real life in the future he proves to be better than 113 then the FM research team can re-evaluate him and give him a higher PA. All it means is the original PA was wrong and was a human error to set it so low, it doesn't mean the CA/PA system in FM is flawed - just under constant evaluation.

I agree with the OP's sentiment. It would make sense to me that PA would be somewhat flexible (maybe 5-10% on an annual basis).

Younger players already have flexible PA's, thats what the -1, -2, -3, -4, -5 etc system is there for. Older players have set PA's as there is more evidence to determine what their PA should be and they don't always fulfil it.

I dont think genetics really comes into this debate. The example given about Usain Bolt is near pure genetics. Explain Xavi? Iniesta? I dont think genetically they are any different to me or you, same with Rooney, genetically I dont think he was any different. There is a plethora of factors that go into becoming a great player is some of it genetics? Yes, but most of it would be training, and envrironment. Infact I urge you all to read the talent code fascinating book into what make talent and how to nurture it. Ever heard of the rule of 10,000?

Infact, messi nearly never made it due to genetics, he had an issue with growth hormones I think and if it were not for Barcelona paying his treatment he may never have become who he is.

Can some one please explain the distribution theory in more detail?

SO if I understand this correctly somone like Kozak at villa who has exceptional attributes for target man, although his CA may not be world class if I play him in a position that works with his Jumping and heading he may score more than Benteke who is a better footballer but may not suit my tactics?

I'll see if I can explain how things work.

First off their are four values that are in use, CA, PA, PPA & RA.

CA: Current Ability, everyone knows about this one & its real world definition would be the value assigned to describe a player's general football ability, the higher the value the more technically proficient a person is at football. This is why attacking players tend to have a higher CA than defensive players.

PA: Potential Ability, nice & simple, it's just the maximum CA value a person can attain.

PPA: Perceived Potential Ability, used by scouts & coaches to give the user a star rating for PA in game, it can be over or under the true PA & is based on a number of factors. So this would be closer to the mark based on scouts and coaches JPA and JCA stats? Is there a boundary like if he has a 20 rating for JPA 18 out of 20 players scouted will be accurate? If you get my point, is it like consistancy with players 20 consistency means 18 out of 20 games will be played at full CA or whatever that is? How does that effect the stats distribution?

RA: Role Ability, this is not shown to the user other than a list that shows a player's best roles, the actual value is unknown to the user & it is down to their talent as a manager to ensure that the player is being used in the best manner for their ability. RA is defined by the attributes that are important for the role & can see a defender with a 150CA have a role CA of 185, he is not the greatest footballer in the world but due to having the right attributes for his role he is an absolute monster in defence because he does not need to have the pure technical ability of an attacking player with a much higher CA.

See the red italic letters

Again this is my point, you can't do that on FM, if i be Sheffield United on the game, i get them up to the Championship, by the time i reach the Premier League if i got sueccessive promotions, i'd have a totally different team, and no players from league one any more, which doesn't happen in real life.

See Southampton/Norwich IRL, they still have a few players that they had in League one, or recently sold them on to other Premier League clubs.

Another way of putting it, if i be Sheffield United now, on the game by the time im in the Premier League i'd not be able to play someone like Chris Basham, when IRL we could quite easily go up in 2-3 seasons with him still in our Premier League side, something which i couldn't do with him on FM.

You unwittingly picked a poor example to make your point. Sheff united is my current save. Certainly, most of their initial players never did anything in the EPL. However, one of them I sold to Aston Villa. They liked him enough to eventually give him a testimonial to which I was invited. Two other players went on to Premier League teams when I was done with them. When I was still in League 1, I purchased a player from a team in Northern Ireland for 115K. He went on to play for me for several years in the Premier League. I eventually sold him on to PSG for 25 million as I recall. I purchased another player from a League 2 team. I didn't have him for long as Everton came calling for him. He was a regular for them for the better part of a decade after that.

Again this is my point, you can't do that on FM, if i be Sheffield United on the game, i get them up to the Championship, by the time i reach the Premier League if i got sueccessive promotions, i'd have a totally different team, and no players from league one any more, which doesn't happen in real life.

See Southampton/Norwich IRL, they still have a few players that they had in League one, or recently sold them on to other Premier League clubs.

Another way of putting it, if i be Sheffield United now, on the game by the time im in the Premier League i'd not be able to play someone like Chris Basham, when IRL we could quite easily go up in 2-3 seasons with him still in our Premier League side, something which i couldn't do with him on FM.

I play as Sheffield United (seeing as I'm a fan IRL) and won the Champions League/League with George Long, Harry Maguire, Diego Giralamo, Baxter, Whitehouse, McFadzean and Terry Kennedy all still in the squad and playing major roles. My first season in the Prem I think I had the full squad apart from Porter still at the club.

You're correct, a better scout will have a lower margin of error when assessing PPA.

I do not know the exact hit rate & tbh I probably wouldn't say if I did, there needs to be some mystery.

Understandable. Certainly adds to the game not knowing exactly which ones he has spot on and which he doesnt, Villa are not in a position to sign everyone and figuure it out haha. Thanks for the info.

One last question, how does consistency and CA work with this RA? For example, if Kozak has 10 consistency, and a ca 0f 130 but has teh attributes to hsine in a TM role, will his suitablility be impacted by him hitting the 3 gamnes or so when he is not scoring? I guess its a pretty silly question but this is the first I have heard aboiut this RA thing. This has has flung open a door for me to enjoy the gamne again!

SO you have a winger with an average CA but 16 crossing, pace and acceleration and dribbling and you set him to run at opponents, dribble more and cross and you could do well with him for assists. This is where Player intrsuctions come in right? TI for players that have natural ability PI for those who just have one job to offer. Could this explain JOhn Terry haha just kidding, but I think the penny may be dropping!

This is a pointless subject because you're not supposed to see their PA, CA or FA. You're supposed to see a guy scoring goals through the ranks, you took a chance on him, and he didn't work out. Sounds like real life football management to me.

For me its how the players develop, loaning players out to different leagues or to a team who play a different style should develop certain stats more than others, the way the player is played should play more of a role, on the job training if you will

They do, to an extent, depending on the position played and training focus given to them by the AI manager.

One thing I would like to see in FM 2015 is the option to turn off the current ability and potential rating stars.

You're correct, a better scout will have a lower margin of error when assessing PPA.

I do not know the exact hit rate & tbh I probably wouldn't say if I did, there needs to be some mystery.

Can you confirm my assumption that PPA gets more accurate the longer a player has been at your club?

SO if I understand this correctly somone like Kozak at villa who has exceptional attributes for target man, although his CA may not be world class if I play him in a position that works with his Jumping and heading he may score more than Benteke who is a better footballer but may not suit my tactics?

Had Kozak on a previous iteration -- I think I've barely had a forward who had this high a header completion rate on the level I was playing then. It's up to you to utilize that.

That said, the attribute system on FM can make for weird results if you start (extreme) experimenting. You'll find that heavily modifying key attributes you associate to bookings and tacklings won't alter much.

That low finishing and composure doesn't keep players from being top scorers, nor having very high SOT ratios (60% and up)

Or that key attributes you would associate to passing don't massively let players down at all, columns left to right: appearances, pass success ratio, first touch, passing, technique, decisions.

Additionally, ulta low work rate and determination won't offset a player's running statistics (distances), even players with "1"s in both can make top of the league, as your tactical setup has a far greater bearing on that (roles/duties that encourage lots of runs, generally aggressive attacking tactics, look for overlap encouragements etc.). Things to bear in mind are that: Can't find the post but I remember Paul Collyer, the chief coder of the match code, stating that FM would assume any footballer taken from the database to be "decent footballers". edit: I found it via google, heh. http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/283877-FM2012-difficulty.?p=7379345&viewfull=1#post7379345

There is also a post from Marc Vaughan I found by accident when searching for something, who I think is now working mainly on the handheld iterations, and who in 2004 said: "I tend to develop AI by making a 'perfect' attack/defense and then introduce human errors - this has two advantages, (1) easy tuning/fixing of problems (ie. you 'know' that any failures are 'bugs' and not simply a player performing poorly), (2) you can introduce human characteristics and (hopefully) ensure that failures are done in a realistic manner." If the match sim of the main game is done in this way, big if, this was ten years ago, this means that the occasional error would be more likely to happen with lower attributes, not a generally all low performance. At key moments there could be a "fail check" that makes a pass go astray, rather than a player frequently failing to pass the ball.

Still you might be wondering if the researchers are given guidelines that would make them insert the data which is suitable to produce realistic behavior, if possible, within the match sim. To an extent, the attributes aren't as straight forward as they seem, at least some. Later in the game this could also beg the question whether the attributes are weighted in this heavily -- or whether they're still weighted against the overall CA in a second or first step to determine an overall level of performance long before individual low attributes could make some damage. But then this is experimenting -- in the game you'll generally see players topping the passing/assists/heading/scoring charts you generally would expect to do. Yet some individual attributes don't have the influence you would expect them to have in isolation. Players with a general level of poor attributes (which inevitably means a low CA) perform horribly, that is understood, whilst those that still have a high overall CA appear still decent passers despite their individual attributes for the area being very very low. I don't know whether that is a revelation, it certainly is but a limited and flawed extreme experiment. But it might make you think the next time you try to assess a player based on his individual visible attributes alone when technically poor players can still make the best passers of any top flight. (Everything run on full detail match simulation).

It also begs the question to what extent you'd be better adviced to look at your scout's PPA and CA ratings, and whether some attributes are really that important (why look at technique when keeping possession can be done with any type of player?). Going one step further, you might ask what is genuine and what is mere "cosmetics" to make the game appear more complex and in-depth than is. But those are ones for SI to tackle who no doubt won't give anything really away (as they never do). ;-)

I have on the other hand experimented a bit with low CA players with some extremely high key attributes. My main idea was that attacking attributes have very low weights for players natural in defending positions, so that natural defenders competent as attackers may possess extremely high attacking attributes while having a relatively low CA.

So I created a CA 50 natural sweeper/DC with a rating of 12 as striker. By putting all defensive attributes to 1, I was able to max dribbling, finishing, composure, off the ball, penalties, free kicks as well as to put pace and acceleration very high. Naturally I maxed versatiliy and the other beneficial hidden attributes. I also gave the player a bunch of PPM:s I thought would be useful for scoring.

The result? 29 goals in 30 matches in the second highest league in Sweden (English League 2 quality or so) as advanced forward in a rather unoptimized 4-4-2 tactic, and an average rating of 7.44. The second highest scorer was a CA 100 player (typical level for top strikers in this league), who scored 19 goals.

Of course this was a very pathological player and another extreme experiment, but I do think it indicates that attributes alone sometimes really do matter.

I love the research, so thanks to both of you for providing those examples.

In CM01/02 it was interesting how you could have a player with an incredibly low CA (To Madeira) and he would be better than everyone with a high CA. Additionally, how defensive players with 20 for positioning were the best, regardless of their CA.

In CM 3 or 4 or thereabouts, I think there was even a player that had quite average attributes on all accounts, didn't cost a fortune due to it, but the combinations of those turned him into instant match simulation gold banging in goals for fun.

Of course this was a very pathological player and another extreme experiment, but I do think it indicates that attributes alone sometimes really do matter.

Of course they do. :-) As argued, take a look with an unedited database through your league's player statistics. Those you expect to top their statistics or to be thereabouts do so. I don't think this is being connected to CA, it's likely just that some attributes carry more weight than others. I.e. the match sim, always a work in progress, might not be able to simulate an average technical level all too well for instance, that was why I was instantly reminded of PaulC's "decent players" quote -- all players loaded from the db into the match sim are decent, some are just more decent than others? If all of Bayern Munich being edited to have poor technique, and them still competing for top op the table as well as loads of their players making the top in passing stats, it likely doesn't all too much. As for bookings, there are also hidden attributes that factor into this such as sportsmanship and dirtiness. On the contrary, edit a top side to have poor physical attributes and they will be effectively dead, like bottom of the table dead, as they're losing all key heading battles and are being fooled by anyone in the league who can make a half decent run, whether defending high up the pitch or dropping all deep.

Nonetheless, as the game has some highly specialized players in its database, and the roles that go along to it (such as a limited defender, who's encouraged to just clear it and boot it upfield), it makes you wonder how legit they are. Those are the closest to such experiments. In the same sense, Gomez' quite specialist set of skills (average technique, average at best first touch, yet deadly finishing) might not affect the match play really that much. Mertesacker's lack of mobility, on the other hand, and his tallness, now those have always been very much reflected. But do you really need a Xavi in FM to dominate an opposing midfield? Are some of the technical attributes in particular really enough utilized to warrant their own category?

(Warning: Estimate PA ratings here)

Didn't someone do an experiment of physical v technique and physical won out every day of the week?

Anyway, CA/PA will be interesting next year, I'm thinking primarily about Man Utd; Van Gaal has quite a few of the youth players playing in the friendlies at the moment (Keane, James, Lingard and so on) and in the last few instalments they've been pretty mediocre stats wise and potential wise (random max 140/150 I think for Keane and Lingard, 100-130 everyone else).

Look at the way they're playing now and I'm half wondering if they'll get a massive stat boost plus boost in potential to 140-160 as a stopgap 'just in case' measure, or if they'll be resigned to the lower half of the 100's and thus, sold by the majority of FM players.

Personally I think PA should be free from a capped limit and a combination of starting CA, training facilities, experience and personality should be the main factors of improvement but players should have their own individual development rate as a hidden stat. So one player might learn and improve rapidly and at a very young age and peak and reach his 'limit' before he hits 20, others should follow the usual progression to 24/25 and some should improve so slowly it takes until they hit 25-26 before they see their abilities raise.

That way you get super-fast peak players like Jeffers who come along and do well and look like the next hottest thing only to fade away. At the same time you get late bloomers like Lambert or more famously Ian Wright but the vast majority will raise steadily as normal and can and do become world class but of course, everyone's looking for the youth-instant-world class player which, are rare and tend to be overhyped.

That's just me though. We've seen issues with CA/PA this year, I mean for United Januzaj was just another 'craptastic youth product' until suddenly he's being updated to 170-200 potential because he has a few good games. Yet, as we can see in pre-season friendlies at the moment, the other potential youths breaking through get the hand-me-down ratings.

(Warning: Estimate PA ratings here)

Didn't someone do an experiment of physical v technique and physical won out every day of the week?

Anyway, CA/PA will be interesting next year, I'm thinking primarily about Man Utd; Van Gaal has quite a few of the youth players playing in the friendlies at the moment (Keane, James, Lingard and so on) and in the last few instalments they've been pretty mediocre stats wise and potential wise (random max 140/150 I think for Keane and Lingard, 100-130 everyone else).

Look at the way they're playing now and I'm half wondering if they'll get a massive stat boost plus boost in potential to 140-160 as a stopgap 'just in case' measure, or if they'll be resigned to the lower half of the 100's and thus, sold by the majority of FM players.

Personally I think PA should be free from a capped limit and a combination of starting CA, training facilities, experience and personality should be the main factors of improvement but players should have their own individual development rate as a hidden stat. So one player might learn and improve rapidly and at a very young age and peak and reach his 'limit' before he hits 20, others should follow the usual progression to 24/25 and some should improve so slowly it takes until they hit 25-26 before they see their abilities raise.

That way you get super-fast peak players like Jeffers who come along and do well and look like the next hottest thing only to fade away. At the same time you get late bloomers like Lambert or more famously Ian Wright but the vast majority will raise steadily as normal and can and do become world class but of course, everyone's looking for the youth-instant-world class player which, are rare and tend to be overhyped.

That's just me though. We've seen issues with CA/PA this year, I mean for United Januzaj was just another 'craptastic youth product' until suddenly he's being updated to 170-200 potential because he has a few good games. Yet, as we can see in pre-season friendlies at the moment, the other potential youths breaking through get the hand-me-down ratings.

Not entirely correct on how Januzaj got his rating, but its been done to death so not getting into that again. But there was a lot more to it than "just a few games"

In CM 3 or 4 or thereabouts, I think there was even a player that had quite average attributes on all accounts, didn't cost a fortune due to it, but the combinations of those turned him into instant match simulation gold banging in goals for fun.

Maxim Tsigalko, surely.

Danny Batth led my Wolves team to Premiership and Champions League success with a PA of 144. He ended up an England starter (and European Championship winner), never averaged below 7 for me or later for Newcastle (once my regens were ready to carry the torch).

Even now, he's 31 playing for a mid table team but has Continental reputation.

That tells me that CA isn't as limiting as some of you make out.

Hell, a quick look has shown me I have a 128 CA player at the moment with a 7.3 rating (after 3 games admittedly), and a 127 CA player who played 13 times in the league last season, 5 times in cup games and in 8 continental games. Admittedly they are both kids with high PAs (I'm taking pains not to look at what they are, but they have decent ratings in game) but right now they are playing well for the top team in European football. With CAs that you say should stop them. They are limited players but have a role.

Although I have been trying not to, I have come up with an idea which I call ‘Zero-Ability,’ or ‘0A.’ The working name was ‘notional ability.’ It is an addition to and not a substitute for existing mechanisms.

Zero-Ability is called such because its distribution is a zero sum game. The 0A points would be ‘stored’ by the game in the 0A bank. The amount of available 0A in any given competition bank would be linked to the league reputation and/or nation co-efficient. Most importantly, players at their max ca/pa could still gain 0A points, and therefore get better.

Only players playing regularly would have a chance to gain 0A points. And only the best of them would do it. The distribution would be position specific (for the sake of argument let’s say GK, FB, CB, DM, AM, WM, ST,) that is to say that GKs would be fighting between them for the same chunk of 0A, ditto FBs etc.

Let’s take GK position for example because it is the clearest, and also assume we are in the Premiership. Let’s say that the 0A bank for Premiership GKs is 50 points. In this scenario the best performing GKs in the prem are Hart, Courtois and Begovic. Hart has 16 of the available 50 0A points, Courtois has 12 and Begovic has 14. The remaining 8 belong to other prem GKs. Further increases in 0A for ANY premiership GK will mean that another GK WILL decrease in 0A.

Suppose I have a young newgen GK, and let’s say his CA/PA are 130/130, so he is as good as he is ever going to be in the current system. Suppose his form becomes great to the extent that he is the premiership’s most form GK. During this time he will gradually accrue 0A points from GKs that perform worse than he does. Perhaps at the end of the season he is now CA/PA 158/130. This would also mean that Hart, Courtois, Begovic and the other 16 regular GKs would be sharing just 22 0A points between them.

If a player changes leagues then he loses his 0A points from that league and will have to gain them again. Random luck could mean that sometimes when a player transfers his 0A gets assimilated into his CA. Random luck could mean that this happens at other times too. In the OPs example playing as Everton, the player in question scoring 30 goals in the championship would have accrued some 0A points which could become regular CA points when he transfers. If he performs well in the Prem he could go up yet again.

I think the zero-sum nature of this idea means that it will help the database stay stable going into the future, which is really only the reason, aside from effort needed, to keep the current system.

It will also provide more interesting player development, which everyone wants, and also could result in a more interesting transfer market.

It will also provide more interesting player development, which everyone wants, and also could result in a more interesting transfer market.

So because one player improves, everyone else gets worse.

Yes, that sounds like a great system that wouldn't at all result in the biggest rage-fest since CM4.

I'll see if I can explain how things work.

First off their are four values that are in use, CA, PA, PPA & RA.

CA: Current Ability, everyone knows about this one & its real world definition would be the value assigned to describe a player's general football ability, the higher the value the more technically proficient a person is at football. This is why attacking players tend to have a higher CA than defensive players.

PA: Potential Ability, nice & simple, it's just the maximum CA value a person can attain.

PPA: Perceived Potential Ability, used by scouts & coaches to give the user a star rating for PA in game, it can be over or under the true PA & is based on a number of factors.

RA: Role Ability, this is not shown to the user other than a list that shows a player's best roles, the actual value is unknown to the user & it is down to their talent as a manager to ensure that the player is being used in the best manner for their ability. RA is defined by the attributes that are important for the role & can see a defender with a 150CA have a role CA of 185, he is not the greatest footballer in the world but due to having the right attributes for his role he is an absolute monster in defence because he does not need to have the pure technical ability of an attacking player with a much higher CA.

This RA, would this also cause certain players to have really high CA/PA, but not end up all that good because a lot of points are wasted in less important stats?

Like the goalkeeper Maximin Koval, excellent keeper anyway, but has a really high Off The Ball stat, which I'd imagine is wasted on keepers.

This RA, would this also cause certain players to have really high CA/PA, but not end up all that good because a lot of points are wasted in less important stats?

Like the goalkeeper Maximin Koval, excellent keeper anyway, but has a really high Off The Ball stat, which I'd imagine is wasted on keepers.

Off the ball is an unweighted attribute for goalkeepers. It "costs" no CA points at all for them.

Generally, attributes that are not very important for a specific position will have a low CA cost for players in that position, e.g. marking is cheap for strikers and finishing is cheap for central defenders. Unless several of the "unneccesary" attributes are high, it's unlikely they will take up large amounts of CA. Of course, having e.g. a striker who is strong defensively is beneficial, so even then the extra cost may be worth it.

On FM13 I had a DC regen, Ole Scheel. I had a look at his PA eventually - it was something like 110. His attributes were not great - apart from those needed for a DC, and him being 6'7". He was a beast. He saw off multiple 8-figure 'replacements' - eventually, I had to spend £25M to get someone better than him in the Premiership

And I can't believe Cleon sold the mighty Porter

Personally, I think the underlying CA/PA system is fine, but there are some aspects that perhaps need work. In particular, they are perception and development. I will just note that, if you're looking at the actual values of CA and PA then of course much of this will be wasted on you, but given that you're not supposed to see them, that's irrelveant.

First off, perception. As Alex posted earlier, we have the PPA stat in the game, which measures how your staff think a player will develop. However, I feel that, even for good scouts, it's too accurate. If a good scout recommends a player as being potentially being a" leading premiership player", then, worst case, assuming you develop him well, he might only end up as a "good premiership player". I can't think of any time that I've seen a player rated with high potential maxing out as, say, a championship level player. And yet, I'm pretty sure it does happen IRL (note that I'm not reffering to a player not reaching his potential due to having a crap personality or being badly managed, I'm saying he genuinly was never capable of being more than a championship level guy but my scouts thought that, say, at the age of 16, he could become world class).

I don't know how much it impacts on things as they are now, but IMO, PPA should be greatly affected not just by PA, but by CA. So if a young player has a high CA for his age, then his PPA is higher than his PA and vice versa. I mean, if you see a player who's performing very well in the championship at the age of 17, you're probably going to think that he's going to be able to improve a lot more. However, he might well be close to his peak already. This is seen quite a lot, particularly with players who develop physically at a younger age.

My ssecond issue is, as I said, development. Mainly, how easy it is to develop players, If I sign a 16 year old with, say, 170PA, assuming I can tutor him with a good mentor if neccesary to get his personality sorted, he'll reach that 170 PA. Pretty much certain. And he'll probably have done so by the age of 21. Development of young players is too easy and too quick. That's not to say no players should develop that quickly, but it should be rare. In FM, at least for the human player, it's common.

There needs to be more variety in the development rates. Some players develop fast but peak early, other develop much slower (and the ability of such players to continue improving past 24-25 needs to be icreased) but become great players in their late 20s - early 30s. And the rare few true greats develop fast and keep getting better. This could be tied into the PPA judging that I mentionned earlier, so a fast developer will tend to have his PA overstated by scouts, and a slow developer will have it underrated.

Some good points there, PhroX. Especially the development rates; we hardly ever see an Ian Wright/Rickie Lambert late bloomer in FM. It's all too reliable and mechanical. Where are the Kieron Dyer's in FM?

Some good points there, PhroX. Especially the development rates; we hardly ever see an Ian Wright/Rickie Lambert late bloomer in FM. It's all too reliable and mechanical. Where are the Kieron Dyer's in FM?

A player who has a bad time with injuries is far more likely to end up without a club and retiring than keep pushing on. Especially when their reputations mean they're not likely to sign for the clubs who would be willing to take them on in their circumstances.

There seems to be a fair amount of contradiction between users and SI in this area and I'm not really sure why.

SI have consistently stated (See Alex's post earlier in the thread) that a high % of players never reach their actual PA. On the other side of the coin we have many users saying its still too easy to get a player to reach his PA. Somewhere there seems to be some confusion and maybe some misunderstanding.

Personally speaking in terms of players never reaching their potential I've seen plenty of examples. I've had literally 100s of players through my youth intakes that have started with 3*+ potential only to fail to make the grade and get released when they are 21/22yo due to only minimal improvement. There are of course several possible reasons for this:

A) Not enough playing time.

B) Bad personality.

C) PA Overestimated by staff.

D) Something else.

As human users I think we immediately discount B when the youth intake happens. We know that the casual or slack high PA player will never reach his potential so we more or less ignore him.

There are players though despite having a good level of CA, a decent/good personality, getting playing time and judged by staff as having higher PPA that simply don't improve. Is this C and the staff overestimate the player or is there something else in play here? We've all had players like this, maybe some users have just not noticed them - 1*CA/4*PA at 19yo, 1*CA/3.5*PA at 20yo, 1*CA/3*PA at 21yo etc until they reach 25yo and suddenly their PA stars drop to match their CA stars at 1.5*/2*.

I've had less players exceeding their PPA but have had a few. Again maybe as a human user we discount those that have 1.5*/2* PPA too early and should give them a chance more if they hit 1.5*CA at 19/20yo. Maybe we would then see more of these players blossom and push on towards being 3* players.

Off the ball is an unweighted attribute for goalkeepers. It "costs" no CA points at all for them.

Generally, attributes that are not very important for a specific position will have a low CA cost for players in that position, e.g. marking is cheap for strikers and finishing is cheap for central defenders. Unless several of the "unneccesary" attributes are high, it's unlikely they will take up large amounts of CA. Of course, having e.g. a striker who is strong defensively is beneficial, so even then the extra cost may be worth it.

Cheers, didn't know completely unweighted attributes were possible.

Fascinating bit of analysis there by changing some of the "key attributes" and seeing the result. I guess this probably explains why newgens with high PPA but weird attribute distribution still end up being world class players. So i guess it begs the question of what ranking of importance you should have when judging a player? Do you prioritize their CA/PA star rating over their attributes or recent performance? I personally look to the last 2 as that has worked for me in the past but then there are plenty of players that I've not gone for that had high CA/PA but not the right attributes.

It's made me have a rethink on how I judge a player when scouting.

Just to clairy something regarding Cougar's points, when I say a player is certain to develop, I mean that, if I focus on developing him, that is to say getting him a good personality, giving him plenty of game time etc. then he will develop. And I genuinely can't think of a single time a player I've been trying to develop hasn't lived up to at least close to his potential - sure, a "leading premiership" potential might become a "good premiership" final result, but that's not far off .

Of course, if they're in the "couldn't care less about" set of my youth team (which is usually all the ones my club itself has produced....), then they're not going to live up to their potential as they're not getting a proper development programme. How well the AI develops players is something I'm not sure about either.

I've just thought of something else that goes hand-in-hand with the points I raised before: the ease of finding highly promising youths. In addition to scouts being too accurate, they're too good at finding the players in the first place.

There seems to be a fair amount of contradiction between users and SI in this area and I'm not really sure why.

SI have consistently stated (See Alex's post earlier in the thread) that a high % of players never reach their actual PA. On the other side of the coin we have many users saying its still too easy to get a player to reach his PA. Somewhere there seems to be some confusion and maybe some misunderstanding.

Personally speaking in terms of players never reaching their potential I've seen plenty of examples. I've had literally 100s of players through my youth intakes that have started with 3*+ potential only to fail to make the grade and get released when they are 21/22yo due to only minimal improvement. There are of course several possible reasons for this:

A) Not enough playing time.

B) Bad personality.

C) PA Overestimated by staff.

D) Something else.

As human users I think we immediately discount B when the youth intake happens. We know that the casual or slack high PA player will never reach his potential so we more or less ignore him.

There are players though despite having a good level of CA, a decent/good personality, getting playing time and judged by staff as having higher PPA that simply don't improve. Is this C and the staff overestimate the player or is there something else in play here? We've all had players like this, maybe some users have just not noticed them - 1*CA/4*PA at 19yo, 1*CA/3.5*PA at 20yo, 1*CA/3*PA at 21yo etc until they reach 25yo and suddenly their PA stars drop to match their CA stars at 1.5*/2*.

I've had less players exceeding their PPA but have had a few. Again maybe as a human user we discount those that have 1.5*/2* PPA too early and should give them a chance more if they hit 1.5*CA at 19/20yo. Maybe we would then see more of these players blossom and push on towards being 3* players.

That's because both camps are right.

Generally people pick and choose who to develop and tutor and force through to reach their max potential. Dare I say, some will be checking these guys to ensure they have high PA in the first place.

Everyone else, gets thrown on the backburner and they either become useful backups or get sold (i.e. they don't develop).

And since plenty of players seem to aim for the 5star 180+PA wonderkids then it's no surprise that the majority of players don't develop.

On the AI side of things, players rarely develop well imo.

@TheMadSheep - Fine, but the point was, it usually takes until a player 'bursts' onto the scene to get his PA modified. Then again though, watching Van Gaal's United v Liverpool makes me half wonder whether positions should be eliminated from the game too. Ashley Young was pretty good in the WB position, doubt I'd try him there in FM though!