IMO, staff should not be able to estimate Potential Ability

Hello. Don't judge this thread from the title, please read the whole post.

I wrote my views in the other PA thread but was told the issues were not relevant in that thread as the thread was more to do with removing / keeping PA in the game. Therefore I have decided to make this thread, about a different issue concerning PA.

Basically, PA is a ceiling for players' ability and my point is that in real life, nobody can predict the PA of a player, they can only predict development.

For example as mentioned in the other thread - at one stage Quaresma was thought to have a higher potential ability than Ronaldo, because he had a higher CA at a young age. To make this assumption, scouts and coaches would look at a combination of his current ability and mental attributes and how likely they are to improve as a player.

In the game however, scouts and coaches do not look at a players CA and mental stats but instead just make an estimate and the higher their stats, the closer they are to predicting a players PA. My point therefore is that nobody should be able to know or even estimate a players PA unless they can predict the future / are time travellers. The only things staff should be able to judge a player on is their current ability and current attributes (physical, technical and mental).

Therefore my idea is that PA is not estimated at all during the game and this includes on all staff screens and clubs using PA to value their players. Instead, I believe that a star rating for development should be shown which would be a combination of CA, mental attributes and maybe even injury proneness and others. This rating would be the staff estimating the likelihood of a player developing well (and to what level) and would affect valuations rather than PA. PA would still be in the game but staff would only be able to predict how likely the player is to develop well.

This would surely be much more lifelike and realistic. Thoughts or questions?

That's what PPA (perceived potential ability) is meant to do, but it needs to be a lot more wrong Imo.

Basically, PA is a ceiling for players' ability and my point is that in real life, nobody can predict the PA of a player, they can only predict development.

I get your point, but staff are always estimating potential ability. Certainly in US sports, especially during the draft, you might hear analysts say that "John Smith is the most pro-ready right now, but James Jones has a higher ceiling." The sabermetrics community in baseball figured out there's a correlation between how many doubles a minor-league batter hits and his future home run ability.

For another example, here's a player I pulled up randomly from the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau (and this is just what they're making public):

“He quietly goes about his business, not flashy but always good. He kills penalties and plays the point on the power play. Dal Colle is a versatile guy. He’s fluid and capable of scoring big goals. He’s going to be a really good pro.”

http://www.nhl.com/ice/draftprospectdetail.htm?dpid=85790&tab=scr

(emphasis mine)

With all this talk about that potential ability should be removed or less accessible to players (and AI?) I think it's maybe worth of making more out of the "attribute masking" option. How about this gets changed in a way that not only do we have to scout players before we see their attributes to them remaining completely hidden and we have only a "text version" of their attributes and future potential to go by.

What I mean with this is that a player who enables attribute masking won't see the star rating and won't see any attribute numbers. Instead he will only have a more detailed version of the scout report with strength and weaknesses of the player and an estimate on which level the player might be able to play once he is fully developed which is also already in the game. A realism mode so to speak of in which you can only see the stats of a player he produced over a season and have a text based estimate of the player maybe with the attribute-graph as the only indication on what his attributes are like.

I get your point, but staff are always estimating potential ability. Certainly in US sports, especially during the draft, you might hear analysts say that "John Smith is the most pro-ready right now, but James Jones has a higher ceiling." The sabermetrics community in baseball figured out there's a correlation between how many doubles a minor-league batter hits and his future home run ability.

For another example, here's a player I pulled up randomly from the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau (and this is just what they're making public):

(emphasis mine)

I do agree with this but it's not implemented in FM - in FM they only rate potential because somehow they have an idea of the players PA rather than viewing how that player plays / his attributes etc.

That's not true. PPA is based mainly on age and CA (or at least its meant to be).

Staff evaluate and re-evaluate players every single day. When you get ones with good JPP and JPA, they can be too right too often and that's the issue here.

That's what PPA (perceived potential ability) is meant to do, but it needs to be a lot more wrong Imo.

I fully agree.

Also there should be more of a difference between just generating a scout report and actually scouting the player. As an example when you just ask for a scout report the scouted attribute values should not necessarily be the real value but a scout's estimation. So if the real value for pace is 12 the scout should give you a number between 8 and 16. The better the scout the more often he goes close to the real number, but not every time. If you ask for match reports (or training ground reports [including a possible news message "Scouts from x were seen at the training ground of y with z thought to be the center of their attention]) the number gets more and more accurate.

I'm pretty sure the coaches at Santos knew that Neymar was going to be a world star, and had a fair idea that his potential was very high, and that's why Barcelona paid €60m for him.

And I'm pretty sure the same goes for the likes of Shearer, Cole, Owen, Ferdinand, Suarez etc.

And I'm pretty sure all managers/coaches/staff/scouts etc. all over the world all know that Raheem Sterling has massive potential.

Just as much as all the staff at Woking FC all know who their best youngsters are, and you or I wouldn't have a clue - nor would most scouts in the world know who the best youth player at Woking is. But I'm pretty sure their staff know who has the most potential.

And that's all Perceived Potential Ability (PPA) is - it's how the staff, who you hire, with their stats and knowledge of the game, report to you to tell you that you have a pretty special youngster at the training ground playing for the u19s - he has the potential to be better than your current players playing in the first team.

Staff evaluate and re-evaluate players every single day. When you get ones with good JPP and JPA, they can be too right too often and that's the issue here.

However, I don't want them being too 'wrong' because really, they're the only real option we have in judging their potential. We see the player's current ability, we can't really tell if they're going to be a star or not, watching a few games doesn't do that, buying them on a whim would result in massive squad sizes as we try and filter the junk from the gemstones. There's no real viable way to guess the player's PA other than scouts or using an editor.

Personally I think it's ok as it is for the system we have now. I sometimes get reports of 4.5 star players who just about hit 150-160 PA and I've had a 2.5 star rating for a 180 PA player anyway (I checked with the editor) so the scouts do over-rate/under-rate some players, not all but some and I reckon if I hadn't checked anyway, I would have likely been kicking myself having bought the 150.

That said, in my personal play style I like both CA/PA to open for me to view, mainly because I'm a bit tired of playing hidden-attribute games, but also, because having a high PA doesn't always mean they'll be a good player for that position; god knows I've seen a few 180 players who are just too lop-sized for me to consider buying anyway(!)

However, I don't want them being too 'wrong' because really, they're the only real option we have in judging their potential. We see the player's current ability, we can't really tell if they're going to be a star or not, watching a few games doesn't do that, buying them on a whim would result in massive squad sizes as we try and filter the junk from the gemstones. There's no real viable way to guess the player's PA other than scouts or using an editor.

Personally I think it's ok as it is for the system we have now. I sometimes get reports of 4.5 star players who just about hit 150-160 PA and I've had a 2.5 star rating for a 180 PA player anyway (I checked with the editor) so the scouts do over-rate/under-rate some players, not all but some and I reckon if I hadn't checked anyway, I would have likely been kicking myself having bought the 150.

That said, in my personal play style I like both CA/PA to open for me to view, mainly because I'm a bit tired of playing hidden-attribute games, but also, because having a high PA doesn't always mean they'll be a good player for that position; god knows I've seen a few 180 players who are just too lop-sized for me to consider buying anyway(!)

I'm not asking for it to be a random or a shot in the dark. That would negate the point of having quality scouts. It's down to SI to get the balance right.

I'm pretty sure the coaches at Santos knew that Neymar was going to be a world star, and had a fair idea that his potential was very high, and that's why Barcelona paid €60m for him.

And I'm pretty sure the same goes for the likes of Shearer, Cole, Owen, Ferdinand, Suarez etc.

And I'm pretty sure all managers/coaches/staff/scouts etc. all over the world all know that Raheem Sterling has massive potential.

Just as much as all the staff at Woking FC all know who their best youngsters are, and you or I wouldn't have a clue - nor would most scouts in the world know who the best youth player at Woking is. But I'm pretty sure their staff know who has the most potential.

And that's all Perceived Potential Ability (PPA) is - it's how the staff, who you hire, with their stats and knowledge of the game, report to you to tell you that you have a pretty special youngster at the training ground playing for the u19s - he has the potential to be better than your current players playing in the first team.

They would have known that as Neymar would have had a much higher CA then other players his age and had the mental attributes to succeed no? Whereas in the game it doesn't work like that - there could be a player in your youth team with a current ability of 1 with very low mental stats but your staff would still have a good chance of guessing he'd be the next Messi if his PA was 190, despite there being no visible indications.

Basically, PA is a ceiling for players' ability and my point is that in real life, nobody can predict the PA of a player, they can only predict development.

Do you mean estimate/predict as you've written, or do you mean 'know'? Because *anybody* can predict/estimate PA. I'll demonstrate:

"That Tyler Blackett, I reckon in FM terms, he'll reach about 125 CA"

See? A prediction. Could be right, could be wrong. But a prediction nonetheless.

That's not true. PPA is based mainly on age and CA (or at least its meant to be).

That's not true. PPA is based on PA.

I'm pretty sure the coaches at Santos knew that Neymar was going to be a world star, and had a fair idea that his potential was very high, and that's why Barcelona paid €60m for him.

No. Barcelona paid €60m because had the best CA among all 21-year olds in the world, and better than many 22-23 year old. Barcelona paid this much for him because he had enough CA to be immediately put into their first team (so at least 3* or 3.5*), and he is young to boot.

Which is different to FM14, where teams are paying 60M for 16-year olds with super-crappy CA just because the scouts in FM have crystal balls.

No. Barcelona paid €60m because had the best CA among all 21-year olds in the world, and better than many 22-23 year old. Barcelona paid this much for him because he had enough CA to be immediately put into their first team (so at least 3* or 3.5*), and he is young to boot.

Which is different to FM14, where teams are paying 60M for 16-year olds with super-crappy CA just because the scouts in FM have crystal balls.

Really? I didn't realize you were part of the staff members who made that decision

That's not true. PPA is based on PA.

PPA is not based on PA. If it was it, scout reports would never change.

No. Barcelona paid €60m because had the best CA among all 21-year olds in the world, and better than many 22-23 year old. Barcelona paid this much for him because he had enough CA to be immediately put into their first team (so at least 3* or 3.5*), and he is young to boot.

Which is different to FM14, where teams are paying 60M for 16-year olds with super-crappy CA just because the scouts in FM have crystal balls.

No, they paid it because he had current ability AND they believed he'd get much better. In other words, he had Potential Ability. They wouldn't have paid that much for a player they believed to have plateaued

No, they paid it because he had current ability AND they believed he'd get much better. In other words, he had Potential Ability. They wouldn't have paid that much for a player they believed to have plateaued

There's no one in the world of his age that is near his ability and it's hardly a stretch to believe that at 21 he'll have room for improvement. Every casual football fan in the world knew he had top potential. You can only make an educated guess based on what you see and know. Scouts earn their money from making these guesses on more obscure players with little exposure and for knowing where to look.

They do of course estimate potential in reality but it''s all based on ability and external factors. This all visibly exists in FM. Using the PA figure in the calculations makes no sense in real life context.

There's no one in the world of his age that is near his ability and it's hardly a stretch to believe that at 21 he'll have room for improvement. Every casual football fan in the world knew he had top potential. You can only make an educated guess based on what you see and know. Scouts earn their money from making these guesses on more obscure players with little exposure and for knowing where to look.

They do of course estimate potential in reality but it''s all based on ability and external factors. This all visibly exists in FM. Using the PA figure in the calculations makes no sense in real life context.

And, at least according to SI, the PPA the game uses doesn't see PA. So that's fine.

And, at least according to SI, the PPA the game uses doesn't see PA. So that's fine.

But it does. See about the little experiment someone in that other thread conducted where he isolated PA to see it's effect on scouting and value of a player. Otherwise 100% identical players with only a differing PA were strictly valued based on that figure. PPA includes other factors but it clearly bases the estimation heavily on PA.

But it does. See about the little experiment someone in that other thread conducted where he isolated PA to see it's effect on scouting and value of a player. Otherwise 100% identical players with only a differing PA were strictly valued based on that figure. PPA includes other factors but it clearly bases the estimation heavily on PA.

Hmmm. I'd be reluctant to pin everything on such tests. Correlation isn't causation.

If it is influencing scouting and valuations, then that should be changed.

Hmmm. I'd be reluctant to pin everything on such tests. Correlation isn't causation.

If it is influencing scouting and valuations, then that should be changed.

He cloned a player about 8 times and the only thing he changed was the PA resulting in scouting reports in which both the players value and potential rating increased in line with PA. It's pretty conclusive.

I think it needs to change significantly for younger players. Once a player hits about 18 or 19 you can say with a fair degree of certainty which ones have the potential to become worlds class. At 15 and 16 it's a lot harder.

Maybe make the scouts less accurate and have them give you a range. For example a 15 year old possible wonderkid could be given a range 2.5 to 5 star potential which narrows as he ages such that at 17 it might be 3 - 5 stars, 18, 3.5 - 5 stars, 19, 4 - 4.5 stars.

He cloned a player about 8 times and the only thing he changed was the PA resulting in scouting reports in which both the players value and potential rating increased in line with PA. It's pretty conclusive.

It's not. It looks damning, but without knowledge of the underlying code you don't know if that is affecting other factors. Don't forget, the editor only shows a representation of the way the data is manifested in the game. I'd want to test it for myself before I called anything conclusively. Not that I'm going to.

I think it needs to change significantly for younger players. Once a player hits about 18 or 19 you can say with a fair degree of certainty which ones have the potential to become worlds class. At 15 and 16 it's a lot harder.

Maybe make the scouts less accurate and have them give you a range. For example a 15 year old possible wonderkid could be given a range 2.5 to 5 star potential which narrows as he ages such that at 17 it might be 3 - 5 stars, 18, 3.5 - 5 stars, 19, 4 - 4.5 stars.

I don't agree that you should get a range. They should tell you what they think will be his peak, that's right and accurate. They should just be more often wrong, and base it far more on the things real scouts use (which is far more complex than anything being suggested in this thread).

They would have known that as Neymar would have had a much higher CA then other players his age and had the mental attributes to succeed no? Whereas in the game it doesn't work like that - there could be a player in your youth team with a current ability of 1 with very low mental stats but your staff would still have a good chance of guessing he'd be the next Messi if his PA was 190, despite there being no visible indications.

If a player has CA of 1 and PA of 190 - then their value is very low - for example, they could be 16 and have a CA of 50 and a PA of 190 - then their value would be low. But if their CA was 120 then their value would be much higher.

It's quite easy to spot the best players in FM using this method.

But it also is reliant on their location in the world - a player playing Estonia and you haven't got that league loaded - but has a CA of 150 and a PA of 199 would be valued lower than someone of the same in say Spain.

The value is reliant on a few things, location, and how close the CA is to the PA - the smaller the gap the higher the value.

In Neymars case - he was 21 (I think) when he joined Barca. His CA and reputation in Santos was quite high - but he can still develop for the next 7 years to reach his PA - therefore his value was much higher.

Take someone of 21 years of age playing 2nd division Brazil, and their CA is 20 and their PA is 170 - then you can get them quite cheap - as it's much larger gap to reach their potential.

However, if that player is 15 and the CA i 80 and the PA is 160 - then you can probably have to pay top dollar.

No. Barcelona paid €60m because had the best CA among all 21-year olds in the world, and better than many 22-23 year old. Barcelona paid this much for him because he had enough CA to be immediately put into their first team (so at least 3* or 3.5*), and he is young to boot.

Which is different to FM14, where teams are paying 60M for 16-year olds with super-crappy CA just because the scouts in FM have crystal balls.

Yes - he had the quality to make an immediate impact - they paid that much because his CA is much closer to his PA than players of his age.

If there was no estimation of PA, then every signing of a young player would be a complete lottery.

They should be able to estimate but with a larger margin for error.