rework idea for PA

here's my idea of how to rework PA to make it better

it's kinda unrealistic when you have a quality player at 16 years old (140CA) but he'll never get anywhere near the top class players because his PA is set at 145. i feel like PA should be hovering over a range of numbers depends on the player's performance in the last year when he's under 20 years old, and starts to change less and less as he gets older, which makes the uncertainty in his ability also lower, and stops moving completely once he reaches 23 years old

for an easier way to understand this, a certain promising 16 year old player will have 140-190PA, when he's 17, his PA updates to 140-185 because he didn't play much that year. then at 18 years old, his PA becomes 155-190 because he broke into the first team, then at 19, he has 165-190, at 20 he has 170-187, and at 23 his PA stops moving at 184, with 175CA. now he has the remaining years of his career to try hitting 184CA

I very much like this idea.

PA means nothing. A world class player could have a PA of 145 or 180. They can reach this when they are at 25 years of age. If you use FMRTE I use it to see what I can make CA and PA for wonderkids, many times I get 140-160. Other times (not as often) i can get 180-199. Thus PA means nothing.

Haven't you just described CA though? There are a number of factors which determine whether or not a player will ever reach his PA, and they are impacted by age, attitude, luck with injuries etc.

here's my idea of how to rework PA to make it better

it's kinda unrealistic when you have a quality player at 16 years old (140CA) but he'll never get anywhere near the top class players because his PA is set at 145. i feel like PA should be hovering over a range of numbers depends on the player's performance in the last year when he's under 20 years old, and starts to change less and less as he gets older, which makes the uncertainty in his ability also lower, and stops moving completely once he reaches 23 years old

for an easier way to understand this, a certain promising 16 year old player will have 140-190PA, when he's 17, his PA updates to 140-185 because he didn't play much that year. then at 18 years old, his PA becomes 155-190 because he broke into the first team, then at 19, he has 165-190, at 20 he has 170-187, and at 23 his PA stops moving at 184, with 175CA. now he has the remaining years of his career to try hitting 184CA

The issue with that is that:

1. Why? It just creates more chance for instabilities in the modeling

2. It can't model players who burn bright as youngsters and go no further properly

3. Players are only meant to rarely hit their PA anyhow, the effects you're asking for should be dealt with by that space and shouldn't require floating the value

Age old argument...

You aren't meant to see PA..

If you didn't know the players PA you would see this stretching and shortening of his potential in game as it's reflected in the scouts and staff PPA...

There HAS to be a hard ceiling on a players development and the current system handles it perfectly.. you just have to stop playing the game while looking at potentials behind the scenes.

Not every player can rise to the top of the game, even if they start brightly during their teenage years. CA & PA have lost a phenomenal amount of the limited use they had in terms of gauging players many moons ago, and even back then it wasn't that great. PA's offer such a limited window I would prefer it if in the editor it just gave you the option to enter what you think it should be, without seeing what it is now. Even if you know a players PA & CA it doesn't really change anything, and it doesn't add to the game experience in any tangible way. You might feel a bit better for knowing it but that still doesn't improve the gameplay.

Once you go into any dynamically shifting range with PA that can possibly go up to 200 you will find very quickly that the legion of FM players will find a weakness in the system that will lead to almost all players becoming capable of extremely high PA's. It then becomes an ever more precarious balancing act to try and close any loopholes in the development system players find against devastating all player's going forward. That is simply the nature of games.

The current ME & all previous ME's are a prime example of why a dynamic PA system would be easily exploited by a select group of FM'er & that approach will become the norm among the wider community, no matter how much skill SI coders have it's impossible to code such a system without flaws that can be taken advantage of.

Even the current system is subject to being gamed through heavily targeted training system & years of user experience but at least there are underlying checks & balances that creates the illusion(that's all FM is) of something approximating realistic results.

As Welshace has touched on this is generally only an issue for people who get hung up on CA/PA values, if users do not look at those under the hood values & just stick to using the in-game scouting & coach reporting system they'll get the appearance of players gaining & losing potential.

PA is a static value. PA should always be a static value. It should never be variable. When someone is born, there is a level (completely non-measurable) that they can get to. That never changes. As is always the case when this argument dribbles its way out, the change is in how CA changes, or at most PPA.

In fact, the fact we can't see PA (or shouldn't be able to, unless you seek it out) models this quite well. In-game, we have scouts who tell us how good they think a player can be. No different to how the average punter in the stands can say, albeit with a bit more knowledge behind it. The PA value is the immeasurable part that we can't get in real life. No-one can ever say with absolute confidence how good a player can ever be, that fixed value level they could achieve. Unless you "play god" and look at the editor, then it's no different in FM.

A lot of people would probably enjoy the game a lot more if they couldn't even see their coaches' estimation of player potential. Youth intake day is just a quick look at a column of star ratings.

In real life coaches can tell how good a player is at that moment, plus their age and experience level, and try to make informed decisions based on that. Giving up on huge swathes of players because "they're only gonna be two star" isn't something that happens.

PA is a static value. PA should always be a static value. It should never be variable. When someone is born, there is a level (completely non-measurable) that they can get to. That never changes. As is always the case when this argument dribbles its way out, the change is in how CA changes, or at most PPA.

In fact, the fact we can't see PA (or shouldn't be able to, unless you seek it out) models this quite well. In-game, we have scouts who tell us how good they think a player can be. No different to how the average punter in the stands can say, albeit with a bit more knowledge behind it. The PA value is the immeasurable part that we can't get in real life. No-one can ever say with absolute confidence how good a player can ever be, that fixed value level they could achieve. Unless you "play god" and look at the editor, then it's no different in FM.

I dont believe that someone is born with an ability ceiling with the exception of pure simple physical abilities ( plenty of academic research supporting this).

But in FM terms as a game, it needs to be a static value otherwise it will be exploited and give users an unfair advantage over the AI.

A lot of people would probably enjoy the game a lot more if they couldn't even see their coaches' estimation of player potential. Youth intake day is just a quick look at a column of star ratings.

In real life coaches can tell how good a player is at that moment, plus their age and experience level, and try to make informed decisions based on that. Giving up on huge swathes of players because "they're only gonna be two star" isn't something that happens.

Most of the time this is what I get from my coaches when I get a youth intake:

1. Name McNameyface: 1 star current / 2.5 star potential (5 black stars)

2. Face McFaceyname: 1 star current / 3 star potential (5 black stars)

3. Mack Facenamefaceynamingtonson: 1 star current / 2.5 star potential (4.5 black stars)

...etc.

It says very little about anything, and as shown on here in the past those ratings can be drastically wrong, even taking into account the black stars (which are the coaches uncertainty).

Potential as a buzz word is thrown around a lot in football, there are a ridiculous number of players who are good at youth level, but many don't "rate their potential" for various reasons. It's a guessing game, and the game covers this pretty well for the most part.

I dont believe that someone is born with an ability ceiling with the exception of pure simple physical abilities ( plenty of academic research supporting this).

But in FM terms as a game, it needs to be a static value otherwise it will be exploited and give users an unfair advantage over the AI.

There is actually plenty of academic research arguing for people to have "set potential" as well, and it's one of those lovely areas where if you want to argue with sources, there are plenty on both sides.

The point about PA though is that's it's not "potential at birth", it's an abstraction of potential at the point they're added to the database, which for the most part is around the 14-18 mark. That is, it's already taken into account a whole lot of development prior. It's not meant to be genetic potential, it's just an abstraction to cover the fact that not every player can go on to become the next Messi, Beckenbauer or Yashin.

PA is a static value. PA should always be a static value. It should never be variable. When someone is born, there is a level (completely non-measurable) that they can get to. That never changes. As is always the case when this argument dribbles its way out, the change is in how CA changes, or at most PPA.

Absolutely untrue. Training, dedication, sacrifice can take one to the top while laziness and disinterest can leave potential unrealized. Your argument seems very Calvinistic. Our abilities are not predetermined. Our future is only limited by controling factors in our environment and the limits of human ability.

Absolutely untrue. Training, dedication, sacrifice can take one to the top while laziness and disinterest can leave potential unrealized. Your argument seems very Calvinistic. Our abilities are not predetermined. Our future is only limited by controling factors in our environment and the limits of human ability.

Ability is determined by our DNA at birth (PA).

Whether someone will make good use of those abilities and be the best they can be is determined by training, dedication & sacrifice (CA).

We've had this discussion countless times, unless anyone has anything new to add that takes it away from the people are or are not born with a limit argument without accepting that people are not born in FM (they've already had 14-16 years before we see them) then we'll probably have to close this thread.

Absolutely untrue. Training, dedication, sacrifice can take one to the top while laziness and disinterest can leave potential unrealized. Your argument seems very Calvinistic. Our abilities are not predetermined. Our future is only limited by controling factors in our environment and the limits of human ability.

So a fixed PA (limits of human ability) are controlled by external factors to take you towards those limits. So exactly how it works now?

Apart from the issues of exploitation and balance of the database, I honestly don't see a single reason why coming up with something more realistic isn't desirable?

Even something small like splitting up PA for Physical, Mental and Technical attributes would make the system much more realistic and hopefully help to hide how good players can become.

As for something more complex, I think that predicting PAs for groups of players rather than individuals should be the basis of the next system.

I would agree that physical PA should have a separate value.

Ability is determined by our DNA at birth (PA).

Whether someone will make good use of those abilities and be the best they can be is determined by training, dedication & sacrifice (CA).

No it isnt. External factors....diet, health, exercise, education, love and support have massive effect. DNA just lay out a foundation.

in footballing terms and outside of purely physical traits, mentality and technical ability are highly elastic. Again..its the nurture side of the coin that usually determines how a person develops. The game should better model both unlikely successses and shocking failures based on randem mental/emotional factors.

I think it's very difficult to implement any other kind of system unless each stat was assigned a PA.

The problem for me is the weighting of some of the stats, especially the physical stats, and how much a player can improve. In reality the difference of improvement on physical and technical stats between that of a 16 year old and that of a 26 year old isn't that vast. I know two qualified coaches, including one who trains other coaches at Lilleshall, and they've both told me the same thing about player development. The actual skills of a player improves by no more than 5% to 10% from a youth player to that of a senior in the majority of cases. Especially with regards to passing, first touch, crossing etc. Mental attributes can improve drastically. Physical attributes have always been unrealistic for youngsters. The actual difference, for elite athletes which is what professional footballers are, on acceleration, pace etc between a player at 16 and a player at 26 is minimal. Indeed quite often the 16 year old version of the player is faster due to better agility (which starts to decline naturally in the late teens/early 20's and with sportsman and injuries the decline can be quite rapid comparative to an every day joe on the street).

Personally I'd like to the numeric values removed all together and for more arbitrary opinions to in their place, e.g. a player rated as being a good passer of the ball etc. The stats make the game way too easy, especially when hiring backroom staff.

Ability is determined by our DNA at birth (PA).

Whether someone will make good use of those abilities and be the best they can be is determined by training, dedication & sacrifice (CA).

TALENT and DETERMINATION can skip a generation

PA should be an indefinite number until the player reaches about 28. The current model only allows a player to be as good as they can be. However, there are players that can excel well past their perceived ability. This is determined by training, coaching, influences, dedication, forming bonds with team mates etc.

I'm not saying the PA should be random - I'm saying it should fluctuate. For example, a player that's 18 and is set in the Database as being 110 and PA 140. If they reach the PA of 140 by say age 20 - then why not give them a bit more potential ability, perhaps give them a chance of reaching 160.

This wouldn't last for their entire career. Perhaps at age 26 they are burning out, not playing as much, injured regularly, not being coached correctly, falling out with team mates etc.

Then it can go back down.

Which means EVERY youngster La Masia produces will be a Messi, Or if you factor in personality, 1 in every 4 will be. In reality though, there has been only one Messi...

Sorry to bring up a former competitor's inferior product, but in Total Club Manager a player could bypass his potential briefly when he was on an amazing run of form. Then it would fall back down again as his form dipped or he stopped playing so regularly.

I think this is what most users are really asking for when they start suggesting changes to the PA system - they want it to be possible for a Steven Davis type to have his excellent form reflected in a small attributes boost, even just temporarily.

I know nothing about programming so I won't 'suggest' it be done willy-nilly. But I do wonder if it might be a useful mechanic.

That already happens in FM, there's just no need for it to be as obvious as a visible boost in the CA/PA value as FM is more subtle than that.

Not to push for spoilers or anything, but are you talking about the boosting effects of morale/happiness? If so, then I doff my hat and politely retreat.

The current model only allows a player to be as good as they can be. However, there are players that can excel well past their perceived ability

Overall I'm on the side of thinking that the PA system could do with an update. However I think the issue of "exceeding potential" is impossible to ground in reality. It is impossible for us to know (IRL) that a player stopped developing because of a "limit". Equally it is impossible to know that a player continued to develop beyond their "limit."

So when arguing for or against a change in PA, the issues of whether or not people have a fixed potential and whether or not they can exceed it don't really prove anything.

On the side of " the PA system should stay the same" are:

1. the absence of a good enough alternative

2. how good the current system is at balancing the gameworld

3. the possibility of unrealistic human controlled player growth

4. Possible processing issues of an alternative

5. Possible research issues of an alternative

6. Linking dynamic PA to performance could cause a problem with player development in inactive leagues.

On the "the PA system should change" side are:

1. PA's influence stretches beyond player development - the value should be entirely invisible to all in game agents or it is hugely unrealistic

2. Because PA can theoretically improve any attribute, it is really a measure of time not of innate individual potential. Should PA be split into Physical/Mental/Technical as per GSevensM75s observations, or even assigned for each attribute, which he also suggests?

3. The fact that hundreds or thousands of revisions are made to the PA figure between each database raises questions about whether or not the figure has enough merit to play such a key role.

4. The development of players who are at their max PA makes no sense - why should going down in one attribute "unlock" the ability to improve in another?

5. In fact, is a situation where an individual cannot even achieve the slightest marginal improvement realistic? Perhaps for Pace, or Jumping, but for Penalties?

6. PA is completely non-measurable, so improvements to the system should tend to fewer attempts at measuring it, or more vague attempts at measuring it.

(7. Player development, especially human controlled, is too linear. This is in brackets because it is maybe not a PA issue, and could be addressed in other ways.)

Those are the key points on each side that I consider irrefutable. There are probably more for each, but maybe this provides an interesting starting point for discussions? Any suggestion would have to ensure that the first 6 points aren't problems, or provide a bigger value than any problems caused. It should also deal with the second 7 points in terms of making things better.

In terms of the areas of the game that should be improved through any changes to the PA system, I think they are:

1. Player development

2. Scouting

3. Youth Intake

4. Transfers (AI and Human)

On the side of "PA should stay the same" are:

1. the absence of a good enough alternative

2. how good the current system is at balancing the gameworld

3. the possibility of unrealistic human controlled player growth

4. Possible processing issues of an alternative

5. Possible research issues of an alternative

6. Linking dynamic PA to performance could cause a problem with player development in inactive leagues.

I think that covers the bulk of it IMO.

The only one I have an issue with is 6 which to me is impossible as it would lead to a rich get richer, poor get poorer scenario as every player would end up in either a downward spiral or an upward spiral with no real way of reversing it.

On the "PA should change" side are:

1. PA's influence stretches beyond player development - the value should be entirely invisible to all in game agents or it is hugely unrealistic

2. Because PA can theoretically improve any attribute, it is really a measure of time not of innate individual potential. Should PA be split into Physical/Mental/Technical as per GSevensM75s observations, or even assigned for each attribute, which he also suggests?

3. The fact that hundreds or thousands of revisions are made to the PA figure between each database raises questions about whether or not the figure has enough merit to play such a key role.

4. The development of players who are at their max PA makes no sense - why should going down in one attribute "unlock" the ability to improve in another?

5. In fact, is a situation where an individual cannot even achieve the slightest marginal improvement realistic? Perhaps for Pace, or Jumping, but for Penalties?

6. PA is completely non-measurable, so improvements to the system should tend to fewer attempts at measuring it, or more vague attempts at measuring it.

(7. Player development, especially human controlled, is too linear. This is in brackets because it is maybe not a PA issue, and could be addressed in other ways.)

Picking out some of these:

2. I think the biggest issue with this one is processing and the amount of calculations required, is it possible without causing significant slowdown?

3. This is caused by researchers not having crystal balls and is certainly a limitation but not really a relevant one IMO. The system works fine for newgens whilst for real players it only becomes apparent years later when the game is outdated. By then FM has moved on & the PAs of real players have been altered to be more in line with current & expected RL performances.

4. Does make sense as for a player to keep a high level of skill in one area he needs to train it regularly. If he uses that training time to focus on a different skill then the first one will degrade over time.

Overall for me the focus needs to be on CA development not PA. The aim should be for over 90% of the players in the database to never reach their PA during their career and it will then lead to PA never being an issue. I also have no issue with the staff opinions of PA being removed from the game which might help some complaints. It won't stop those that look under the hood but for them the only way to improve their experience is to discourage them from looking in the first place.

I think it's very difficult to implement any other kind of system unless each stat was assigned a PA.

The problem for me is the weighting of some of the stats, especially the physical stats, and how much a player can improve. In reality the difference of improvement on physical and technical stats between that of a 16 year old and that of a 26 year old isn't that vast. I know two qualified coaches, including one who trains other coaches at Lilleshall, and they've both told me the same thing about player development. The actual skills of a player improves by no more than 5% to 10% from a youth player to that of a senior in the majority of cases. Especially with regards to passing, first touch, crossing etc. Mental attributes can improve drastically. Physical attributes have always been unrealistic for youngsters. The actual difference, for elite athletes which is what professional footballers are, on acceleration, pace etc between a player at 16 and a player at 26 is minimal. Indeed quite often the 16 year old version of the player is faster due to better agility (which starts to decline naturally in the late teens/early 20's and with sportsman and injuries the decline can be quite rapid comparative to an every day joe on the street).

The 1-20 values already represent a narrow scale. Passing 1 is not "can't hit a barn door" with 20 100% accuracy. Pirlo did not sprint at Pace 1 at any point during the last world cup, and Pace 20 is only 25% faster (or something close to that).

A jump of 5 points in an attribute over years of development in game is that 5-10% you talk about.

PA should also decrease over the years.

For example a player that's 180 CA and 196 PA has fantastic stats. But as they get older the CA drops, but the PA stays high, for example 120 CA and 196 PA.

There's no way they have a PA anymore of 196, so what happens is that you have a difference of 86 in the Ability.

This results in the player having a star rating of 1.5 stars and a PA of 4 stars.

Where in reality - they could be 120 CA and 150 PA - a difference of only 30 in their Ability. Which would align their star rating in game. Perhaps having PCA of 120 and PPA of 150 would let them have 2.5 stars out of 3.5 stars.

This is why the PA needs to be flexible as the player grows into maturity they may discover new potential in a role or a skill they pick up on, some coaching, a mentor, their relationship with the manger, team work, work rate, determination etc.

I'm not saying let every player have the potential of Messi, or Ronaldo.

I'm just saying rather than a young man with a CA of 90 and a PA of 180 - instead of showing .5 star and 4 star.

Instead show a CA of 90 and a PA of 160 - this would give them a star rating of 1 star, and a PA star rating of 4.

As they get better and play more matches and progress well, then as the CA goes up their PA might get a nudge up.

Perhaps at 24 they could now be at a CA of 140 and PA of 170. Over the years the CA and PA even out, and when they hit their peak they go to CA 155 and PA 165.

Then as that player hits about 30-32 years of age, the CA reduces and the PA reduces slightly - keeping their CA stars and PA stars in line.

PA should also decrease over the years.

For example a player that's 180 CA and 196 PA has fantastic stats. But as they get older the CA drops, but the PA stays high, for example 120 CA and 196 PA.

There's no way they have a PA anymore of 196, so what happens is that you have a difference of 86 in the Ability.

This results in the player having a star rating of 1.5 stars and a PA of 4 stars.

Where in reality - they could be 120 CA and 150 PA - a difference of only 30 in their Ability. Which would align their star rating in game. Perhaps having PCA of 120 and PPA of 150 would let them have 2.5 stars out of 3.5 stars.

This is why the PA needs to be flexible as the player grows into maturity they may discover new potential in a role or a skill they pick up on, some coaching, a mentor, their relationship with the manger, team work, work rate, determination etc.

I'm not saying let every player have the potential of Messi, or Ronaldo.

I'm just saying rather than a young man with a CA of 90 and a PA of 180 - instead of showing .5 star and 4 star.

Instead show a CA of 90 and a PA of 160 - this would give them a star rating of 2 stars, and a PA star rating of 4.

As they get better and play more matches and progress well, then as the CA goes up their PA might get a nudge up.

Perhaps at 24 they could now be at a CA of 140 and PA of 170. Over the years the CA and PA even out, and when they hit their peak they go to CA 155 and PA 165.

Then as that player hits about 30-32 years of age, the CA reduces and the PA reduces slightly - keeping their CA stars and PA stars in line.

To add to that an 18 year old at Man Utd with CA120 will probably be assessed to have a PA close to 200 whereas a 32 year old at Man Utd with the same CA120 will probably have their PA assessed to be 120, maybe 130 at a push if they have traits to suggest they could still improve with the right training.

The thing about this argument that always hits me is why does their need to be a dynamic PA? In most users cases, PA is a value that they'll never see. A lot of the reasons people seem to give for it, you could achieve the same thing by being more sophisticated about how CA changes. I'd be all for that, and I'm not sure what having PA being variable would achieve that that wouldn't.

Overall I'm on the side of thinking that the PA system could do with an update. However I think the issue of "exceeding potential" is impossible to ground in reality. It is impossible for us to know (IRL) that a player stopped developing because of a "limit". Equally it is impossible to know that a player continued to develop beyond their "limit."

So when arguing for or against a change in PA, the issues of whether or not people have a fixed potential and whether or not they can exceed it don't really prove anything.

On the side of "PA should stay the same" are:

1. the absence of a good enough alternative

2. how good the current system is at balancing the gameworld

3. the possibility of unrealistic human controlled player growth

4. Possible processing issues of an alternative

5. Possible research issues of an alternative

6. Linking dynamic PA to performance could cause a problem with player development in inactive leagues.

On the "PA should change" side are:

1. PA's influence stretches beyond player development - the value should be entirely invisible to all in game agents or it is hugely unrealistic

2. Because PA can theoretically improve any attribute, it is really a measure of time not of innate individual potential. Should PA be split into Physical/Mental/Technical as per GSevensM75s observations, or even assigned for each attribute, which he also suggests?

3. The fact that hundreds or thousands of revisions are made to the PA figure between each database raises questions about whether or not the figure has enough merit to play such a key role.

4. The development of players who are at their max PA makes no sense - why should going down in one attribute "unlock" the ability to improve in another?

5. In fact, is a situation where an individual cannot even achieve the slightest marginal improvement realistic? Perhaps for Pace, or Jumping, but for Penalties?

6. PA is completely non-measurable, so improvements to the system should tend to fewer attempts at measuring it, or more vague attempts at measuring it.

(7. Player development, especially human controlled, is too linear. This is in brackets because it is maybe not a PA issue, and could be addressed in other ways.)

Those are the key points on each side that I consider irrefutable. There are probably more for each, but maybe this provides an interesting starting point for discussions? Any suggestion would have to ensure that the first 6 points aren't problems, or provide a bigger value than any problems caused. It should also deal with the second 7 points in terms of making things better.

In terms of the areas of the game that should be improved through any changes to the PA system, I think they are:

1. Player development

2. Scouting

3. Youth Intake

4. Transfers (AI and Human)

"Irrefutable"? Your list for "PA should change" is quite weak actually:

1. This is not a point for "PA should change", it could be used and argued for both.

2. No, PA is not a measure of time and that would suggest that players develop at the same rate. There exist cases within the game where players can have a low CA and high PA later in their careers and still develop quickly after a change in circumstances. Additionally, the second point jammed in here about having different PA's for each player is interesting, but is itself a bit of a weak concept, but I'll get back to this below.

3. This is a weakness in how real world scouts report PA, not a weakness in whether or not PA is a useful modelling tool. This is the equivalent of someone with no ability to see under the hood trying to guess a players PA each season throughout their career.

4. Players are only rarely meant to reach their PA, and the point isn't that it's "unlocking ability", but it's an attempt to model a more complex part of player development, but we can discussion that below, as with part of point 2. Also, to my understanding penalty taking ability doesn't take CA.

5. Players can still improve attributes that have no CA requirement, and there do exist situations where players level out, again, I'll discuss this issue in more depth below.

6. Interestingly, you've included this point again, so essentially this is basically point 3b. My own personal take on the issue for the record is that PA in the database should be far more random on gameworld generation, as this would both lead to different gameworld experiences for each players, as well as fuzzy this issue far more.

7. It's not linear, you're probably just not sitting down and watching it enough. Most years I spend a good deal of time just watching the gameworld develop, and watching some players in the process and it is anything but linear. The only instance that it becomes "linear" is with the wonderiest of wonder kids, and even there it's barely linear at all. Ironically, this idea of it being linear conflicts with your central thesis about PA issues though, as PA is one of the things that leads to many of the non-linear elements of the system.

So yeah... not irrefutable in the slightest.

So, we could rebuild that list essentially as:

1. We can't measure PA, so the database will never be fully reflective of the real world

I can get behind that as a point, but that isn't a point for dynamic PA either, as different players could perform in game than the real world, not solving that issue any better. My own personal take on the gameworld being too samey and too reliant on database producers guesses at potential, as noted above, would be to randomise PA far more on gameworld generation, much as is done with the negative PAs for youngsters.

As for the other point though, this idea about players peaking, as well as multiple PAs, there is actually a lot of interesting development effects that occur here. For those that have watched a player in recent games go from a youth player through to their late 30s, you'll probably have seem them change drastically. Some instances I've seen are players who start out as a speedy fullback with questionable mental abilities, and end up as being slow, but mentally and technically worldclass players still. That is, they can go on to become players with great experience, even after their "legs have gone", something readily seen in real life. One of the reasons this kind of development can happen is that as they start to "lose their legs" so to speak, they continue to develop mentally, both in terms of attributes with CA weighting, and without. This is where that "unlocking of ability" you noted earlier comes in, and it actually demonstrates the value of having one PA value to the current way that the system works, as well as showing it's value to producing a realistic development curve.

I have no doubt other systems with a static PA, such as having multiple could produce realistic results, but our current one is quite well balanced. The only one I'd truly challenge as being a weak concept is PA per attribute as it would mean that a player essentially has a set peak and training them would have no new value, as they would be stuck in that "shape" that their PAs set at the start. Even if a static PA limits outright ability gain, it doesn't define a player at generation for exactly what they have to become.

The other issue you don't seem to cover as well though is that players in the real world aren't just training something new each week, development is not a house, you're not building a new wing to it each time you train, players peak because eventually the decline of abilities overcome the development of them. Players who aren't training are going to get worse for that reason, the point is though that young players are developing and picking up ability quite fast. On that basis a player who is at their peak losing one ability as they gain another they are focusing on isn't actually that bad a result to see, and is arguably what is to be expected. It's also worth noting that when you see a lot of arrows on the player attribute screen, mostly down and a couple up, if you actually check how much those attributes have changed, it's normally minor (less than half a point).

Would love to see either

PA split between physical, technical and mental. It's just odd that a youngster developing physically is actually taking away from how well he can dribble, cross, etc

and / or

More of a logarithmic growth model applied to development, such that the last few 'points' of a player's development are hard to get and most players never hit their ceiling, which admittedly is frustrating to me even though I don't look at PA until the end of a save (typically I retire when done with a save and the first thing I do is look at CA/PA of players with the editor just to see what everyone was / could have been).

Would love to see either

PA split between physical, technical and mental. It's just odd that a youngster developing physically is actually taking away from how well he can dribble, cross, etc

The flip side of this is that it takes away from players development later in their career where they decline physically but continue to grow mentally. A lot of people tend to discuss development and PA as though development of players and the effects this has only happens in the age groups 14-24 and that development later in their career and the transformations they go through going from their "peak" to a more experience veteran style of player just aren't worth considering or talking about, despite this seeming to be some of the strengths of changes to their development model in the last several versions.

It's less a case of physical ability taking away from technical and mental attributes, and more a case of balancing how much they can develop overall. It's not an accounting problem.

More of a logarithmic growth model applied to development, such that the last few 'points' of a player's development are hard to get and most players never hit their ceiling, which admittedly is frustrating to me even though I don't look at PA until the end of a save (typically I retire when done with a save and the first thing I do is look at CA/PA of players with the editor just to see what everyone was / could have been).

This is already the case.

"Irrefutable"? Your list for "PA should change" is quite weak actually:

1. This is not a point for "PA should change", it could be used and argued for both.

2. No, PA is not a measure of time and that would suggest that players develop at the same rate. There exist cases within the game where players can have a low CA and high PA later in their careers and still develop quickly after a change in circumstances. Additionally, the second point jammed in here about having different PA's for each player is interesting, but is itself a bit of a weak concept, but I'll get back to this below.

3. This is a weakness in how real world scouts report PA, not a weakness in whether or not PA is a useful modelling tool. This is the equivalent of someone with no ability to see under the hood trying to guess a players PA each season throughout their career.

4. Players are only rarely meant to reach their PA, and the point isn't that it's "unlocking ability", but it's an attempt to model a more complex part of player development, but we can discussion that below, as with part of point 2. Also, to my understanding penalty taking ability doesn't take CA.

5. Players can still improve attributes that have no CA requirement, and there do exist situations where players level out, again, I'll discuss this issue in more depth below.

6. Interestingly, you've included this point again, so essentially this is basically point 3b. My own personal take on the issue for the record is that PA in the database should be far more random on gameworld generation, as this would both lead to different gameworld experiences for each players, as well as fuzzy this issue far more.

7. It's not linear, you're probably just not sitting down and watching it enough. Most years I spend a good deal of time just watching the gameworld develop, and watching some players in the process and it is anything but linear. The only instance that it becomes "linear" is with the wonderiest of wonder kids, and even there it's barely linear at all. Ironically, this idea of it being linear conflicts with your central thesis about PA issues though, as PA is one of the things that leads to many of the non-linear elements of the system.

So yeah... not irrefutable in the slightest.

So, we could rebuild that list essentially as:

1. We can't measure PA, so the database will never be fully reflective of the real world

I can get behind that as a point, but that isn't a point for dynamic PA either, as different players could perform in game than the real world, not solving that issue any better. My own personal take on the gameworld being too samey and too reliant on database producers guesses at potential, as noted above, would be to randomise PA far more on gameworld generation, much as is done with the negative PAs for youngsters.

As for the other point though, this idea about players peaking, as well as multiple PAs, there is actually a lot of interesting development effects that occur here. For those that have watched a player in recent games go from a youth player through to their late 30s, you'll probably have seem them change drastically. Some instances I've seen are players who start out as a speedy fullback with questionable mental abilities, and end up as being slow, but mentally and technically worldclass players still. That is, they can go on to become players with great experience, even after their "legs have gone", something readily seen in real life. One of the reasons this kind of development can happen is that as they start to "lose their legs" so to speak, they continue to develop mentally, both in terms of attributes with CA weighting, and without. This is where that "unlocking of ability" you noted earlier comes in, and it actually demonstrates the value of having one PA value to the current way that the system works, as well as showing it's value to producing a realistic development curve.

I have no doubt other systems with a static PA, such as having multiple could produce realistic results, but our current one is quite well balanced. The only one I'd truly challenge as being a weak concept is PA per attribute as it would mean that a player essentially has a set peak and training them would have no new value, as they would be stuck in that "shape" that their PAs set at the start. Even if a static PA limits outright ability gain, it doesn't define a player at generation for exactly what they have to become.

The other issue you don't seem to cover as well though is that players in the real world aren't just training something new each week, development is not a house, you're not building a new wing to it each time you train, players peak because eventually the decline of abilities overcome the development of them. Players who aren't training are going to get worse for that reason, the point is though that young players are developing and picking up ability quite fast. On that basis a player who is at their peak losing one ability as they gain another they are focusing on isn't actually that bad a result to see, and is arguably what is to be expected. It's also worth noting that when you see a lot of arrows on the player attribute screen, mostly down and a couple up, if you actually check how much those attributes have changed, it's normally minor (less than half a point).

Hey there SomeGuy, my old friend. Thanks for your response. The first thing I think I should clarify is that my list above is not intended as the arguments for and against a dynamic PA, but actually arguments for the current PA system remaining as it is, or the current PA system changing. This is my mistake because my initial headings of "PA should change" and "PA should stay the same" definitely appear as interchangeable with "fixed PA" and "dynamic PA." I've edited my previous post.

I am not actually necessarily for a dynamic PA over a fixed PA, but my list 1-7 represents issues that I think could be better addressed with a new system, whether that is a fixed PA or dynamic PA, or something in between. I might be wrong but I think you have perceived me as using 1-7 as arguments for a dynamic PA, not as arguments for possible changes to the current PA system? As you end your post by making a similar conclusion, "I have no doubt other systems with a static PA, such as having multiple could produce realistic results" then I think that we are actually sharing very similar points of view.

If you already realised that I was backing changes to the system rather than dynamic PA, then say so and I will respond to your counterpoints above. Otherwise you can rework your counterpoints and I will respond to those.

In terms of points you've made that aren't subject to the above clarification, there are some interesting ones. I know you run a lot of tests and I value your input. Penalty taking doesn't take up CA? Interesting. Although is it more likely that it takes up an insignificant amount, rather than none at all?

You say that "PA is one of the things that leads to many of the non-linear elements of the [development] system." Could you clarify what you mean by this? Both in terms of what the non-linear elements of the system are, and what the contribution of PA is to each? From my understanding, the only impact of PA on development is as a CA limit.

Let's talk about the fixed PA per attribute concept. I can follow your reasoning in terms of its potential weaknesses, but I disagree that it is a weak concept overall. What I think you aren't taking into account fully is how such a system would impact the way in which you play the game, especially in terms of my last list 1-4. There are implications for all of these that I think makes each much more fun and compelling. Player development would be much more unpredictable, and current attributes much more misleading. Training players would become more fun, as you could have a young striker, rated as high potential, but who is already near their ST related attributes PA max. Unless you retrain him as a LB then he will only ever be an average player. Scouting could be immensely more fun, as different scouts could have more of a range of what they report. Perhaps Scout 1 judges his overall PA and suggests he could be a top player. Perhaps Scout 2 judges his Attribute PAs against his current position of ST, and has some concerns that the player will never improve. Perhaps super-scout 3 actually gives his scout report to you in the context of the player being a LB in the future. Youth intake would be more interesting and would be less about quickly checking star ratings. Most exciting for me would be the players with the out of nowhere growth spurts and sudden indications of a huge physical capacity.

As it happens, my favourite idea is one where PA itself isn't really changed at all, that being development curves (generated at database startup.) The huge benefit of this would be with regards to scouting. With development curves scouts could judge players without needing to see their PA at all. It also provides a basis for the different quality of scouts to be represented, in terms of how far along the development curve the scout can "see." Scouts would "see" the curve up until x years into the future (x determined by their skill) and then extrapolate based on that (also determined by skill.) This would vastly increase the frequency of players with very little actual PA being reported as future stars, as well as the frequency of players reported as not having a future actually becoming world stars.

To be honest I think there are a lot of cool ideas that would definitely add to the game.