PA- should it be changed? discuss

[lance101]

The current system also has the drawback of overrating some young players... No one today can say that Galvan or Otamendi are definitely going to be super players (just like people were wrong before about bojan or giovanny dos santos going to be awesome).. but for the database to be balanced in the near future, some under 18 of the initial database have to have -10 (otherwise we would have no messi's or ronaldo's until the newgens started to mature)... It would be much better to have a further degree of randomness (for example a normal distribution added to the researched PAs), because in this way it wouldn't be always the same players to be the next messi, and therefore there would be no need to overrate the current selected few.

[Mitja]

I think the PA should go up for players (especially youngsters) after having really good season, after moving to better club, better division, after being trained by better coaches with better facilities etc.. this is happening all the time irl. just like player's PA and CA should decrease when having poor season etc..

there shouldn't be 17 years old players with CA 80 and PA 90. every such player can improve a lot given the perfect circumstances; there should be a general researcher calculation for how much a player can improve in a season.

for instance maximum improvement rate for any youngster under 21 is 7 CA points. PA(U21)= (21-17)x7=28

maximum improvement rate for any player under 24 is 5 CA points. PA(U24)= (24-21)x5=15

PA=PA(U21)+PA(U24)=42

that meens every 17 year old player in the world should have PA at least 42 points higer than CA. of course there is massive difference in ability to improve as a player if this youngster is playing league cup games for Arsenal or being a reserve in amatur league.

this is just a basic idea, I'm not saying that this is how it works irl or how it should be in the game. but I think it's a lot better than having fixed potential. an random element is missing in the game and there should be more players with good potential but it should be much more difficult to achieve it.

[Brian Shanahan]

The current system also has the drawback of overrating some young players... No one today can say that Galvan or Otamendi are definitely going to be super players (just like people were wrong before about bojan or giovanny dos santos going to be awesome).. but for the database to be balanced in the near future, some under 18 of the initial database have to have -10 (otherwise we would have no messi's or ronaldo's until the newgens started to mature)... It would be much better to have a further degree of randomness (for example a normal distribution added to the researched PAs), because in this way it wouldn't be always the same players to be the next messi, and therefore there would be no need to overrate the current selected few.

That's not a problem with the PA system it's just a sign that researchers are passionate football fans (who sometimes get a bit carried away) rather than mindless automatons who can see into the future. Also even under the current system Galvan etc. will not neccessarily turn into superstars anyway. Randomness in the PA is completely covered by FREDS anyway, I've just taken over Cote d'Ivoire and have found a 14 y.o. centre half who is already this good, in my first season only. Pity it'll be another four years before I can bring him to Germany to properly educate him.

[lance101]

I disagree Brian.. If the researchers did not make some 16-18 olds have -10, within 5 ou 6 years there would be a small chance of a messi or CR like player existing in the game world (eg., 21 or 22 years of age and very high CA)... There would be no one that good until FREDS started developing themselves. But I would rather that it wasn't only the same 5 or 6 players who currently have -10 to play that role!

[DonnyNoel]

I think the PA should go up for players (especially youngsters) after having really good season, after moving to better club, better division, after being trained by better coaches with better facilities etc.. this is happening all the time irl. just like player's PA and CA should decrease when having poor season etc..

there shouldn't be 17 years old players with CA 80 and PA 90. every such player can improve a lot given the perfect circumstances; there should be a general researcher calculation for how much a player can improve in a season.

for instance maximum improvement rate for any youngster under 21 is 7 CA points. PA(U21)= (21-17)x7=28

maximum improvement rate for any player under 24 is 5 CA points. PA(U24)= (24-21)x5=15

PA=PA(U21)+PA(U24)=42

that meens every 17 year old player in the world should have PA at least 42 points higer than CA. of course there is massive difference in ability to improve as a player if this youngster is playing league cup games for Arsenal or being a reserve in amatur league.

this is just a basic idea, I'm not saying that this is how it works irl or how it should be in the game. but I think it's a lot better than having fixed potential. an random element is missing in the game and there should be more players with good potential but it should be much more difficult to achieve it.

But in the bit I have bolded, what is the issue - CA or PA? You're right - of course a 17 yr old shouldn't be CA80 PA90, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is PA that is wrong, perhaps the fault is the fact his CA has been allowed to reach 80?

But yes, a variable should exist between CA and PA, I still say PA should be fixed but the floating variable should e clever enough to control CA's progress.

[Mitja]

PA is the issue of course. I wanted to say that there shouldn't be 17 yo players which can't improve anymore at that age.

it's a researchers' issue, not game's. as a general rule all players at some specific age have same 'potential difference', with totally different chances of achieving the potential.

for example there are 2 players with same CA, one playing in BS team and the other in Man Utd. now the one playing in Man Utd will surelly be given much higher PA by researchers. what I'm saying is they should have same PA.

[DonnyNoel]

PA is the issue of course. I wanted to say that there shouldn't be 17 yo players which can't improve anymore at that age.

it's a researchers' issue, not game's. as a general rule all players at some specific age have same 'potential difference', with totally different chances of achieving the potential.

for example there are 2 players with same CA, one playing in BS team and the other in Man Utd. now the one playing in Man Utd will surelly be given much higher PA by researchers. what I'm saying is they should have same PA.

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one then - I think PA is not the issue, the issue is the development of CA towards PA that has let a 17 year old reach 88% of his potential already.

Why should they have the same PA though, surely the player is at Man U for a reason and the other player is at Kettering for a reason? BS teams aren't able to plan for the future as well as Prem teams so will have signed him to play in the BS for them. Man U will have signed their player as they feel he will be able to develop further. If 17 year olds all have/had the same PA, why do Arsenal etc constantly sign youngsters from all over the world. They see potential.

[Scotty Walds]

People are missing the point that just because a player has a low CA or PA, the right attributes will mean they can overperform this...

[x42bn6]

People are missing the point that just because a player has a low CA or PA, the right attributes will mean they can overperform this...

True, however, they will ultimately be capped by PA in some way. PA is a bit like an average after all - it is possible to get a player who has 20 in all important attributes but 1 everywhere else to have a low CA, but I'd argue that's rarer than winning the lottery a million times over.

[DonnyNoel]

True, however, they will ultimately be capped by PA in some way. PA is a bit like an average after all - it is possible to get a player who has 20 in all important attributes but 1 everywhere else to have a low CA, but I'd argue that's rarer than winning the lottery a million times over.

I think what Scotty was implying was that PA is an overall rating but in some case specific attributes can make someone with lower CA/PA a better player in some instances than someone with higher CA/PA. My best example is when I took over Inter Milan and one of my 3 CBs was Senderos. His CA/PA was only around 130/160, much lower than the other 2 CB's yet Senderos was easily the best of the 3. Why? Because his 130 CA was better distributed around the key attributes for a CB than the other (one of whom had 18 for crossing!).

Another one I've had in the past was a Scottish regen keeper, PA180+ who achieved his PA but his handling was only 13.

[lance101]

I think what Scotty was implying was that PA is an overall rating but in some case specific attributes can make someone with lower CA/PA a better player in some instances than someone with higher CA/PA. My best example is when I took over Inter Milan and one of my 3 CBs was Senderos. His CA/PA was only around 130/160, much lower than the other 2 CB's yet Senderos was easily the best of the 3. Why? Because his 130 CA was better distributed around the key attributes for a CB than the other (one of whom had 18 for crossing!).

Another one I've had in the past was a Scottish regen keeper, PA180+ who achieved his PA but his handling was only 13.

I still don't see how this is an argument to defend the current system, given that most players have a "regular" distribution of attributes, and therefore the best do tend to be the ones with higher CA, and the PA does cap the ability to improve, no matter what is the distribution of attributes.

[x42bn6]

Or that yes, some freak kid will come along with silly attributes but low PA, but he is a remarkable (or is that unremarkable?) exception and certainly not an "average" case.

[Scoham]

In real life he always had that ability but in-game he never did. In-game we don't have "underrated players" in that sense as they never get "boosted". Carlton Cole in-game was always capped by a PA that was underrated. Isomorphically a player who suddenly "clicks" in-game unfortunately doesn't develop if capped by a PA. If a player who has hit his PA wins the Ballon d'Or at a rubbish club while playing excellently he'd be boosted by a researcher, but in-game he'll be stuck at his PA. His performances would deserve a boost as he was (as you may say) underrated to begin with.

That doesn't matter though. Players also end up with overrated PAs. It happens, it always will while PA exists, no one can predict the future perfectly. Why is it an issue that on (for example) FM 2005 Carlton Cole didn't have the PA he has on FM 2010? It doesn't matter.

This is an 18-year-old! If it hadn't been for the fact I have had better coming through the Academy in the past he'd have broken plenty of records by now. Matt Holland joined Charlton at 27 or something which is quite a big difference for possible development. This 18-year-old isn't brilliant in terms of attributes but is way outperforming his age by quite a bit. In a lot of ways he "deserves" a higher PA for his achievements but will never get one.

That player is just getting the most out of his CA, like as my example, Matt Holland did at Ipswich. My point was Matt Holland could never take his game up another level, no matter how hard working and professional he was, even with the best coaching. He had a limit and he either reached it or wasn't far off.

Your player is like many in real life that have a great start to their career but don't turn out as good as hoped. Having PAs simulates careers like that, not just players improving throughout their career or being stuck in the lower leagues.

Certainly true, but this was aimed at: "If you don't look at PAs in saved game or pre-game editors, it's not an issue." - this is turning a blind eye.

No it's not turning a blind eye, it's playing the game and seeing what happens, just as you would in real life. Sometimes players become better than you expected, other times they never improve like you hoped. It's about using your opinion to judge players. You won't always get it right, just like managers, scouts and coaches don't in real life or in the game.

[Mitja]

Going to have to agree to disagree on that one then - I think PA is not the issue, the issue is the development of CA towards PA that has let a 17 year old reach 88% of his potential already.

CA is just the sum of all attributes combined. it's far easier to asses how good player is at the moment than predicting future. you can only do that by comparing this player to older players-how good they were at that age.

Why should they have the same PA though, surely the player is at Man U for a reason and the other player is at Kettering for a reason? BS teams aren't able to plan for the future as well as Prem teams so will have signed him to play in the BS for them. Man U will have signed their player as they feel he will be able to develop further. If 17 year olds all have/had the same PA, why do Arsenal etc constantly sign youngsters from all over the world. They see potential.

Arsenal see potential in those players becouse of player ability-attributes (strong, fast, good tachnique etc) and from their current ability comes potential. which meens if two players are same (age, CA, mental stats, etc) they should have same potential. of course that doesn't meen both players (at Arsenal or Kettering) will reach their potential. the one playing in Arsenal has much better chances.

[arsenalboy]

So essentially a potential for the potential ability?

[x42bn6]

That doesn't matter though. Players also end up with overrated PAs. It happens, it always will while PA exists, no one can predict the future perfectly. Why is it an issue that on (for example) FM 2005 Carlton Cole didn't have the PA he has on FM 2010? It doesn't matter.

The issue is that Cole may kick on and suddenly more clubs would be interested in him, and Cole, if he makes a big move and succeeds, may turn out to be better than everyone thought. It won't happen with a player at a PA which was made earlier on in life and if the player has hit that PA, even if Carlton Cole averages 10.00 over the whole season.

There is no "refinement" for performance in-game.

Players are allowed to fail by not reaching their PA, but are not "rewarded" for success by being able to go beyond their expected PA. This is a shame. There is always a possible circumstance for players performing beyond expectations, including newgens.

That player is just getting the most out of his CA, like as my example, Matt Holland did at Ipswich. My point was Matt Holland could never take his game up another level, no matter how hard working and professional he was, even with the best coaching. He had a limit and he either reached it or wasn't far off.

You cannot rule out Matt Holland suddenly performing very well and finding a "golden period" or "blue patch" even in his old age, for a sustained amount of time, though. Granted at his age he probably wouldn't improve much but I liken this to a snowball's chance in hell of not melting. If you like, P(Matt Holland improving)>0, not P(Matt Holland improving)=0 although it's a small probability indeed.

At his age anyway, he wouldn't need PA to limit himself. If SI design a game such that at an old age, they are very unlikely to improve drastically at his age (which oddly enough does exist), then there is no need for PA to define a hard limit in which he is terribly unlikely to reach anyway.

Your player is like many in real life that have a great start to their career but don't turn out as good as hoped. Having PAs simulates careers like that, not just players improving throughout their career or being stuck in the lower leagues.

I believe that how you researchers assign PA as being quite heavily dictated by how good the player is at the moment. Messi would never have been rated as promising if he was missing 50 open goals per game, or had the first touch of Dirk Kuyt with a rocket launcher on his foot. Consequently anyone that is playing ridiculously well at their age group as a youngster will inevitably be improved. This is somewhat what I am asking for.

If you like, the PAs you assign to your players combined with every other researched player will create some probability distribution. The negative PAs can be averaged out and we can get a nice expected probability graph which tells us that on average, this is the probability distribution of a player's PA inside the database.

However, we can go one further. Each player's career without PA can be thought of as a probability distribution with loads of variables. Let's call "KA" "peaK Ability" which is like "the true PA which the player should have had in the first place". We can then sum these probability distributions for each player and get one big probability distribution as before - but instead of a probability distribution of numbers and some uniform distributions for negative PAs, we have one big probability distribution of... Probability distributions of KA.

SI can then try and balance the game to try and make these distributions as equal as possible - while eliminating PA. They can then say, "By the way, Matt Holland at his peak will only be a lower Premier League player. But there is a small but realistic chance that he may follow the path of Jimmy Bullard and have a solid career at a mid-table side like Fulham at some point. But the odds are he will stagnate at Championship or League One level."

It's more of a case that "you can't rule X out" but you can certainly compare it to a snowball in hell. You can't rule out a player failing abysmally to reach their PA, which is possible as a player may simply never get close to his PA. But having PA rules out the "other end" - a player surpassing expectations and going beyond what a researcher or the game deemed as an appropriate PA.

A similar, silly example would be for matches. Nobody thought Spurs could beat Wigan 9-1 so SI could hard-code a "PS" (Potential Score) to ensure that no game could go beyond, say, 6-0 to Spurs. SI could do this to save computation - at 6-0, ignore all goal chances.

Now this is quite silly because nobody knows how games can turn out and 9-1 is certainly possible - we just had one! But this is exactly the point I'm trying to make about PA. I wouldn't be surprised if Spurs don't beat Wigan 9-1 ever again this century. It's a freak result based on a totally outlandish set of circumstances. Likewise nobody expected Carlton Cole to become this good a couple of years ago. But his PA at the time never allowed him to get where he is right now.

No it's not turning a blind eye, it's playing the game and seeing what happens, just as you would in real life. Sometimes players become better than you expected, other times they never improve like you hoped. It's about using your opinion to judge players. You won't always get it right, just like managers, scouts and coaches don't in real life or in the game.

Ah, but human beings always use the "w" word - "why?" Why is a youngster who has already hit his PA performing so well but not improving? It's certainly not his limit because any kid who breaks records at youth level has a greater chance of making it than someone who is terrible.

How well a player plays and develops, if you like, doesn't influence their career if they have already "peaked" - when arguably this is their most important factor in career development.

[Scoham]

The issue is that Cole may kick on and suddenly more clubs would be interested in him, and Cole, if he makes a big move and succeeds, may turn out to be better than everyone thought. It won't happen with a player at a PA which was made earlier on in life and if the player has hit that PA, even if Carlton Cole averages 10.00 over the whole season.

There is no "refinement" for performance in-game.

Players are allowed to fail by not reaching their PA, but are not "rewarded" for success by being able to go beyond their expected PA. This is a shame. There is always a possible circumstance for players performing beyond expectations, including newgens.

Performances have nothing to do with PA though. Players don't need to be rewarded for playing well.

You cannot rule out Matt Holland suddenly performing very well and finding a "golden period" or "blue patch" even in his old age, for a sustained amount of time, though. Granted at his age he probably wouldn't improve much but I liken this to a snowball's chance in hell of not melting. If you like, P(Matt Holland improving)>0, not P(Matt Holland improving)=0 although it's a small probability indeed.

At his age anyway, he wouldn't need PA to limit himself. If SI design a game such that at an old age, they are very unlikely to improve drastically at his age (which oddly enough does exist), then there is no need for PA to define a hard limit in which he is terribly unlikely to reach anyway.

Holland reached his peak at Ipswich, maybe he could have got a bit better, it's not really an issue, but in the end he reached his potential or at least wasn't far off. Once he signed for Charlton he slowly declined. Once players are past their peak their PA is set to the maximum CA they reached. So he always had room to improve at Charlton in FM.

A similar, silly example would be for matches. Nobody thought Spurs could beat Wigan 9-1 so SI could hard-code a "PS" (Potential Score) to ensure that no game could go beyond, say, 6-0 to Spurs. SI could do this to save computation - at 6-0, ignore all goal chances.

Now this is quite silly because nobody knows how games can turn out and 9-1 is certainly possible - we just had one! But this is exactly the point I'm trying to make about PA. I wouldn't be surprised if Spurs don't beat Wigan 9-1 ever again this century. It's a freak result based on a totally outlandish set of circumstances. Likewise nobody expected Carlton Cole to become this good a couple of years ago. But his PA at the time never allowed him to get where he is right now.

You're right, it is a silly example.

Like I said before, it doesn't matter that Cole couldn't have become as good as it was predicted by the researcher say 4 years ago.

SI can then try and balance the game to try and make these distributions as equal as possible - while eliminating PA. They can then say, "By the way, Matt Holland at his peak will only be a lower Premier League player. But there is a small but realistic chance that he may follow the path of Jimmy Bullard and have a solid career at a mid-table side like Fulham at some point. But the odds are he will stagnate at Championship or League One level."

That can happen in FM though, it's a case of getting the most out of a player, not the player suddenly having more potential. The potential was always there, and the manager did a good job handling the player, helping him perhaps play a level above what he really is.

Ah, but human beings always use the "w" word - "why?" Why is a youngster who has already hit his PA performing so well but not improving? It's certainly not his limit because any kid who breaks records at youth level has a greater chance of making it than someone who is terrible.

How well a player plays and develops, if you like, doesn't influence their career if they have already "peaked" - when arguably this is their most important factor in career development.

There's nothing wrong with that being possible in the game though. It does happen.

This all seems to be about every player having a chance of playing above their potential if managed well. Players do have limits though, sometimes they aren't judged too well, Carlton Cole is a good example. Other players have potential but just never reach it. PA does a good job of handling all the possibilities, and the fact that some PAs predicted 5 years ago are now wrong isn't an issue. It will always happen. For players to be able to develop to certain levels in the game, researchers need a way of being able to predict how good they might become. The minus PAs help with this by using ranges of PA. I just don't see what's wrong with that.

The argument seems to be that players should have the chance of increasing their PA, the minus PAs allow for that possibility already. Managers can also get the best out of players, getting them playing well consistently at a level above their real ability. That's not the player improving, that's the management of the player, and the player doing his job well.

[pelicanstuff]

PA should remain static. the ability to reach it shouldn't. which is how i believe it is currently. injuries, not playing games etc all play their role in the players ability to reach their PA

This. Players too often seem to reach PA even with setbacks that might be detrimental in real life. Moreover scouts and coaches should be made less accurate when judging PA and clubs should look to hang on to quite promising youngsters more tenaciously until it becomes clear whether they will make the grade or not.

Some young players - as well as a lot of regens - look to have too high starting attributes.

[wardog]

i like this idea, infact i rember saying such a thing a few years back.

PA is static stat. This should maybe not to world class standard but certianly be affected by First team football and at what level. Also coaches, and the players willingness to learn. How often do those players who stay late after training to train more at a young age become better players IRL than those who have gods gift of natural ability and pee it up the wall by no giving a monkeys hoot.

[x42bn6]

Performances have nothing to do with PA though. Players don't need to be rewarded for playing well.

Not necessarily rewarded. You can't really say that "By the way, the best-performing youngster in our academy will turn out to be a bit rubbish".

So how do you rate PA? You base it on a subjective opinion of his potential. How do you judge a player's potential? Subjectively dependent on how he performs, trains and develops. So surely his PA is somewhat dependent on his performances?

Holland reached his peak at Ipswich, maybe he could have got a bit better, it's not really an issue, but in the end he reached his potential or at least wasn't far off. Once he signed for Charlton he slowly declined. Once players are past their peak their PA is set to the maximum CA they reached. So he always had room to improve at Charlton in FM.

However, could you ever rule out Holland, once he joined Charlton, reinventing himself like Giggs and turning out to be better like an even later bloomer?

You're right, it is a silly example.

Like I said before, it doesn't matter that Cole couldn't have become as good as it was predicted by the researcher say 4 years ago.

I used a silly example to reflect how silly PA is in some ways.

I used Carlton Cole as an example as the sort of game which without PA would be able to handle in terms of late bloomers. His PA beforehand is immaterial to me in a lot of ways, except that it wasn't "correct".

That can happen in FM though, it's a case of getting the most out of a player, not the player suddenly having more potential. The potential was always there, and the manager did a good job handling the player, helping him perhaps play a level above what he really is.

This all seems to be about every player having a chance of playing above their potential if managed well. Players do have limits though, sometimes they aren't judged too well, Carlton Cole is a good example. Other players have potential but just never reach it. PA does a good job of handling all the possibilities, and the fact that some PAs predicted 5 years ago are now wrong isn't an issue. It will always happen. For players to be able to develop to certain levels in the game, researchers need a way of being able to predict how good they might become. The minus PAs help with this by using ranges of PA. I just don't see what's wrong with that.

I think what you are talking about is that: There exists certain players who can do Bullards or Coles thanks to PA. However, it doesn't mean that they are given to the "correct" players. Players with substantially higher PA will always in general have better careers despite the fact there may be much, much better-performing players with lower PA.

Negative PAs do not help players "break" their PA. It allows for some degree of uncertainty but once a number is picked by the game you immediately rule out him becoming better than that.

If we take any real-life player and say that he's peaked and rubbish, but suddenly hits a long purple patch and plays brilliantly, attracting interest from the best clubs in the world, we'd say he's improved. In-game this doesn't happen as his CA has peaked.

In-game you can get strikers at lower levels banging in goals ridiculously consistently but thanks to their PA they never get the chance to move up to another league unless their team gets promoted, in which case he could end up getting jettisoned for a better striker - and where does he go? Back down a level, despite the fact he's consistently proved he's brilliant at lower levels. Any manager at a higher league would consider gambling on such a striker, but thanks to his low PA his CA is also pretty low and therefore he. despite being very effective indeed, will be stuck at a lower league.

No PA means that a researcher will never get it wrong. All they'd need to do is get the rest of the attributes correct and SI's brand-new shiny engine will take care of everything. It would be able to predict that there's a 95% chance a newgen would become a squad player for a top team and a 4% chance of flopping altogether - but a 1% chance he'll turn out to be brilliant.

The argument seems to be that players should have the chance of increasing their PA, the minus PAs allow for that possibility already. Managers can also get the best out of players, getting them playing well consistently at a level above their real ability. That's not the player improving, that's the management of the player, and the player doing his job well.

Negative PAs do not imply PA will be "increased".

I maintain that if a player averages 10.00 in the Premier League but has a low PA, he will never really get a move to a top club as he would have done in real-life - look at Luca Toni. I believe PA is a function of CA and how they perform (amongst other things, of course), and that if their performances go up then their PA must go up as well.

Yes, there do exist players like this who are late-bloomers in-game but they are not necessarily the "deserving" ones. A 70/110 player will always have a better career than a 70/80 one irregardless of how they play, even if their attributes were identical at CA 70. The latter could perform vastly better but the former will always have a better career, even if he plays worse than Dossena with no left foot.

[Scoham]

Not necessarily rewarded. You can't really say that "By the way, the best-performing youngster in our academy will turn out to be a bit rubbish".

So how do you rate PA? You base it on a subjective opinion of his potential. How do you judge a player's potential? Subjectively dependent on how he performs, trains and develops. So surely his PA is somewhat dependent on his performances?

That's how researchers rate them yes, but if they perform consistently well in FM itself their potential shouldn't change. Maybe coaches should overrate their potential in those cases?

However, could you ever rule out Holland, once he joined Charlton, reinventing himself like Giggs and turning out to be better like an even later bloomer?

Giggs adapted his game though, he didn't become a better player. You can be almost certain that a 30 year old central midfielder, for example, won't be a significantly better player in 3/4 years time.

I used Carlton Cole as an example as the sort of game which without PA would be able to handle in terms of late bloomers. His PA beforehand is immaterial to me in a lot of ways, except that it wasn't "correct".

For late bloomers the game itself needs improving, PA itself doesn't need to be changed.

I think what you are talking about is that: There exists certain players who can do Bullards or Coles thanks to PA. However, it doesn't mean that they are given to the "correct" players. Players with substantially higher PA will always in general have better careers despite the fact there may be much, much better-performing players with lower PA.

Negative PAs do not help players "break" their PA. It allows for some degree of uncertainty but once a number is picked by the game you immediately rule out him becoming better than that.

If we take any real-life player and say that he's peaked and rubbish, but suddenly hits a long purple patch and plays brilliantly, attracting interest from the best clubs in the world, we'd say he's improved. In-game this doesn't happen as his CA has peaked.

In-game you can get strikers at lower levels banging in goals ridiculously consistently but thanks to their PA they never get the chance to move up to another league unless their team gets promoted, in which case he could end up getting jettisoned for a better striker - and where does he go? Back down a level, despite the fact he's consistently proved he's brilliant at lower levels. Any manager at a higher league would consider gambling on such a striker, but thanks to his low PA his CA is also pretty low and therefore he. despite being very effective indeed, will be stuck at a lower league.

Again if players perform consistently well in the game, the code needs to be improved so that they are looked at by bigger clubs. Their reputation should rise, clubs should scout them, sometimes clubs should take a gamble. As for players going on a purple patch, most of the time that's down to them probably hitting their peak, being around the right players, having the right manager who is getting the best out of them.

No PA means that a researcher will never get it wrong. All they'd need to do is get the rest of the attributes correct and SI's brand-new shiny engine will take care of everything. It would be able to predict that there's a 95% chance a newgen would become a squad player for a top team and a 4% chance of flopping altogether - but a 1% chance he'll turn out to be brilliant.

It's not that simple though. It would take a huge amount of work, and there would potentially be so many issues and knock on effects of having no PA.

When you say "a 1% chance he'll turn out to be brilliant", what do you mean by brilliant? Because researchers can clearly see a player is never going to be brilliant. The best players in the world, 180 CA+ will be very good in every area. If players aren't technically, mentally or physically at a certain level when they're say 18 they will never be a brilliant player.

Negative PAs do not imply PA will be "increased".

I maintain that if a player averages 10.00 in the Premier League but has a low PA, he will never really get a move to a top club as he would have done in real-life - look at Luca Toni. I believe PA is a function of CA and how they perform (amongst other things, of course), and that if their performances go up then their PA must go up as well.

Yes, there do exist players like this who are late-bloomers in-game but they are not necessarily the "deserving" ones. A 70/110 player will always have a better career than a 70/80 one irregardless of how they play, even if their attributes were identical at CA 70. The latter could perform vastly better but the former will always have a better career, even if he plays worse than Dossena with no left foot.

No player can average 10.00 in any league (without using the editor to put a world class player in a lower division). Like I said, late bloomers I agree need to be possible in the game, but that's not down to PA being removed, the code for player development needs improving. As does the code for managers and coaches who are very good at judging potential to sometimes see that a player might be a late bloomer.

Performances shouldn't improve PA. If a player performs well he might be improving his ability, his potential doesn't increase. Potential is a limit on a player, a realistic one, it's not something that can improve. How long a player takes to reach his potential, if he does at all, is down to issues with player development in the game, not a reason to remove PA.

There are a huge number of players that researchers accurately predict the PA of. Removing PA would mean they can no longer do that, all for the sake of giving each player the chance to become a top player. Most players just don't have that chance, not even a 1% chance, they just don't have the potential technically, physically and mentally to be able to do it. Why allow for a random youth player to be able to become world class when a researcher is sure he will never play above League Two level, and at best League One level?

As I said, SI should improve player development to allow for some players to develop late on in their careers. Look at how many issues there have been with regens (and player development/progression), and SI have had them in the game, in some form, for a long time (since the first CM? Don't actually know). It's not something that is easy to get right, removing PA and having a system based on performances and attributes only would be much harder and cause a lot more knock-on effects than you seem to suggest.

[r0x0r]

If anything changes at all, it could be making PA a soft ceiling rather than a hard ceiling, applying to 99% of players, but allowing a few to occasionally "break" their PA through perfect training, luck, some very good early games boosting confidence and perfect man management. Each step up above the ceiling (ie a 120 PA player going from 121-122 CA) should be 10 times as hard to achieve as a player who hasn't broken their ceiling (ie a 130PA player in the same situation would have grown to a 130 CA player in that time)

[tottivillarossi]

I hate how one day Delfouneso is 19, and 'Can be an important player for the team' the next day, he turns 20 and can only be a 'good player'. I think PA should fluctuate, depending on performances, professionalism and match experience.

[108]

Potential ability can't fluctuate, otherwise it wouldn't be 'potential ability'.

Put it this way, as much as I train in the gym, work out, and practice sprinting - i'm NEVER going to be as fast as Usain Bolt. Even if I train twice as hard as he trains, I just don't have the potential to be as quick as him.

As much as I practice drawing and painting, and if I did it 24/7 for the next 10 years, I'd never be as good as Leonardo Da Vinci because I just don't have the potential.

POTENTIAL dictates how good you can be with training. Thats why players have PEAKS. A players PEAK means with as much training and practice, they are at the best they're ever going to be. The PA basically represents a player reaching his PEAK. It's trying to mirror real life.

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

[x42bn6]

That's how researchers rate them yes, but if they perform consistently well in FM itself their potential shouldn't change. Maybe coaches should overrate their potential in those cases?

If they perform very well for their age, and their potential doesn't rise, then player ratings aren't part of PA. They either are or they aren't. Which one is it?

Giggs adapted his game though, he didn't become a better player. You can be almost certain that a 30 year old central midfielder, for example, won't be a significantly better player in 3/4 years time.

But not fully certain? This is the point I am trying to make.

For late bloomers the game itself needs improving, PA itself doesn't need to be changed.

How would a late bloomer improve if he is capped by his PA?

Again if players perform consistently well in the game, the code needs to be improved so that they are looked at by bigger clubs. Their reputation should rise, clubs should scout them, sometimes clubs should take a gamble. As for players going on a purple patch, most of the time that's down to them probably hitting their peak, being around the right players, having the right manager who is getting the best out of them.

However, he will always be stuck at his PA level. It would not be out of the question that with better facilities and better players around him he will actually play much better to the extent that he would be too good for his previous club - not quite true if he is capped at his PA, as he will always be good enough for them although his reputation may make it less likely for him to want to go back.

It's not that simple though. It would take a huge amount of work, and there would potentially be so many issues and knock on effects of having no PA.

Of course, which is why I've mentioned it's not viable in the immediate or short-term future. Things like soft ceilings which I've mentioned will require only a little thought and since SI do long-term soaks anyway analysis should be possible right now with today's technology.

When you say "a 1% chance he'll turn out to be brilliant", what do you mean by brilliant? Because researchers can clearly see a player is never going to be brilliant. The best players in the world, 180 CA+ will be very good in every area. If players aren't technically, mentally or physically at a certain level when they're say 18 they will never be a brilliant player.

There may be a 1% chance he'll do a Darren Fletcher, for example. Or a 1% chance he'll up his game with better players, like how John Terry and Frank Lampard must thank Mourinho for single-handedly making them amongst the best players in the world for their positions.

No player can average 10.00 in any league (without using the editor to put a world class player in a lower division). Like I said, late bloomers I agree need to be possible in the game, but that's not down to PA being removed, the code for player development needs improving. As does the code for managers and coaches who are very good at judging potential to sometimes see that a player might be a late bloomer.

Not true. It is not impossible, but terribly difficult and incredibly rare. You'd be more likely to win the lottery several times over. However, averaging 10.00 is not impossible nor is it almost surely impossible.

Performances shouldn't improve PA. If a player performs well he might be improving his ability, his potential doesn't increase. Potential is a limit on a player, a realistic one, it's not something that can improve. How long a player takes to reach his potential, if he does at all, is down to issues with player development in the game, not a reason to remove PA.

Indeed it is possibly realistic but sadly the PA you assign will be unlikely to be fully correct, even if it's only off by 1 or 2 points.

Would it not be better to say, "Player X will never go beyond League One - and guess what? Football Manager 2020 will prove this in 99% of the cases. The 1% chance is the case where he either flops entirely and retires early - or turns out to be the talisman of a team and through extraordinary circumstances, a fairytale story, drags himself through sheer work and luck to the Premier League?"

I'd also note that the game doesn't really judge PA in this way - it sort of assigns random PAs although I do think there is a little correlation between CA and PA in the sense that higher PA usually means they have relatively high CAs as youngsters.

There are a huge number of players that researchers accurately predict the PA of. Removing PA would mean they can no longer do that, all for the sake of giving each player the chance to become a top player. Most players just don't have that chance, not even a 1% chance, they just don't have the potential technically, physically and mentally to be able to do it. Why allow for a random youth player to be able to become world class when a researcher is sure he will never play above League Two level, and at best League One level?

Again, this is almost surely not true.

I'm not sure Jimmy Bullard was rated as he did a couple of years back when he was stuck in lower leagues, or even D. J. Campbell. There are extreme cases which are enough to say this is not impossible.

Like I mentioned, since PA is some weighted average based on multiple factors, there is actually no need to store this average and compute it like a stochastic simulation with the knowledge that the average of the ensuing random variable is roughly equal to what you would have deemed his PA.

As I said, SI should improve player development to allow for some players to develop late on in their careers. Look at how many issues there have been with regens (and player development/progression), and SI have had them in the game, in some form, for a long time (since the first CM? Don't actually know). It's not something that is easy to get right, removing PA and having a system based on performances and attributes only would be much harder and cause a lot more knock-on effects than you seem to suggest.

I know of the various problems involved in removing PA - scouting, ratings, player values, game balances and so on. I simply think that there will be a time when we will not need PA (and CA, and any sort of average like player value), allowing these to be dynamically computed with additional benefits such as managers rating players differently. You can then make a player and say, "Oh, but he will lack natural fitness to play in the Premier League. Unless, of course, he trains fully on his fitness." The player then finds a manager who sees a Riquelme in him but no fitness at all - and proceeds to tie him to a treadmill, and he becomes a fantastic player in the Premier League later.

If it can be computed in some way then there is no need to store it. It is an intermediate computation, if you like, which doesn't need to be stored computational power permitting.

[Scoham]

But not fully certain? This is the point I am trying to make.

You can never be 100% certain of anything like that. That's like saying why have researchers rating players in the first place, you can't be 100% certain that they are accurate. It's so unlikely (can you even name a central midfielder that peaked at 34/35?) it's not worth the time to have it as a possibility in the game.

How would a late bloomer improve if he is capped by his PA?

He wouldn't be capped by his PA. That's the point, a late bloomer is a player that never reached his potential at a young age, instead reached it late on in his career. Currently a player might have a CA of 110 and a 140 PA. At the moment if he hasn't reached say 130 CA by 27 he'll probably get nowhere near 140. If player development was improved you might get a few players who go from 110 at 25 to 130 at 27/28.

There may be a 1% chance he'll do a Darren Fletcher, for example. Or a 1% chance he'll up his game with better players, like how John Terry and Frank Lampard must thank Mourinho for single-handedly making them amongst the best players in the world for their positions.

Mourinho single-handedly made them as good as they are? None of that was down to their professionalism, determination, ambition and potential ability?

Indeed it is possibly realistic but sadly the PA you assign will be unlikely to be fully correct, even if it's only off by 1 or 2 points.

"Sadly the PA you assign will be unlikely to be fully correct" - so? It doesn't matter. I just don't see why that is an issue. Up to a certain age, players have minus PAs anyway.

Again, this is almost surely not true.

I'm not sure Jimmy Bullard was rated as he did a couple of years back when he was stuck in lower leagues, or even D. J. Campbell. There are extreme cases which are enough to say this is not impossible.

Like I mentioned, since PA is some weighted average based on multiple factors, there is actually no need to store this average and compute it like a stochastic simulation with the knowledge that the average of the ensuing random variable is roughly equal to what you would have deemed his PA.

Yes it is. A 'top player' is not a Jimmy Bullard or a DJ Campbell. I was talking about 180 CA+ players. Players like Jimmy Bullard were never going to become one of the best players ever. You can argue about it technically not being 100% impossible, but in reality it really is. Take any Premier League player, only a small percentage ever had or have the potential to be world class football (or 180 CA+ players in FM terms).

Bullard as an example just doesn't have the potential to be one of the greatest footballers ever, he never had it, and no matter how much effort he puts in, would have never become that good. And again they always had that potential. Whether they did or not on CM4 or whatever version is irrelevant. Researchers will never be correct every time.

However there are a lot of times in which researchers are right, but no one notices. Nicky Bailey at Charlton now actually had a PA of -1 (something like the entire -7 and -8 range I think) on CM 01/02 (or CM 00/01, can't remember, saw it a while ago) while he was with Sutton in non-league football. He's now in League One and last season showed he's a decent Championship player.

I missed some points but we're repeating ourselves now. Getting rid of PA would cause a lot of problems and unless SI get it pretty much perfect, it could ruin FM after a couple of seasons. Not many big new features/code changes come in and work without problems, and PA effects too many areas to change just for the sake of having a small chance of players going well past their original PA.

108 summed it up, PA is realistic, players never beat their potential, people just underestimate it or players have potential no one really knew they had.

[x42bn6]

You can never be 100% certain of anything like that. That's like saying why have researchers rating players in the first place, you can't be 100% certain that they are accurate. It's so unlikely (can you even name a central midfielder that peaked at 34/35?) it's not worth the time to have it as a possibility in the game.

I believe that if something has never happened, it doesn't necessarily mean it won't happen.

He wouldn't be capped by his PA. That's the point, a late bloomer is a player that never reached his potential at a young age, instead reached it late on in his career. Currently a player might have a CA of 110 and a 140 PA. At the moment if he hasn't reached say 130 CA by 27 he'll probably get nowhere near 140. If player development was improved you might get a few players who go from 110 at 25 to 130 at 27/28.

I was talking about players who are, say, 110/110 and suddenly play very well for a sustained period of time.

Mourinho single-handedly made them as good as they are? None of that was down to their professionalism, determination, ambition and potential ability?

I attribute Mourinho to giving Terry and Lampard the "last hurdle" in the sense that they both stepped up and turned a good Chelsea side into an outstanding one, with both playing integral parts of that squad.

"Sadly the PA you assign will be unlikely to be fully correct" - so? It doesn't matter. I just don't see why that is an issue. Up to a certain age, players have minus PAs anyway.

I believe it does matter because, say, if the PA is too low but the player's attributes result in him playing very well, he will still be burdened by that poor PA.

In real-life some players may not be good but in-game this isn't real-life and we may be able to find circumstances to take these players into teams they would never have done in real-life.

Yes it is. A 'top player' is not a Jimmy Bullard or a DJ Campbell. I was talking about 180 CA+ players. Players like Jimmy Bullard were never going to become one of the best players ever. You can argue about it technically not being 100% impossible, but in reality it really is. Take any Premier League player, only a small percentage ever had or have the potential to be world class football (or 180 CA+ players in FM terms).

Again, if it's never happened it does not mean it is impossible. For all intents and purposes there's a computing limit anyway - the limit of computational arithmetic. But this doesn't just apply to those at the top-end of the scale. If a player a researcher deems will never play League One football and he is at League Two, I'm not sure that's truly accurate as circumstances can change dramatically.

Bullard as an example just doesn't have the potential to be one of the greatest footballers ever, he never had it, and no matter how much effort he puts in, would have never become that good. And again they always had that potential. Whether they did or not on CM4 or whatever version is irrelevant. Researchers will never be correct every time.

However there are a lot of times in which researchers are right, but no one notices. Nicky Bailey at Charlton now actually had a PA of -1 (something like the entire -7 and -8 range I think) on CM 01/02 (or CM 00/01, can't remember, saw it a while ago) while he was with Sutton in non-league football. He's now in League One and last season showed he's a decent Championship player.

I missed some points but we're repeating ourselves now. Getting rid of PA would cause a lot of problems and unless SI get it pretty much perfect, it could ruin FM after a couple of seasons. Not many big new features/code changes come in and work without problems, and PA effects too many areas to change just for the sake of having a small chance of players going well past their original PA.

108 summed it up, PA is realistic, players never beat their potential, people just underestimate it or players have potential no one really knew they had.

With adequate testing, there won't be a problem with games being ruined anyway.

This is the problem with looking "on the whole" - PAs can be put into a probability distribution with these fixed PAs on one scale. A system without PAs is simply a sum of probability distributions on a probability distribution instead, which allows for more variation on the other end of the scale - past the PA, rather than just less than it.

It's not just for "a small chance of players going well past their original PA". It's also for a slightly larger chance of players going slightly past their original PA, in essence making PA a sort of "average" or "soft ceiling".

As I mentioned before, it's not just fixed to researched players but newgens. A PA system can be counter-intuitive, such as two identical youngsters where the first performs much better than the second but because the second has a higher PA, the second will always have a better career despite the fact there is no logic behind the one playing worse to be more promising. It's almost as if coach and scout reports are the Holy Grail of a player's development when in fact their on-pitch and training performances should really be doing the talking. You also get good youngsters who play well for you being suggested to be got rid of quickly as they have reached their PA - why would you get rid of a good-performing youngster who gives you no trouble at all in real-life, if he's not too old?

[emilthedane]

You also get good youngsters who play well for you being suggested to be got rid of quickly as they have reached their PA - why would you get rid of a good-performing youngster who gives you no trouble at all in real-life, if he's not too old?

That's exactly the point I've been trying to make above. I still don't see how researchers can judge potential - surely a player is considered talented (at his relative level) if he displays a higher skill level than those around him at the same age?

I'd still like to know how two youngsters at the same age in the same team can be CA50/PA150 and CA80/PA90. I'm sorry if it seems like some sort of crusade against the current system, however I'm just genuinely interested in how this can be the case. Obviously the current system allows for players to develop early/late, but if you assume that the two mentioned players have the above CA/PA at the moment they are generated I don't see the need for the game to cap their potential. Surely their CA and the natural progression of footballers will do this?

The way I'd like to think clubs judge whether a youngster is worth signing/keeping is by judging the current ability and the rate he's developing at. I've mentioned a "development/progess rate" above, and this would ensure that a youngster with CA30 wouldn't become a top player (although the development rate would allow very rare freak developments, obviously) as there'd be a cap on the rate.

If you scout two youngsters, one might have better stats but your scout will be able to determine that he won't develop any further whereas another player may be judged to have potential to be world class. Messi was considered a great talent because he displayed sublime skill at a very young age (and was indeed subjected to first team football very early), but nobody knew if he'd fulfill his talent. Assuming Messi was, say, CA130 at 17, any club in the world would realise he was a great talent - but not even Barcelona would know if he'd peak at 140 or 190. This is already implemented in-game with the PA system, but I feel it's too static. Messi could've stagnated with the coaches believing he'd never become good enough, only for him to be transferred to another team where he was happier, got more first team action, etc. which would see him pick up his development.

[Mitja]

really hope that SI had a look at this thread as it is by far best discussion in forums (at least that I'm aware of).

[Mitja]

I'd still like to know how two youngsters at the same age in the same team can be CA50/PA150 and CA80/PA90. I'm sorry if it seems like some sort of crusade against the current system, however I'm just genuinely interested in how this can be the case. Obviously the current system allows for players to develop early/late, but if you assume that the two mentioned players have the above CA/PA at the moment they are generated I don't see the need for the game to cap their potential. Surely their CA and the natural progression of footballers will do this?

absolutly agree. there's no real logics to give those two such PA. the only logical thing would be that player with higher CA has higher PA.

there should be some kind of rule how PA is given, depending on age and CA. nothing else.

[Scoham]

I'd still like to know how two youngsters at the same age in the same team can be CA50/PA150 and CA80/PA90. I'm sorry if it seems like some sort of crusade against the current system, however I'm just genuinely interested in how this can be the case. Obviously the current system allows for players to develop early/late, but if you assume that the two mentioned players have the above CA/PA at the moment they are generated I don't see the need for the game to cap their potential. Surely their CA and the natural progression of footballers will do this?

Can you give some examples of players like that please? Would be interested to see just how many examples there really are.

There's something wrong if there are 16-19 year olds with CAs of 80 and a PA of 90 (or similar)

Assuming Messi was, say, CA130 at 17, any club in the world would realise he was a great talent - but not even Barcelona would know if he'd peak at 140 or 190. This is already implemented in-game with the PA system, but I feel it's too static. Messi could've stagnated with the coaches believing he'd never become good enough, only for him to be transferred to another team where he was happier, got more first team action, etc. which would see him pick up his development.

Again this isn't an issue with PA. Opinions of managers and coaches needs to be less static, not PA.

[Stephanie McMahon's Secret Lover]

Why do people insist on complicating the game even more?

Leave it alone PA is fine as it is.

[stumostro]

What is it that some people don't get?

PA is an accurate representation, in computer terms, of what happens in real life. Everyone has a limit to what they can or can't achieve and the PA reflects this and lets the computer know what it is. CA fluctuates depending on the players training, match time, injuries, club etc, which is what happens in real life. For example Nicky Butt, at Man Utd was never going to be a world beater but his CA kept up to his maximum PA, when he left and the players, training etc were all differnet around him his CA dropped, his PA would have stayed the same., he just wasn't matching it anymore.

The -10 -9 -8 etc thing is good for the game too, it adds some variation to each new game you load becasue in real life you can rough guess someones potential, but never know for sure and this keeps you on your toes and stops you just buying the same players for each new game you start.

And lets not forget, you're not supposed to know the players CA/PA, its part of the game to use your own judgement, not just look at the code.

[x42bn6]

I'd still like to know how two youngsters at the same age in the same team can be CA50/PA150 and CA80/PA90. I'm sorry if it seems like some sort of crusade against the current system, however I'm just genuinely interested in how this can be the case. Obviously the current system allows for players to develop early/late, but if you assume that the two mentioned players have the above CA/PA at the moment they are generated I don't see the need for the game to cap their potential. Surely their CA and the natural progression of footballers will do this?

Those were toy examples, hypothetical scenarios. I can't really show you anything as I can't get my game to work any more (need a new laptop) and even if I could I can barely get past a season or two before it just throws up with blue screens.

What is it that some people don't get?

PA is an accurate representation, in computer terms, of what happens in real life. Everyone has a limit to what they can or can't achieve and the PA reflects this and lets the computer know what it is. CA fluctuates depending on the players training, match time, injuries, club etc, which is what happens in real life. For example Nicky Butt, at Man Utd was never going to be a world beater but his CA kept up to his maximum PA, when he left and the players, training etc were all differnet around him his CA dropped, his PA would have stayed the same., he just wasn't matching it anymore.

The -10 -9 -8 etc thing is good for the game too, it adds some variation to each new game you load becasue in real life you can rough guess someones potential, but never know for sure and this keeps you on your toes and stops you just buying the same players for each new game you start.

And lets not forget, you're not supposed to know the players CA/PA, its part of the game to use your own judgement, not just look at the code.

Thank you for reading my posts and posting something which hasn't been posted already.

- Everyone has a limit but there may be no need to hard-code this in

- Everyone has a limit but this is not "known" from birth

- Players are allowed to fail (not reach their PA) but not surpass expectations (go past their PA)

- Scout reports and coach reports are gospel when talking about a player's potential, when I'd argue their on-pitch performances, training and attitude should speak for themselves.

- A player that plays much better than another but has a lower PA will always be rated lower in terms of potential than the other - counter-intuitive much? Messi would never have been rated as promising if he was playing pathetically at Newell's - he was rated as promising because he was bloody brilliant.

- "You shouldn't know" is a moot point because if you can't see something, it doesn't mean there is no problem (or indeed that there is). In other words, not being able to see something implies nothing whatsoever.

[emilthedane]

Can you give some examples of players like that please? Would be interested to see just how many examples there really are.

There's something wrong if there are 16-19 year olds with CAs of 80 and a PA of 90 (or similar)

Again this isn't an issue with PA. Opinions of managers and coaches needs to be less static, not PA.

My internet at home isn't working (am at work), so I can't come up with examples. In any case - and as x42bn6 said, they were toy examples merely designed to illustrate my point: how can a researcher (and, when it comes to newgens, the game) determine the gap between CA and PA in (very) young players? To reiterate, it's all well and good to have researchers set a cap on the future development of a 21yo (although I tend to agree that these caps should be more flexible - different aspect of the discussion, though), but I don't see how anyone can estimate the potential of 16yo's.

Edited to add: I do know for a fact that some newgens are spawned with a tiny gap between CA and PA.

As for your point about coaches/managers - I agree to an extent. I still think the basic premise is flawed, though - your coach should tell you how fast your player develops (eg. "if he keeps this up he'll become a first team player"), not try to guess what the player's PA is. Your coach might have a virtual potential in mind (based on the player's age, CA, performances, development rate, etc.), but this potential should in theory be recalculated each time you ask your coach as the factors change all the time.

Why do people insist on complicating the game even more?

My suggestion has nothing to do with complicating the game - the game already calculates the progress of players - but rather making the researchers' job easier and the data more realistic and flexible. Also' date=' I'm suggesting a different perspective on the way scouts/coaches judge players (according to CA + development rate + performances rather than CA + PA).

1. Everyone has a limit but there may be no need to hard-code this in

2. Everyone has a limit but this is not "known" from birth

3. Players are allowed to fail (not reach their PA) but not surpass expectations (go past their PA)

4. Scout reports and coach reports are gospel when talking about a player's potential, when I'd argue their on-pitch performances, training and attitude should speak for themselves.

5. A player that plays much better than another but has a lower PA will always be rated lower in terms of potential than the other - counter-intuitive much? Messi would never have been rated as promising if he was playing pathetically at Newell's - he was rated as promising because he was bloody brilliant.

6. "You shouldn't know" is a moot point because if you can't see something, it doesn't mean there is no problem (or indeed that there is). In other words, not being able to see something implies nothing whatsoever.

(I've taken the liberty of numbering your points)

1 + 2. With very young players there's no need to hard-code it, and no justification either, I'd say.

3. Cf. above, there should be a natural cap on a player's development based on his raw skill, but with a development rate rather than a PA you could have freak cases with late bloomers, etc.

4. Indeed. If they were based on something non-hard-coded, there wouldn't be as great a problem with reports being static and gospel-like.

5. Couldn't agree more - and I've mentioned this 4 or 5 times by now.

6. Yup. The introduction of -10, -9, -8, etc. is in a way the same as saying "we're not sure" which is fair enough - but the PA is still hard-coded when the game is started. While -10 means that a player will have different PAs from game to game, it is IMO still a flawed way of doing things. Sort the player out with a CA and let him develop, I say! Age/initial CA will restrict his potential without the need for hard-coding.

Edited to add: there seems to be a whole lot of misunderstandings. While I daresay some of it is due to people not reading posts properly, I should mention that I am Danish and as a result not a native English speaker. Some of my arguments may be poorly phrased. Furthermore, some of it comes down, I'm sure, to the fact that I (and others) am (are) engaging this discussion in the hope of improving the current system - I'm not in it to be proven "right", and my arguments have certainly evolved during the thread. Keep up the enlightened comments!

[iamjerome]

basically this is what needs to happen

- the way to assess potential needs to be changed to more realistic manners eg CA / attribute distribution / performances / hidden attributes as judged by coach reports /scout reports etc

- pa doesn't need to be 'changed' but instead it's the development curve / progression rate etc that need to be worked on so it's a rare situation where a <19 player has hit >80% of his 'PA' already, the increases since hitting the 80%(or some such number mark) are then to be dependent on a lot of external factors eg bullard/cole style where they may play at a X level similar to when they hit 80% mark for a while but then due to a new coach or better tutoring or whatever increases certain mental stats that allows them to improve their CA and thus performances

[aggressive minor]

Very interesting thought, that could be the way to go, needs a lot of thought and development though. People are far too quick to shoot this down- 'PA is fine', 'why make the game more complicated', PA is a very good system, that has worked well for many years. But it isn't perfect everyone knows that. I am not knocking it down, but what is wrong with trying to improve a good, but not great system?

How the hell can you assign a PA at such a young age? Even at 20/21? (yes I know -9 means a range, but when you start the game it is fixed)

Someone like Lampard was a talented youngster, but surely anyone who saw him when he first arrived at what 19ish, would have given PA of 160s, no higher. But how can you account for the awesome work rate and dedication he had afterwards? That turned him into a 180/190 player?

I am all for looking into ways of introducing a new system, very hard to get. But PA is a safe option, which is fine for now.

Ps, iamjermoes idea has some potential.

[iamjerome]

the only real issue i think people have is how we are told there are limits to players that we can't justify seeing. for example, in a situation with 2 players, both same aged, both 1 star, similar sort of set of attributes - so presumably similar CA - and even perform in youth teams similarly but magically one of them has a 3 star potential and the other doesn't - this just simply doesn't happen in the real world. the players with high potential or at least marked as such are the ones with highly developed attributes in certain areas from a young age or ones who perform superbly etc. we should not be told by a coach's magical thought that x will be better than y due to looking at his actual set PA attribute.

now the argument that PA should CHANGE throughout time is wrong imo, every player has a limit and it's instead CA (and as i said in my previous post the development curve/progression rate) that should be addressed, with our perception on a player's limit being constantly altered depending on the players CA / performances etc

the argument that bullard/cole have had their PA increased in the game because of whatever IRL is true yes but if we're talking about this in FM terms this is what happened:

bullard/cole always had a set PA - this is their UTMOST limit

coaches gave bullard a low potential rating because he didn't seem too special initially, cole a high one because he was good for his age

then a few years pass by and bullard surpasses his initially assessed pa and cole doesn't really progress from an average one so coaches / scouts re-assess them to be of a different level to before but noting cole may still have potential to increase considering his early potential with the right training / tutoring, and that bullard has shown a drive to continue improving with his mental stats (eg determination / professionalism etc etc)

their performances increase with cole being trained and man managed well / bullard thrives being given extra confidence / trust too etc

coaches/scouts believe they can be even higher than ever thought before

their set limit never changes but it's the perception of what that limit is and how to train / improve and the rate of improvement that's critical

[emilthedane]

basically this is what needs to happen

I don't mean to sound patronising or pseudo-moderating, but why not participate in the discussion by reading a couple of the points mentioned above? The last three posts have just restated what's already been proposed a couple of times above.

Also, perhaps it would be worth it to split this discussion into separate threads. My points mainly revolve around the fact that I think that while PA works to an extent, the basic premise is flawed;

- There is no justification for assigning a PA to a young player

- PA should be defined by a player's current ability + the amount of time he has left to develop/the stage of his development he's at

Others have touched upon the Bullard/Cole debate with a fully developed player upping his game. There's several workarounds for this, many of them mentioned already (eg. allowing PA to fluctuate by a couple of points or scrapping PA and making sure that, say, 99% of all players just stop developing at age XX and thus allowing for freak occurrences (obviously based on mental stats/coaches/player happiness etc.).

And then there's the point about the way scouts/coaches judge talent. Scoham wants the current system to stay but thinks reports should be less static whereas I think reports should be based on CA + development rate.

In summation - all three "issues" could be solved by replacing PA with another system as outlined but I'm aware of the fact that it's not the only possibility. The question I've posed so many times now still stands, though: how can you justify setting a cap on a 15yo's potential? And I'm not just talking about researchers, I'm talking about the game as well.

[iamjerome]

I don't mean to sound patronising or pseudo-moderating, but why not participate in the discussion by reading a couple of the points mentioned above? The last three posts have just restated what's already been proposed a couple of times above.

first of all sorry yes you do come across rude and patronising mostly because i AM participating in the discussion having read every single post prior to both of mine and given my thoughts on how PA should be changed - sort of similarly to how you went about it, fyi

Also, perhaps it would be worth it to split this discussion into separate threads. My points mainly revolve around the fact that I think that while PA works to an extent, the basic premise is flawed;

- There is no justification for assigning a PA to a young player

- PA should be defined by a player's current ability + the amount of time he has left to develop/the stage of his development he's at

Others have touched upon the Bullard/Cole debate with a fully developed player upping his game. There's several workarounds for this, many of them mentioned already (eg. allowing PA to fluctuate by a couple of points or scrapping PA and making sure that, say, 99% of all players just stop developing at age XX and thus allowing for freak occurrences (obviously based on mental stats/coaches/player happiness etc.).

And then there's the point about the way scouts/coaches judge talent. Scoham wants the current system to stay but thinks reports should be less static whereas I think reports should be based on CA + development rate.

In summation - all three "issues" could be solved by replacing PA with another system as outlined but I'm aware of the fact that it's not the only possibility. The question I've posed so many times now still stands, though: how can you justify setting a cap on a 15yo's potential? And I'm not just talking about researchers, I'm talking about the game as well.

i'm not convinced that it is PA that is the issue but how we are able to judge it in the game and that CA/PA should correspond better in the sense that development rate/progression curve needs to be more varied as it is IRL than in game.

i have a suspicion we're both saying the same things more or less.

although i disagree that you can't set a cap on a 15yo's potential - but i think that's a disagreement on the semantics of it than anything else

[aggressive minor]

Like I said before, PA is a good system, but some excellent ideas being floated around, which if used properly, could be much better than a PA.

I mean realistically, when you start the game, each player has a PA, so how can you just assign number to player- you are a 101PA, you have 160, yours is 54, yours is 110, yours is 160, yours is 120.

There is so much more to your potential ability, than just a number, that is assinged to you, that can't be passed. And it is ignorance to think otherwise I beleive.

[iamjerome]

what do you mean? there's without question a limit to each of our (players) potential isn't there?

[emilthedane]

iamjerome - I apologise. I just thought you wandered into the discussion seemingly without any interest in discussing but now that you've responded to the rest of the post I'll take that back.

To state my opinion in a different way, I don't think each player has a specific limit to their potential. I think every human being has a limit, though, but I still can't imagine how you would go about saying "these two players are equally good and were born on the same day but one of them will never make it".

I'd liken two regens with the same stats at the same club to twins; they might start out with a similar "canvas" (nature) and would be subjected to similar training regimes (nurture), but each would be subjected to different events in their career and thus they would, talent-wise, have different fates. No way is anyone going to be on record having predicted that the two players had different potential when they joined the club (on in FM terms, were spawned). However, someone might claim that one player was developing faster than the other (development rate) and they would obviously be able to pass judgment on their skills (CA).

Analogies and dreamt-up examples aside, my point is still that PA is an unnatural way of describing the potential of a player. I would be much happier with a system where you'd rate a youngster on his CA (and his performances) and then have your coaches respond on his development and his mental stats, knowing that if you nurtured him the right way, you would increase his development rate. Currently a player's development is limited from the off and while it works as a simplification of the mechanics behind development, it's not perfect.

[Blacksquare]

iamjerome - I apologise. I just thought you wandered into the discussion seemingly without any interest in discussing but now that you've responded to the rest of the post I'll take that back.

To state my opinion in a different way, I don't think each player has a specific limit to their potential. I think every human being has a limit, though, but I still can't imagine how you would go about saying "these two players are equally good and were born on the same day but one of them will never make it".

I'd liken two regens with the same stats at the same club to twins; they might start out with a similar "canvas" (nature) and would be subjected to similar training regimes (nurture), but each would be subjected to different events in their career and thus they would, talent-wise, have different fates. No way is anyone going to be on record having predicted that the two players had different potential when they joined the club (on in FM terms, were spawned). However, someone might claim that one player was developing faster than the other (development rate) and they would obviously be able to pass judgment on their skills (CA).

Analogies and dreamt-up examples aside, my point is still that PA is an unnatural way of describing the potential of a player. I would be much happier with a system where you'd rate a youngster on his CA (and his performances) and then have your coaches respond on his development and his mental stats, knowing that if you nurtured him the right way, you would increase his development rate. Currently a player's development is limited from the off and while it works as a simplification of the mechanics behind development, it's not perfect.

You know that actually makes more sense. Because then the game should auto-calculate what his effective PA would be anyway. Like lets say you put CR in a bad club to start his career and stays there, his development rate or w/e should be high but if you put lets say Jermain Defoe there it should be lower. But if you move Defoe to a top club and get the most out of him, then he and CR would then be about the same. But if both go to a top club then CR should be higher. That way we can have the Carlton Coles and Jermain Defoes and Glen Johnsons of the world just like in RL. They weren't development so well but once they got to a new club or to a new manager they might change. Like Glen Johnson wasn't working out at Chelsea but under Redknapp in Portsmouth he flourished.

I just find it weird to assume that Player A will develop at Club A with w/e manager. I know the game takes it into affect a bit but maybe they should consider it in other terms as well.

edit: also there should be a consideration for it because look at Italian players. They are old but players in Italy can play for years more because of how they are taken care of (of course its easier when everyone around you is older too but still). I know Arsene extended the careers of several players because of fitness regimes and such.