Should PA become CPA?

[dafuge]

hahaha....

well as we all know they are not variable and it is a huge flaw in the game.

there are many examples of players who developed into world class after their early twenties.

the game kills that possibility via giving out fixed numbers to everyone, pretending some average match ratings of the last three seasons can predict the next 10 years of player development...

for a game that wants to be as realistic as possible this is a pathetic mechanic.

But how do you know that the possibility has been killed for a particular player without looking at the PA?

[TacticalGenius]

for a game that wants to be as realistic as possible this is a pathetic mechanic.

I can't wait to play 2vA Manager. You obviously can do better, so lets see it.

[TacticalGenius]

But how do you know that the possibility has been killed for a particular player without looking at the PA?

Precisely. The current system works as it should if viewed as intended. As I mentioned before, I've had players that most people would judge to be poor Championship players (by looking at their starting CA/PA via the SI editor and their stats ingame) in the premiership performing brilliantly just because the stats they DO have are well distributed by training and playing, and by signing players with the right characters and personalities to perform.

If you want the system to work, stop viewing it as a number via 3rd party software.

[RBKalle]

PA is NOT the problem. Capped PA works fine, and you don't need to add some new "CPA" function in.

What's needed is improvement to the player development model that sees players reach their peak at different rates and ages.

So say you have Player A and Player B at Torquay, and both are CA50 PA120 at 18.

Player A peaks early, at 22, at CA84. At this point, Player B is at CA61.

Player A barely develops past CA84, adding only a couple of points by the time he is 30.

Player B moves on, moves around a couple of clubs, before "clicking" at 29 at Cheltenham. His CA (and performances) go from 67 to 81 over the season. He moves to a bigger club, and eventually peaks, age 33, at Derby on CA 107.

No other features needed, just a development model with more variation.

Agreed.

However a tiny bit on the higher side of the PA curve is needed... just to avoid having the maximum level achievable by a player hitting a brick wall once it has reached the predetermined value.

Actually I'm for the Negative PA value to be renegotiated depending on performances, club etc, at the end of every season...

E.g. you have a 19yo with -8 in the database, he gets a CA of 115 and a PA of 150 at the start of the save, and that'll be his peak FOREVER.

If he gets loaned out/sold to League One in his first season, he'll then flounder around developing slowly and ultimately "losing" his PA 150, as he couldn't ever reach it.

Now if for whatever reason he gets signed by Liverpool at age 25, with a CA of 128, the chances of him blooming and fulfilling his original PA of 150 are close to zero.

That's an underestimated factor... The game itself will CUT a player's PA after a certain age if the player hasn't been developed as he should have! [at least according to 3rd party editors...]

Just removing that limitation would help IMMENSELY the growth of late bloomers.

A 26yo with a CA of 130 and an original PA of 160 could STILL bloom if signed and played at a high level.. Of course it'd take something really good... not just a couple of decent showings as a substitute, or some FA Cup matches.

Think of Luca Toni again...

To me when he arrived in Palermo he DIDN'T HAVE the "PA" to become an international profile. Not even close... He was just the typical "bottom half of the table, 10-12 goals lumbering striker".

Then he became something else, but that wasn't because he "had that talent", just that he found a better team with a better playing system that helped him to score a lot.

That is impossible now in FM; because the 2003 Luca Toni would have been [or was? can someone check?] a 120/135 CA-PA player. Basically close to his peak, which was nothing special to begin with...

And after two-three seasons he probably became a 160-180 player... all of a sudden...

A progression that can NOT be replicated in the game

P.S. But in the end, almost everything can be fixed with a more flexible CA development model.

[x42bn6]

I'm not a fan of artificially introducing a "random" rate of development as Dave C is suggesting, because there are definitely ways to promote and stunt the growth of players. The game should focus on emulating the promotion and stunting of growth through improved CA development models and a movable PA (maybe PA is a bad thing to call it I suppose), rather than artificially slowing down a player because the game has decided he should become a late bloomer. Surely it should be that "you didn't play this player enough and he fell into a rut, but he suddenly played very well and became a late bloomer, and the game reflects that".

[RBKalle]

The game never artificially slows down a player's growth...

If it happens it's because of:

* lack of football

* injuries

* lazy player/poor attitude/low ambition etc

* poor league/team standard

All of those being perfectly valid reasons for a player to slow down his development curve.

HOWEVER

Had Man Utd insisted in playing Massimo Taibi, would have he turned into Peter Schmeichel in the end?

NO!

Because Taibi's talent [or PA, or call it as you want] was enough to make him look good in relegation candidates clubs in Italy, thus barely adequate as backup at an higher level.

And that how the game handles the whole CA/PA thing... Just not that perfectly.

Still, how does your proposal of a "Talent level" is different from the already existing PA now?

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

from my discussions on this matter, i've realised its not really to do with PA being a fixed figure per se, just the fact we can tell so accurately when players are so damn young if they have anywhere near the potential to be good or bad.

ive said it before, but as soon as you get youth players through in the summer, the reports tell you what level they will play at regarding their potential. thats far too accurate at such a young age. it should be a little more unpredictable. i do think a non fixed potential would add depth of some sort and realism/unpredictablility to the game to make it better.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

what people who are against a change in system seem to forget is that a player who has a low PA but plays well and has all the core attributes to make it to the top, would be stunted no matter how much football he may be given or the standard of training or team. simply by a single figure. This player will then maybe go on to not perform well in the long run because they arent of a high enough 'potential number'

[dafuge]

ive said it before, but as soon as you get youth players through in the summer, the reports tell you what level they will play at regarding their potential. thats far too accurate at such a young age. it should be a little more unpredictable. i do think a non fixed potential would add depth of some sort and realism/unpredictablility to the game to make it better.

I still think they they are innacurate enough to make things interesting. I've had youth players come through who I've been convinced will be world beaters who have only gone on to become good Championship players. The fact that at the very top level you won't get anything above three stars for CA/PA for young players means you will never be able to know for sure which players are the potential world class ones, unless you look at the actual PA that is.

[RBKalle]

from my discussions on this matter, i've realised its not really to do with PA being a fixed figure per se, just the fact we can tell so accurately when players are so damn young if they have anywhere near the potential to be good or bad.

ive said it before, but as soon as you get youth players through in the summer, the reports tell you what level they will play at regarding their potential. thats far too accurate at such a young age. it should be a little more unpredictable. i do think a non fixed potential would add depth of some sort and realism/unpredictablility to the game to make it better.

If you don't mess with FMRTE et similia you don't really get to know at what level a youngster will play...

For starters, the Stars Rating are relative, so a 2.5* rating can range from 130 to 160 PA, depending on the rest of the team and the terms of comparison.

Then there are the hidden mental stats... He can be hinted as a promising youngster but having a brain the size of a peanut... meaning he'll never amount to much with his attitude.

And last but not least, who knows... maybe the player won't just fit into your tactical plan and you'll seel him out of desperation?

I agree fixed PA is "boring" and not flexible enough, but even a player who has peaked already can be much more useful than another one with higher potential but with other flaws

My most effective striker is around 155 CA/PA, and has been consistently better (and easier to handle) than some 170ish guys I've bought and sold over the years

[x42bn6]

The game never artificially slows down a player's growth...

If it happens it's because of:

* lack of football

* injuries

* lazy player/poor attitude/low ambition etc

* poor league/team standard

All of those being perfectly valid reasons for a player to slow down his development curve.

HOWEVER

Had Man Utd insisted in playing Massimo Taibi, would have he turned into Peter Schmeichel in the end?

NO!

He wouldn't, but where did I imply that? I'm not implying that first-team football, coaches and training facilities guarantees world-class talent! I'm saying that there's a minute chance Taibi would turn out to be Schmichael but for all intents and purposes you're more likely to end up winning the lottery a couple of times.

Because Taibi's talent [or PA, or call it as you want] was enough to make him look good in relegation candidates clubs in Italy, thus barely adequate as backup at an higher level.

And that how the game handles the whole CA/PA thing... Just not that perfectly.

Still, how does your proposal of a "Talent level" is different from the already existing PA now?

The idea is that talent plus current circumstances gives you a rough idea of where a player will end up (i.e. talented and at a good team => usually will become a very good player). However, instead of predicting the maximum CA of a player (this is PA), predict the "average" CA at his peak (call this "X") taking to account all circumstances, and let variation occur on both ends - fail to match this prediction (CA < X) or exceed this prediction (CA > X) - with the idea that the further you go from this X-value, the harder it is (so Joe Average needs miracles to become the next Lionel Messi, but a very talented youngster will find it comparatively easier).

This way you can be more conservative in your estimation of a player but if his development turns out to be pretty good he will exceed your estimation.

If anything, at the moment, it is too easy to guarantee world-class players - get a bunch of talented kids, chuck them into the first-team and find a good tactic that gets you results. End result? Lots of world-class players. The game needs to cut down on the number of these world-class players by making it harder to develop the top-tier players, and allow perhaps less-talented players come into the mix who exceed their initial expectations becoming first-teamers at first-rate teams - the Fletchers and O'Sheas, if you think that way.

[dafuge]

what people who are against a change in system seem to forget is that a player who has a low PA but plays well and has all the core attributes to make it to the top, would be stunted no matter how much football he may be given or the standard of training or team. simply by a single figure. This player will then maybe go on to not perform well in the long run because they arent of a high enough 'potential number'

If a player plays well and has all the core attributes to make it at the top, then he should be able to make it regardless of his CA/PA. If he doesn't have the necessary PA to improve them to make it at the top level then he'll be one of the players who should make it but doesn't, without these players then the player development model would become very predictable.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

"I think it's fun and I wouldn't want it to become massively harder by far more "late bloomers" who I'd end up selling on thinking they wont make it

But THIS is exactlywhat would make the game better,by making it slightly harder.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

If a player plays well and has all the core attributes to make it at the top, then he should be able to make it regardless of his CA/PA. If he doesn't have the necessary PA to improve them to make it at the top level then he'll be one of the players who should make it but doesn't, without these players then the player development model would become very predictable.

but its very predictable as it stands though.

as ive mentioned, the fact that you can scout a player and it says he will be however good a level. that wont change.

ever.

a player wont come out from being scouted as being a future leading championship playerto be a prem star. but it happens in real life. for players who do have those core abilities. noreal world player has a singlefigure attibute that then blocks his ability. the attributes players have in the real world are those set out of 20 in the game, most viewable in game, some are hidden, which in my opinion shouldnt be the case. i think you should be able to view much more/better of the hidden attributes in the game. or at least for them to be scouted and then they let you know. yes, scouts say a couple of things, but they dont give you an idea of all of the hidden attributes.

i personally dont use programs outside of the game itself, which is something people seem to throw at people who champion this basic idea. but i can tell the potentials from the in game scouts, and am never surprised by that 15 year old who came through my youth team saying he'd only be a good championship player.

how the hell do they know? at very least the reports on players younger than a certain age should be foggied. to a rough idea of their potential.

[dafuge]

as ive mentioned, the fact that you can scout a player and it says he will be however good a level. that wont change.

ever.

It does though, A player scouted at the age of 19/20 may well reveal a PA of 3 stars. This does not mean the maximum he can become is 3 stars, I've seen players scouted at 3 star PA go on to become 4.5 star CA.

The descriptions you mention (like leading PL) are actually quite broad, certainly at the very top level the difference between the bottom and top of that that level can make a huge difference.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

I still think they they are innacurate enough to make things interesting. I've had youth players come through who I've been convinced will be world beaters who have only gone on to become good Championship players. The fact that at the very top level you won't get anything above three stars for CA/PA for young players means you will never be able to know for sure which players are the potential world class ones, unless you look at the actual PA that is.

thats because your coaches/scouts arent top level probably. even top level ones shouldnt be able to judge accurately though imo, before we discuss that.

the fact is none of them have BETTERED your reports though have they?

none of them do. all players 'dont live up to' your scouts reports/coach reports. NONE over perform your reports, ever. i usually can get 20/20 potential judging scout for clubs quite low down enough to say its across the board it happens, its not necessarily a 'top club having top staff' thing.

[dafuge]

the fact is none of them have BETTERED your reports though have they?

In terms of the stars, yes, regularly.

[RBKalle]

The idea is that talent plus current circumstances gives you a rough idea of where a player will end up (i.e. talented and at a good team => usually will become a very good player). However, instead of predicting the maximum CA of a player (this is PA), predict the "average" CA at his peak (call this "X") taking to account all circumstances, and let variation occur on both ends - fail to match this prediction (CA < X) or exceed this prediction (CA > X) - with the idea that the further you go from this X-value, the harder it is (so Joe Average needs miracles to become the next Lionel Messi, but a very talented youngster will find it comparatively easier).

The "CA<X" scenario is already covered well, with players failing to fulfill their PA for all the reasons I've listed above.

The "CA>X" scenario is basically another way to call for a soft end PA... But how would you implement that exactly?

If anything, at the moment, it is too easy to guarantee world-class players - get a bunch of talented kids, chuck them into the first-team and find a good tactic that gets you results. End result? Lots of world-class players.

No it's not like that...

A player needs to have high PA, good mental attributes and balanced technical/physical ones... Otherwise he'd just become another "almost but not quite"...

Think of Riquelme, Aimar, D'Alessandro, Fowler, Owen.... or Morientes

The game needs to cut down on the number of these world-class players by making it harder to develop the top-tier players, and allow perhaps less-talented players come into the mix who exceed their initial expectations becoming first-teamers at first-rate teams - the Fletchers and O'Sheas, if you think that way.

As said already...

A well-rounded "average" EPL player can be much much better and more valuable than a potential World Class players with awful physical traits or with the mental traits of Dennis Rodman...

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

It does though, A player scouted at the age of 19/20 may well reveal a PA of 3 stars. This does not mean the maximum he can become is 3 stars, I've seen players scouted at 3 star PA go on to become 4.5 star CA.

The descriptions you mention (like leading PL) are actually quite broad, certainly at the very top level the difference between the bottom and top of that that level can make a huge difference.

the only reason leading prem is so broad is because they dont tell you that accurately how good they will be. however, they will never UNDER estimate a player. players just dont cut the grade to their apparent reports from previous seasons. but thats because the scouts didnt judge them accurately enough to begin with. thing is though, iv noticed that players reported potentials are suddenly dropped to their more accurate/real ones after you sign them or after a short period at your club. fair enough - except for the ones when you sign them it happens straight away in their report....

the poor thing about it is they dont say oh this player will be better than we expected.

it happens in total club manager. i havent played it in a years or two, but when you signed a player there was a slight chance they would be better or worse than they thought they were. NOT only worse..... as with fm

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

In terms of the stars, yes, regularly.

ive never experienced that. and iv played this game for hours on end for years.

you may be mistaking 'ability'stars for potential stars

[dafuge]

the only reason leading prem is so broad is because they dont tell you that accurately how good they will be. however, they will never UNDER estimate a player.

If you get repeated scout reports for a particular player then the reports should become more accurate.

It may only be the case with young players (for obvious reasons) but I can confirm that the PA star ratings that top quality scouts give can be exceeded as CA stars by a player later in their career. I've seen it happen consistently throughout my 50 year career game.

[dafuge]

Look at the CA/PA star ratings for Axier here and then here. It is the same assistant reporting both times. The only difference is that he is 7 years older and has become a world class player.

[Lankylars]

x42bn6, the tail end of your probability distribution is where PA lies, not somewhere in the middle. You're just choosing to define PA as the midpoint in that distribution, rather than what it really is - the statistical maximum. Once again, removing PA will not improve things, but changing how players grow and develop will.

[x42bn6]

The "CA<X" scenario is already covered well, with players failing to fulfill their PA for all the reasons I've listed above.

The "CA>X" scenario is basically another way to call for a soft end PA... But how would you implement that exactly?

There are many ways! What is important is how to figure out how to make it work, rather than how to implement it (implementation is the easy bit).

Soft-end PA is similar to my idea of valleys in some ways - but instead of a stick being right in the middle of the valley, soft-ceiling PAs are like a stick halfway up the mountain. I have never come across a development model before so I've never dissected it to bits, so I can't tell you how to implement it, but it is possible.

No it's not like that...

A player needs to have high PA, good mental attributes and balanced technical/physical ones... Otherwise he'd just become another "almost but not quite"...

Think of Riquelme, Aimar, D'Alessandro, Fowler, Owen.... or Morientes

I suppose I'm being a bit pedantic but if you have world-class coaches and training facilities the players will have their attributes shaped better, so you won't really come across players with noticeable flaws. However, there is no doubting that these players are very good - but were always going to be slightly below the Lionel Messis (or more appropriately for that generation, Zidanes and Ronaldos).

As said already...

A well-rounded "average" EPL player can be much much better and more valuable than a potential World Class players with awful physical traits or with the mental traits of Dennis Rodman...

Yes, but their development shouldn't be hindered, like a Darren Fletcher circa-2005, who wouldn't have got a PA value anywhere like he does today (good grief he was bad back then).

[x42bn6]

x42bn6, the tail end of your probability distribution is where PA lies, not somewhere in the middle. You're just choosing to define PA as the midpoint in that distribution, rather than what it really is - the statistical maximum. Once again, removing PA will not improve things, but changing how players grow and develop will.

The reason I define it somewhere in the middle is because it is a lot more difficult to guarantee a player will never exceed some value than guarantee a player will be somewhere in some ballpark region - PA puts an immediate ceiling, while my idea accepts this and allows for some degree of randomisation about both tails.

I wouldn't, of course, call my "marker" PA - I'd call it "talent level".

Then instead of saying, "X will never be better than CA 100", I'll say "X will only have CA 90 on average, but could have a moderate chance of hitting, say, 105".

[Legionaire]

That would be similar to the system in fifamanager, and the -1 to -10 in the db could just be 1star to 10star talent level.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Look at the CA/PA star ratings for Axier here and then here. It is the same assistant reporting both times. The only difference is that he is 7 years older and has become a world class player.

i honestly never look at the assistant ca and pa stars screen. but its an issue with scouting not about current players anyway. bar those youth players who come through

[dafuge]

i honestly never look at the assistant ca and pa stars screen. but its an issue with scouting not about current players anyway. bar those youth players who come through

I don't have the screenshots of the scout report for him before I bought him, but it would have been 3 stars for PA as I never receive scout reports for youngsters with more than that.

[SCIAG]

The reason I define it somewhere in the middle is because it is a lot more difficult to guarantee a player will never exceed some value than guarantee a player will be somewhere in some ballpark region - PA puts an immediate ceiling, while my idea accepts this and allows for some degree of randomisation about both tails.

I wouldn't, of course, call my "marker" PA - I'd call it "talent level".

Then instead of saying, "X will never be better than CA 100", I'll say "X will only have CA 90 on average, but could have a moderate chance of hitting, say, 105".

Could you not just increase PA to 105 or 107 in that example? That still says "X will never be better than 115 CA".

[PhroX]

Just something that ties in with some of my earlier posts: just because a player's CA is at his PA doesn't mean that he can no longer improve. Proper training can redistribute that CA to make him a better player. Not saying that it will give you everything you want by any means, but the idea that hitting the PA is the end of a player's devlopment is very wrong.

[SCIAG]

Just something that ties in with some of my earlier posts: just because a player's CA is at his PA doesn't mean that he can no longer improve. Proper training can redistribute that CA to make him a better player. Not saying that it will give you everything you want by any means, but the idea that hitting the PA is the end of a player's devlopment is very wrong.

And, of course, his performances can still improve under good management.

[Lucozade1]

I havent read through this whole topic but the point made at the beginning is interesting in the sense that, most of the time the player who gets a good scout report at a young age will turn out good, whereas the people who get bad reports never really make it whatever and you know that from an early stage of their career's.

Now I dont think an open PA would be a good idea because I think too many players could and would turn quality and the game would be fillde with superstars.

What I was thinking is maybe a thing that ties in with CA and PA, which is a 'peak age' where some players will peak really early in their careers, where their stats raise at a quick rate and get good scout reports, and then some players maybe not peak until the age of 26-28, where they are annonymous to good reports until the ages of 23 or so as their stats raise at a lower pace but still reach a quality player, just later on in their careers

[SCIAG]

I havent read through this whole topic but the point made at the beginning is interesting in the sense that, most of the time the player who gets a good scout report at a young age will turn out good, whereas the people who get bad reports never really make it whatever and you know that from an early stage of their career's.

Now I dont think an open PA would be a good idea because I think too many players could and would turn quality and the game would be fillde with superstars.

What I was thinking is maybe a thing that ties in with CA and PA, which is a 'peak age' where some players will peak really early in their careers, where their stats raise at a quick rate and get good scout reports, and then some players maybe not peak until the age of 26-28, where they are annonymous to good reports until the ages of 23 or so as their stats raise at a lower pace but still reach a quality player, just later on in their careers

SI added that feature for this version, apparently.

[x42bn6]

Could you not just increase PA to 105 or 107 in that example? That still says "X will never be better than 115 CA".

But his PA was 100 to start with!

It's just that a "talent level" acknowledges no hard upper limit - it doesn't even acknowledge it's an upper limit - just a ballpark figure.

The idea is that a lot of good players (not necessarily most talented) continue to be developed throughout their careers, rather than have a single, fixed PA ingrained at the start of their career with certain circumstances taken into account (i.e. lower league side therefore impossible to get the next Lionel Messi due to reputation).

I havent read through this whole topic but the point made at the beginning is interesting in the sense that, most of the time the player who gets a good scout report at a young age will turn out good, whereas the people who get bad reports never really make it whatever and you know that from an early stage of their career's.

Now I dont think an open PA would be a good idea because I think too many players could and would turn quality and the game would be fillde with superstars.

What I was thinking is maybe a thing that ties in with CA and PA, which is a 'peak age' where some players will peak really early in their careers, where their stats raise at a quick rate and get good scout reports, and then some players maybe not peak until the age of 26-28, where they are annonymous to good reports until the ages of 23 or so as their stats raise at a lower pace but still reach a quality player, just later on in their careers

Firstly, if SI drop PA they are not going to make a game where it is possible for an unrealistically huge number of youngsters, some bad some good, to turn into superstars. It's not as if "no limit = everyone will become good". As I mentioned before if something may happen, it doesn't mean it will happen or at least will happen so infrequently you can, for all intents and purposes, ignore it.

Hard-coding in development rates is an idea I don't like because there should be a reason why players develop differently - SI should aim to model these reasons rather than hard-coding in some development rate.

[Mike J]

I'm still not really understanding why there's a need to change the PA system and not the development system. It seems any proposed system would still need some way of capping CA to avoid too many players turning into world class superstars. I agree that altering the way players develop throughout their careers would be a good idea. I don't see how removing PA is necessary to achieve that.

[11Carraghers]

What about a development curve similar to the old PES curves. This allows for a persons PA to be reached at different times. Eg A player like Owen would have a sharp rise in CA early in his career and reach his PA at an early age, but then plateau and start decreasing in ability in his late 20's. A player like Drogba may have a slow rise in CA during his early years but then peak at a latter stage in his career. It would give a bit more variety to player growth. Then you could have you're scouts saying things like "He is a 3.5* now, but he's not going to get any better" or "he's a 2.5* now, but I expect him develop well in the next few years" or something gramatically better!

[SCIAG]

What about a development curve similar to the old PES curves. This allows for a persons PA to be reached at different times. Eg A player like Owen would have a sharp rise in CA early in his career and reach his PA at an early age, but then plateau and start decreasing in ability in his late 20's. A player like Drogba may have a slow rise in CA during his early years but then peak at a latter stage in his career. It would give a bit more variety to player growth. Then you could have you're scouts saying things like "He is a 3.5* now, but he's not going to get any better" or "he's a 2.5* now, but I expect him develop well in the next few years" or something gramatically better!

Again, that happens now. Players don't all peak at the same times, and most don't reach their PAs. Obviously, scouts can't predict when a player will get better. Nobody could have guessed that Michael Owen would spend five years, practically in a row, on a treatment table with serious injuries when he should have been in the prime of his career (I'd strongly contest that he actually reached his PA). Likewise, few people predicted Drogba would become the best striker in the world at Chelsea. I think Mourinho was the only one.

[x42bn6]

I'm still not really understanding why there's a need to change the PA system and not the development system. It seems any proposed system would still need some way of capping CA to avoid too many players turning into world class superstars.

Er, no! Look at all the talent that fails in real life. It may be possible in theory to make everyone a superstar without a cap, but this is so overwhelmingly unlikely to happen it's not worth considering. A bit like the world being destroyed due to things coming out of the Large Hadron Collider - yes it may happen, no it's not likely at all to happen.

I agree that altering the way players develop throughout their careers would be a good idea. I don't see how removing PA is necessary to achieve that.

By artificially coding in the development rate you are modeling the symptom (players develop differently), rather than the cause (why do players develop differently)? A more realistic simulation models the cause, therefore we can control how the development rate is (i.e. if we don't treat our promising youngsters correctly, they may stagnate and therefore may become late bloomers - but if we treat them well then they are more likely to become good early-on and less of a chance of becoming a late bloomer).

[aggressive minor]

Good post, definitely something there. The CA and PA system has worked well, but I certainly hope one day a 'better' system can develop.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

i agree with that, it doesnt take into account the causes of different development rates.just that they develop differently. it should factor in causes, thigns that happen in game. that way you can change the PA system so that not every player does become superstars. because, lets face it, not every player wins world cup golden boot, or worldfootballer etc. these types of things, just like young player of the year are big things for players, which should make sure certain players do well and other not so well cause they havent got the accolades. the award thing is purely an example, obviously injuries and good/poor man management should factor alot more.

[Guest markyosullivan]

In my current FM2010 save Kalou who is 24 is starting to become a great player..

[Suggy33]

This can be applied to younger players also. In both FM09 and FM10 Craig Eastmond had low CA/PA but he has now been promoted to our first team following some good performances, and will undoubtedly get a CA/PA boost.

[x42bn6]

The really weird Manchester United signing (Bebé) could apply here too. Since nobody has any real idea of how good he is, you could toss any yardstick "talent value" based on perhaps the "talent values" of the Vitória de Guimarães youth team, combined with random attributes which will give him a "range" of PAs to freely move to. This is arguably more accurate than a single PA that could be far too high or far too low depending on the immediate future.

[sperlz]

I'm in the "fixed PA is fine, but the development system could use some work" camp.

In fact, personally, I'd increase a lot of players PAs by a fair bit, particularly lower level players, but at the same time make it much harder to actually reach that potential. For example, a player that currently has 90 PA, might now have 110, but find it hard to develop beyond ~90 CA. However, if ideal situations did occur, he could become that bit better and step up to the next level. I'd also allow more development later in a player's career (mainly techincal/mental - physical improvements should mainly be limited to younger players)

Just as a rough idea, I'd probably say that on average, most players should reach, maybe 70-80% of the PA.

I would totally agree with this comment, albeit a bit of a late reply. Ive just started reading the thread and I think something could be done to make things more variable. A lot in football depends on a player getting the chance in the big time and if injuries affect development and all kind of variables. I'll use Everton players as an example as they are the team I support. James Vaughan for example is a player who could, probably should be a lot better than he is now. However injuries have hampered his development and now he is way down the pecking order at Everton, his PA on the game now is 153. Now if he had'nt picked up so many bad injuries and he was playing regularly and well for the last 3-4 seasons then maybe he would be on CA 153 now and PA could be anything up to 180 as he is a very determined player with all the right physical attributes. However with him just being on 153 it means that he will never be better than a fringe premier league player. Although this is likely to be the case with him, I think the door should always be open for the possiblity of him becoming better than that as he is still young and maybe with a good run, good training and luck he could become a leading premier league striker. Another player is Jack Rodwell, perhaps a better example. FM have given him a PA of 172, now this means that Jack Rodwell on the game will never be able to reach the ability of Steven Gerrard who has a PA of 185. This is where I think the game is suffering. I and many Everton fans and some professional players and coaches believe that Rodwell has the potential to reach the standard of Rooney and Gerrard. The problem with this fixed PA is that it just wont be possible as he cant ever reach the 185 of Gerrard. If he was given a variable PA or even if players of his potential were given a PA of say 190 then it would open the possibility of him being world class or just established. This 190 PA however would not be guaranteed and only the players with the very best attitudes or the ones who have played the best in a successful team and with the right training would reach that height.

I understand that this would be a massive addition to FM that would need a lot of testing, but I think its the way forward to achieving a more realistic game.

[Mike J]

Er, no! Look at all the talent that fails in real life. It may be possible in theory to make everyone a superstar without a cap, but this is so overwhelmingly unlikely to happen it's not worth considering. A bit like the world being destroyed due to things coming out of the Large Hadron Collider - yes it may happen, no it's not likely at all to happen.

But how are you determining that probability? You haven't actually said that yet. You do realise the game already does this with its newgens by radnomly assigning PAs at creation, which are based on just the sort of system you're talking about?

By artificially coding in the development rate you are modeling the symptom (players develop differently), rather than the cause (why do players develop differently)? A more realistic simulation models the cause, therefore we can control how the development rate is (i.e. if we don't treat our promising youngsters correctly, they may stagnate and therefore may become late bloomers - but if we treat them well then they are more likely to become good early-on and less of a chance of becoming a late bloomer).

Like I said, I agree the development model needs some work to allow for later development. However, the game already models things such as professionalism, ambition etc in the background, which have a huge effect on the rate of a player's development and the maximum CA he can attain. So it does deal with the "why".

I think people are fixating too much on the hidden CA and PA of players. It's not so important to me what the CA/PA of a player is. It's more important how they perform in the game. So comments about Rodwell vs Gerrard seem to miss the point a bit. So what if Rodwell's CA is 10 points lower than Gerrard's? I doubt you'd notice much in game and it's not like he's a bad player is he? A CA over 170 is excellent, even for a top league, so I can't help but think people who complain about comparitive CAs like that are too interested in the hidden scores and not the actual performance on the pitch.

[WH]

Look at This Player. I signed him for free in the lower leagues and he went on to be my best player in the premier league for several seasons(until he got old). His stats have never been very good but he has consconsistently performed on the pitch for me. I have never looked at his hidden stats and I would predict they are probably terrible. If I had viewed his ca / pa I probably would have wanted to dump him in League 1. Thats why I think people see CA/PA and then worry about those 2 figures. Just look at his positional stats and judge them on performances on the pitch in my opinion.

[gazzamark]

I have to say I completely disagree with the fact there aren't enough late bloomers, its all to do with the standard of coaches and training facilities. If anything I think there aren't enough regens like Messi or Fabregas, who are close to full potential at 18 or 19.

[x42bn6]

But how are you determining that probability? You haven't actually said that yet. You do realise the game already does this with its newgens by radnomly assigning PAs at creation, which are based on just the sort of system you're talking about?

I have no access to the code, so I don't know how one would go around implementing it. Many models spring to mind though, things like hazards models or state-based systems. I personally have never worked on "ability development"-based systems so I can't really say.

Like I said, I agree the development model needs some work to allow for later development. However, the game already models things such as professionalism, ambition etc in the background, which have a huge effect on the rate of a player's development and the maximum CA he can attain. So it does deal with the "why".

I agree and it will affect how a player develops, but has less of an effect on how good a player will be (look at the number of idiotic footballers in the world today).

I think people are fixating too much on the hidden CA and PA of players. It's not so important to me what the CA/PA of a player is. It's more important how they perform in the game. So comments about Rodwell vs Gerrard seem to miss the point a bit. So what if Rodwell's CA is 10 points lower than Gerrard's? I doubt you'd notice much in game and it's not like he's a bad player is he? A CA over 170 is excellent, even for a top league, so I can't help but think people who complain about comparitive CAs like that are too interested in the hidden scores and not the actual performance on the pitch.

This sounds like "yeah, but if you can't see it, there shouldn't be a problem", something I disagree with.

Let's put it another way. Say I wanted to simulate me doing the shot put. I cannot say with any real degree of certainty how far I can throw it because the further I throw it the less sparse these outcomes are - I am more likely to throw it with a certain average, plus or minus some noise value. I can estimate my average shot put distance without bias, but I cannot estimate my maximum to a good degree of accuracy. Here, "talent level" is the average, while PA is the maximum.

Look at This Player. I signed him for free in the lower leagues and he went on to be my best player in the premier league for several seasons(until he got old). His stats have never been very good but he has consconsistentlyformed on the pitch for me. I have never looked at his hidden stats and I would predict they are probably terrible. If I had viewed his ca / pa I probably would have wanted to dump him in League 1. Thats why I think people see CA/PA and then worry about those 2 figures. Just look at his positional stats and judge them on performances on the pitch in my opinion.

This is less about attributes - I know it's attributes that really matter from a pure gameplay perspective (my best-ever right-back in FM08 had PA 172) - but CA is closer to an "average" player of that quality in the sense that all players of CA 100 have an average "ability" equal to CA 100. Players with very low "useless" attributes compensated with very high "useful" attributes are fairly rare considered with someone with a less even spread of values (a bit like general training development schedules). This is more on a PA discussion. Even if we can't see it, it doesn't mean there is no such problem.

[Dave C]

I'm not a fan of artificially introducing a "random" rate of development as Dave C is suggesting,

Erm, where did I say anything about a "random" rate of development?

I'd have use existing attributes that defined aspects of mentality to define it, ally it to manager/coach attributes too.

Effectively, you can think of it that each season, a cap is placed within the PA limit on the basis of a whole bunch of factors. Every time circumstances change, that cap changes.

(I'm NOT advocating moveable PA, I'm just trying to illustrate the point)

[x42bn6]

Apologies, read your post again and I take that back. I thought you were advocating the generation of a "how a player would develop" attribute which determined when a player would peak beforehand.