Training format + Dynamic player potential.

[poola21]

I think Dynamic PA is bad for the game

Imagine I have a team that wins everything, and I make an experiment, play as first team a player that has CA=10 and PA=20, and if I am winning everything and the team is successful his PA can rise to 200 from 20 and his CA to 199 (max), and that means even the worst player in the game can become the best and that is not true in real life

For players that reach their potential early: I am one of those that play their youngsters early, and I have players that reach their peak at 21-22, I currently have a winger that reached his potential at 21, his value is 37 million euros, has worldwide reputation, but his stats are going to remain the same for ten years, it is impossible for him to improve in the game, in real life he can be a lot better, so I think this should be improved but without introducing dynamic PA, my suggestion is improve only Mental Attributes and Hidden Attributes, (stuff like Important Matches, Consistency, Injury Proneness,etc.)

And since we are on the same page, I want to point out something else, from the ages of 31-32-33 the CA drops hard on players with big CA and PA, for example from 190 to 178, therefore the player isn't world class anymore, he doesn't have worldwide reputation anymore, and that is not true in real life, I want to play my old players at ages like 36-37, Examples coming through my mind: Maldini, Zidane, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Ryan Giggs, Javier Zanetti, Cafu, they are still world-class, they are still recognised worldwide, my suggestion is that they should drop CA only 3-6 months before retiring, and decrease stats more wise, a player that had 20 for acceleration would never get to 3 he will decrease to 17-16-15 but not 3

[Ishu]

Ofcourse PA is set since birth.

Otherwise whats the point of scouts IRL. United/Chelsea can just pick any regular guy of the streets and develop him to his "limitless" potential.

[x42bn6]

I think Dynamic PA is bad for the game

Imagine I have a team that wins everything, and I make an experiment, play as first team a player that has CA=10 and PA=20, and if I am winning everything and the team is successful his PA can rise to 200 from 20 and his CA to 199 (max), and that means even the worst player in the game can become the best and that is not true in real life

In theory yes (there may be attribute development rate limits - in-game right now there is a limit to as how fast a player can develop anyway). However, you will likely have to work a million times harder in order for this to happen. He'll need first-team football the moment he hits 16, and he will need to perform extremely well without fail. He'll need top-notch training facilities and coaches and he will need to avoid any injuries. He'll also need bucketloads of luck and a perfect personality. In reality this is unrealistic - why work with rubbish when it's easier to work with talent?

Would you rather sign a 16-year-old Messi or a 16-year-old Wright-Phillips? Maybe in this virtual world Messi suffers multiple serious injuries and Wright-Phillips learns how to play football, and maybe Wright-Phillips surpasses Messi. It doesn't change the fact Messi is more talented. It will be of course much harder for Wright-Phillips to get anywhere near Messi's level and it may still be impossible due to attribute development rate limits, but the chances of Messi suffering multiple serious injuries and Wright-Phillips developing extraordinarily well are extremely slim.

As with all balancing of course you can design a system such that it's really hard to exceed your talent. This doesn't mean you have to cap it.

For players that reach their potential early: I am one of those that play their youngsters early, and I have players that reach their peak at 21-22, I currently have a winger that reached his potential at 21, his value is 37 million euros, has worldwide reputation, but his stats are going to remain the same for ten years, it is impossible for him to improve in the game, in real life he can be a lot better, so I think this should be improved but without introducing dynamic PA, my suggestion is improve only Mental Attributes and Hidden Attributes, (stuff like Important Matches, Consistency, Injury Proneness,etc.)

Consistency develops as you age naturally.

And this example would suggest that his development should deliberately slowed in order to peak late. However, the reasons for slowing his development rate are unclear - why would his development be slowed down if he is performing well (to the extent his reputation is worldwide and his value very high)? Slowing his development is an artificial construct in order to justify a model - when this should be the other way round! We design a model to justify real-life.

And since we are on the same page, I want to point out something else, from the ages of 31-32-33 the CA drops hard on players with big CA and PA, for example from 190 to 178, therefore the player isn't world class anymore, he doesn't have worldwide reputation anymore, and that is not true in real life, I want to play my old players at ages like 36-37, Examples coming through my mind: Maldini, Zidane, Del Piero, Inzaghi, Ryan Giggs, Javier Zanetti, Cafu, they are still world-class, they are still recognised worldwide, my suggestion is that they should drop CA only 3-6 months before retiring, and decrease stats more wise, a player that had 20 for acceleration would never get to 3 he will decrease to 17-16-15 but not 3

I consider their "reputations" to have dropped but the level of "respect" or "wisdom" they have to have not. I think the game needs to recognise something like "maximum reputation obtained" - and then we can use this. For example, the best may have a high maximum reputation and therefore they will be considered "legendary" in terms of respect and wisdom. But their reputations will be lower - reputation is a measure of how a player is doing over a long-term basis, and for these old players it is going down. But the respect and wisdom they command never drops.

Ofcourse PA is set since birth.

Otherwise whats the point of scouts IRL. United/Chelsea can just pick any regular guy of the streets and develop him to his "limitless" potential.

See above - there may be theoretical limits but in reality you still wouldn't work with rubbish - you'd work with talent, because it's much easier and much more likely to work.

Scouts can judge a player to determine how good they will be on average and a reasonable maximum. They don't have to refer to this PA number. They could see a talented and professional youngster and recognise he will turn out good; they could see a talented but unprofessional youngster and recognise he will be good if he can change his attitude (otherwise he may well never play in the top tier); they could see a less-talented yet professional player who could turn out to be a solid player for a top team (a Darren Fletcher if you will); and they could see absolute rubbish with a pathetic attitude, who is a candidate for dropping several tiers rather quickly.

If you are a scout, you may guess how good they could be and how good they will be on average based upon things like talent, attitude and how they play in football matches, amongst others. What your opinion of these attributes forms is the rough idea of how a player will turn out - an estimate. But it doesn't mean you are saying they will never be better than this estimate - you could, for example, have underestimated it.

[Ishu]

Scouts can judge a player to determine how good they will be on average and a reasonable maximum. They don't have to refer to this PA number.

"IN" game scouts dont refer to their PA number either. They refer to it by stars. Also don't forget it still is a game. RL scout dont say that Ronaldo/ Messi can Dribble @ 20 neither.

They could see a talented and professional youngster and recognise he will turn out good; they could see a talented but unprofessional youngster and recognise he will be good if he can change his attitude (otherwise he may well never play in the top tier); they could see a less-talented yet professional player who could turn out to be a solid player for a top team (a Darren Fletcher if you will); and they could see absolute rubbish with a pathetic attitude, who is a candidate for dropping several tiers rather quickly.

That's what tutoring is for in FM.

If you are a scout, you may guess how good they could be and how good they will be on average based upon things like talent, attitude and how they play in football matches, amongst others.

This is how it works in FM. Its dependent on PA (Talent), Hidden Mental attributes like ambition etc(Attitude), and CA gain is totally dependent on how much?, How good? and What level? they play(How they play in football matches)

What your opinion of these attributes forms is the rough idea of how a player will turn out - an estimate. But it doesn't mean you are saying they will never be better than this estimate - you could, for example, have underestimated it.

The scouts "IN" the game do give wrong estimates. Its Genie scout which tells us a player's exact PA.

[x42bn6]

"IN" game scouts dont refer to their PA number either. They refer to it by stars. Also don't forget it still is a game. RL scout dont say that Ronaldo/ Messi can Dribble @ 20 neither.

How do they obtain these stars? Based on things like PA, reputation and CA-PA difference. The stars are just the output - what's the input?

That's what tutoring is for in FM.

Yes I know how to improve (or make worse) a player's personality - but you didn't read the whole sentence!

This is how it works in FM. Its dependent on PA (Talent), Hidden Mental attributes like ambition etc(Attitude), and CA gain is totally dependent on how much?, How good? and What level? they play(How they play in football matches)

Well not really. How good a player becomes is dependent on these factors, but PA isn't generated this way (it's based on reputation and youth facilities). It's some random number pulled from a distribution based on some of the current circumstances of the club at the time and isn't a function of any part of the player. In other words it's generated too early. Since a player's development is based upon so many factors, why limit the generation of PA to reputation and youth facilities at the start of a player's career?

The scouts "IN" the game do give wrong estimates. Its Genie scout which tells us a player's exact PA.

I was talking about the real world here.

[Ishu]

How do they obtain these stars? Based on things like PA, reputation and CA-PA difference. The stars are just the output - what's the input?

OK give me some other possible inputs... for FM

also tell me what inputs RL scout have.

Yes I know how to improve (or make worse) a player's personality - but you didn't read the whole sentence!

The last part, Fletch example, is true too. proffesionalism, determination etc do take part in ME.

Well not really. How good a player becomes is dependent on these factors, but PA isn't generated this way (it's based on reputation and youth facilities). It's some random number pulled from a distribution based on some of the current circumstances of the club at the time and isn't a function of any part of the player. In other words it's generated too early. Since a player's development is based upon so many factors, why limit the generation of PA to reputation and youth facilities at the start of a player's career?

IMO talent is based on parents(genes) and luck. Now you don't expect FM to integrte all biological aspect into a Football game..

I was talking about the real world here.

...

[x42bn6]

OK give me some other possible inputs... for FM

also tell me what inputs RL scout have.

FM: Reputation, CA-PA difference, PA

Real-life: Talent, how good the club is at producing youngsters, how they play on the football pitch, any glaring weaknesses that need to be worked on, attitude, level of first-team football...

The last part, Fletch example, is true too. proffesionalism, determination etc do take part in ME.

I'm not talking about the match-engine. I'm talking about how a scout would judge a player. Fletcher is just an example to refer to.

The fact is that in real-life scouts get a different picture based on things like talent and attitude, but in-game it only looks at reputation, CA-PA difference and PA. And PA is generated not as a function of the player, but the youth facilities and reputation of the club he was at when he was generated.

IMO talent is based on parents(genes) and luck. Now you don't expect FM to integrte all biological aspect into a Football game..

I never said that. I said talent exists (and if SI want, they can go ahead and try to quantify talent, but like you said, it's not a good idea). But talent isn't used to generate PA. PA is used as a measure of talent. But like I said, talent is (largely) constant throughout your career, but how good you will be isn't certain, unlike talent. Therefore the notion of a calculated or estimated limit cannot be certain - it should be uncertain, and therefore allow some form of "movement" or "point of reference" rather than the limit.

...

I was talking about how a real-life scout would judge a player. And how good a player will be isn't uncertain because a scout can't see it. It's uncertain for many other reasons too.

[Ishu]

FM: Reputation, CA-PA difference, PA

Real-life: Talent, how good the club is at producing youngsters, how they play on the football pitch, any glaring weaknesses that need to be worked on, attitude, level of first-team football...

This does not defines a players talent, but more that if he can reach that talent.

Bebe transfering to united doesn't increases his talent.

Also the real life inputs you suggested are present in FM. You can defo make your conclusion lika a real scout.

I'm not talking about the match-engine. I'm talking about how a scout would judge a player. Fletcher is just an example to refer to.

ofcource, the point that a player can perform well in ME, due to his good attitude, is what makes him eligible for top level.

The fact is that in real-life scouts get a different picture based on things like talent and attitude, but in-game it only looks at reputation, CA-PA difference and PA. And PA is generated not as a function of the player, but the youth facilities and reputation of the club he was at when he was generated.

While I agree that the scout report is not presented in the game very well, it does tell you the major weakness, his attitude etc. Techonology cannot "get a picture" out of these stuff. You can...

@ Bold part

I replied to that earlier.

One solution can be that FM can generate 11 YO player without set PA. The PA can be set when they turn 14.

Flaw in this theory

1) A person will probably b able to get higher PAs then AI. Make the game easier.

I never said that. I said talent exists (and if SI want, they can go ahead and try to quantify talent, but like you said, it's not a good idea). But talent isn't used to generate PA. PA is used as a measure of talent. But like I said, talent is (largely) constant throughout your career, but how good you will be isn't certain, unlike talent. Therefore the notion of a calculated or estimated limit cannot be certain - it should be uncertain, and therefore allow some form of "movement" or "point of reference" rather than the limit.

Low hidden attributes can stop you from reaching your PA. So can poor facilities, poor manager, coaches etc.

A 200 PA player cannot neccesarily reach there. He can stop at 120.

[x42bn6]

This does not defines a players talent, but more that if he can reach that talent.

Bebe transfering to united doesn't increases his talent.

We're talking about determining how good a player will be, not how talent works.

Talent is constant and inate. Talent is just one of the factors determining how good a player is. You don't "reach" your talent - you "reach" your ability (or not). Talent, however, is "inside you".

ofcource, the point that a player can perform well in ME, due to his good attitude, is what makes him eligible for top level.

I'm talking about a player's development, not how he performs on the pitch (two different things altogether).

@ Bold part

I replied to that earlier.

One solution can be that FM can generate 11 YO player without set PA. The PA can be set when they turn 14.

Flaw in this theory

1) A person will probably b able to get higher PAs then AI. Make the game easier.

Such arbitrary ages! And the game doesn't work with 11-year-olds because there aren't real-life players to fill it in. And again, by picking a PA at 14, you are stuck with the exact same problem - the circumstances when you are 14. It's simply a different "time" to as when you were generated - in your case, 11.

Circumstances change all the time. What remains constant is talent - what doesn't remain constant are the other things, like level of training facilities.

Low hidden attributes can stop you from reaching your PA. So can poor facilities, poor manager, coaches etc.

A 200 PA player cannot neccesarily reach there. He can stop at 120.

I'm aware that there are several barriers to development but that wasn't my point. My point was that we are using "talent" wrongly.

The best players in-game will always be those who have high CAs; the best potential youngsters will in general have high PAs. Without no notion of "talent", this means that talent is bundled into the PA. But because how good you can ever be is uncertain and because this isn't factored in, it makes no sense for PA to be constant.

[Ishu]

We're talking about determining how good a player will be, not how talent works.

Talent is constant and inate. Talent is just one of the factors determining how good a player is. You don't "reach" your talent - you "reach" your ability (or not). Talent, however, is "inside you".

I was refering to talent as max ability one can have. which is PA.

I'm talking about a player's development, not how he performs on the pitch (two different things altogether).

I thought we were talking about PA here not development. YOU said that some players make it big despite having less Talent(PA) purely on their attitude.

You are drifting away from the topic.

Such arbitrary ages! And the game doesn't work with 11-year-olds because there aren't real-life players to fill it in. And again, by picking a PA at 14, you are stuck with the exact same problem - the circumstances when you are 14. It's simply a different "time" to as when you were generated - in your case, 11.

What I'm saying that 11YO player should be generated with certain PA which can be altered to a certain extent till he reaches 14.

Of course there are enough 11yo players. The reason they aren't in game is due to legal reasons.

And we don't generate real life players. We generate regens.

Circumstances change all the time. What remains constant is talent - what doesn't remain constant are the other things, like level of training facilities.

You say "What remains constant is talent" and still want dynamic PA.

I'm aware that there are several barriers to development but that wasn't my point. My point was that we are using "talent" wrongly.

The best players in-game will always be those who have high CAs; the best potential youngsters will in general have high PAs. Without no notion of "talent", this means that talent is bundled into the PA. But because how good you can ever be is uncertain and because this isn't factored in, it makes no sense for PA to be constant.

You cannot judge talent in RL and this is the reason that there aren't 20 Messi's in RL. Most of them go unnoticed.

Similarly you cannot judge PA in FM.

[Fall Ark]

My two cents:

There's no point in arguing that the game shouldn't have a dynamic PA because in real life there's always a fixed potential. What we have in the game is the researcher's perceived PA of a player. As a result this perceived PA often changes in each generation of CM/FM.

Most people who ask for a dynamic PA do so -- at least I do so -- because there's absolutely no way a researcher can know if a player is a late bloomer before he "blooms". Maybe many are also concerned about high PA players developing too fast or whatever. Those issues can be remedied in the current fixed PA system. But "potential" late bloomers? No way.

And that's why some people have asked for a "do well and have a PA increase" module. There are of course disadvantages and maybe side-effects, but these are not issues that can't be solved or remedied. I'll give a rough example:

Each season/year some players undergo PA changes. Exactly which players can be determined through various factors: spectacular and/or horrible forms, changed club/country, injuries or awards, CA very close to PA, etc.

Limit the PA change to 1-3 points each year. Not necessarily increase for good form and decrease for bad form. A little bit random would be good. Take league level into consideration, etc..

Some very special cases -- like having a spectacular season in different competitions and/or moving clubs, or still randomly -- may undergo drastic PA changes. The trick is you do not allow every player that fits this special criteria to have a big PA change -- each year only a randomly selected few players can undergo this change. As a result only one or two, or maybe zero, notable players can have big PA change every year. It'd be a surprise. Just like in real life.

You don't do it at a club level or league level. You don't do it en masse. Make it random. That's the FM way.

Or am I simply spouting nonsense?

[Ishu]

Some very special cases -- like having a spectacular season in different competitions and/or moving clubs, or still randomly -- may undergo drastic PA changes. The trick is you do not allow every player that fits this special criteria to have a big PA change -- each year only a randomly selected few players can undergo this change. As a result only one or two, or maybe zero, notable players can have big PA change every year. It'd be a surprise. Just like in real life.

This has the potential to make 20 "my player won world player of they year, why is his PA still the same?".

[Fall Ark]

This has the potential to make 20 "my player won world player of they year, why is his PA still the same?".

Yeah. That's why you make it random. Don't give the managers any funny ideas that they can make any player a latebloomer!

(World player of the years tend to have very high CA/PA already and won't have PA changes anyway....)

"It doesn't work that way, pal! In fact, you never know who's gonna have a jump in their PA!"

And if some players still want to save/load or use other tricks to exploit this randomness. Well. Just let them do it.

[Ishu]

Yeah i know but some people don't seem to get it.

[dafuge]

Provided you don't actually look at the PA number using a tool, the PA of a player will appear to be variable according to the in-game information given to us as managers, especially when looking at young players.

[Ishu]

Provided you don't actually look at the PA number using a tool, the PA of a player will appear to be variable according to the in-game information given to us as managers, especially when looking at young players.

This is exactly what I've been trying to explain to x42bn6.

[dafuge]

I guess you could argue that the system is too predictable, but that is really down to the development model rather than the fact there is a fixed PA.

[ScouserHU]

Maybe, you should not know what is the player's PA exactly. I tell you a story:

I'v managed Livepool recently, and I've bought Danny Wilson. My scouts told me he will be as good as Carra. He became wonderkid in no time, and I expected great thing from him. He had 13 tackling, 12 marking and 13 heading. I expeted those stats to raise. Then for the first time in my life i used thet scout program. I've discovered he had a PA of 145 and he will never be the player i expected him to become. I've stopped using him than sold him. My scouts in the game were wrong. He was nowhere near as Carra.

So I was trying to tell you, that you should not know the players PA, you should rely on your scouts, and play the game. G Scout is a cheat and it changes the way you play the game. Get rid of it as i did!

[Fall Ark]

Provided you don't actually look at the PA number using a tool, the PA of a player will appear to be variable according to the in-game information given to us as managers, especially when looking at young players.

I would argue that it's more about existing, established players though. Imagine it's year 2001 and some people start saying, "who's to say that Didier Drogba couldn't be a world-class striker someday?"

It is very rare, granted, but game after game I think people deserve a bit randomness....heh.

[dafuge]

That's probably a research issue then, since by giving a specific value the researcher is basically saying they are fairly certain about how good they will become. Perhaps the random PAs should be used more often (if they aren't already)?

I tend to play my games just with the regens, so I really don't know anything about what the PAs are, or even what they are likley to be.

[Ishu]

There are -ve PA. Drogba always had the talent, he just developed with World Class facilities.

[Fall Ark]

There are -ve PA. Drogba always had the talent, he just developed with World Class facilities.

Drogba in CM01/02 3965 has 95/115 for CA/PA. He was about 24 years old anyway. Like I said researchers have no way of knowing whether a player is a late bloomer or not. That's why they are late bloomers.

That's probably a research issue then, since by giving a specific value the researcher is basically saying they are fairly certain about how good they will become. Perhaps the random PAs should be used more often (if they aren't already)?

I tend to play my games just with the regens, so I really don't know anything about what the PAs are, or even what they are likley to be.

Yeah regens are fine...in a way. However starting different games and know that there are only a handful existing players will make it....Um. Not so great.

[x42bn6]

I was refering to talent as max ability one can have. which is PA.

Talent isn't the sole determinant of how high you can get.

I thought we were talking about PA here not development. YOU said that some players make it big despite having less Talent(PA) purely on their attitude.

You are drifting away from the topic.

This point stems from the following:

They could see a talented and professional youngster and recognise he will turn out good; they could see a talented but unprofessional youngster and recognise he will be good if he can change his attitude (otherwise he may well never play in the top tier); they could see a less-talented yet professional player who could turn out to be a solid player for a top team (a Darren Fletcher if you will); and they could see absolute rubbish with a pathetic attitude, who is a candidate for dropping several tiers rather quickly.

Which you highlighted a single phrase, bolded it and then didn't bother to rebut the rest, bringing in the match engine. And then you say I'm going off-topic?

I'm talking about how a player develops in the above quote - not PA.

What I'm saying that 11YO player should be generated with certain PA which can be altered to a certain extent till he reaches 14.

Of course there are enough 11yo players. The reason they aren't in game is due to legal reasons.

And we don't generate real life players. We generate regens.

Again, where did you pull these arbitrary ages from? Why not 12 and 15? You're still hard-coding in things and that is not necessary.

You presumably give them 3 years because circumstances can change in those 3 years - but circumstances can change after they hit 14 years old!

You say "What remains constant is talent" and still want dynamic PA.

Talent =/= PA (hint)

Talent is constant. What changes are your circumstances - what club you are at, how you adapt, how much first-team football you get...

PA is a function of all these. Because these circumstances are uncertain, your limit must also be uncertain.

If X is a uniformly-generated random number from 0 to 1, then X+3 is a uniformly-generated random number from 3 to 4. 3 is constant (talent), X is uncertain (development), and X+3 is uncertain (your limit). However, in our case, X isn't necessarily bounded above (i.e. 0 to infinity). Without access to the code I can't tell whether there is a theoretical maximum development rate. But if you can generate wonderkids with starting CA 100, you can probably guess that X may be bounded from 0 to 100 - a very large degree of uncertainty.

You cannot judge talent in RL and this is the reason that there aren't 20 Messi's in RL. Most of them go unnoticed.

Similarly you cannot judge PA in FM.

You can't judge talent? If not, why bother scouting at all?

My two cents:

There's no point in arguing that the game shouldn't have a dynamic PA because in real life there's always a fixed potential. What we have in the game is the researcher's perceived PA of a player. As a result this perceived PA often changes in each generation of CM/FM.

Alright then, here's a challenge: What if we get rid of PA, in favour of a different model, like my own?

I'm aware of what PA means and what it does, but I'm arguing my model is better (for lots of reasons above and in other threads).

Most people who ask for a dynamic PA do so -- at least I do so -- because there's absolutely no way a researcher can know if a player is a late bloomer before he "blooms". Maybe many are also concerned about high PA players developing too fast or whatever. Those issues can be remedied in the current fixed PA system. But "potential" late bloomers? No way.

Not just late bloomers... Early-bloomers who don't sustain their PA growth for whatever reason, players who spectacularly fail, and so on.

And that's why some people have asked for a "do well and have a PA increase" module. There are of course disadvantages and maybe side-effects, but these are not issues that can't be solved or remedied. I'll give a rough example:

Each season/year some players undergo PA changes. Exactly which players can be determined through various factors: spectacular and/or horrible forms, changed club/country, injuries or awards, CA very close to PA, etc.

Limit the PA change to 1-3 points each year. Not necessarily increase for good form and decrease for bad form. A little bit random would be good. Take league level into consideration, etc..

Some very special cases -- like having a spectacular season in different competitions and/or moving clubs, or still randomly -- may undergo drastic PA changes. The trick is you do not allow every player that fits this special criteria to have a big PA change -- each year only a randomly selected few players can undergo this change. As a result only one or two, or maybe zero, notable players can have big PA change every year. It'd be a surprise. Just like in real life.

You don't do it at a club level or league level. You don't do it en masse. Make it random. That's the FM way.

Or am I simply spouting nonsense?

My idea does away with PA. If a player deserves a development boost for whatever reason then he will get it. If a player plays really well for the first-team his development gets a boost. If a player plays rubbish for the youth team his development slows. The limit never comes into play. Yes there is a limit and maybe one day you may be interested in it, but do you really need to know? When a player is near his peak, then you will know. For a youngster, all you can gather are things like how he plays, talent and attitude - you can hazard a guess to as how good he may be, but you don't have to get it right. It's still up to you to develop them.

Provided you don't actually look at the PA number using a tool, the PA of a player will appear to be variable according to the in-game information given to us as managers, especially when looking at young players.

As I said above, not knowing something exists doesn't mean that there isn't a problem...

Maybe, you should not know what is the player's PA exactly. I tell you a story:

I'v managed Livepool recently, and I've bought Danny Wilson. My scouts told me he will be as good as Carra. He became wonderkid in no time, and I expected great thing from him. He had 13 tackling, 12 marking and 13 heading. I expeted those stats to raise. Then for the first time in my life i used thet scout program. I've discovered he had a PA of 145 and he will never be the player i expected him to become. I've stopped using him than sold him. My scouts in the game were wrong. He was nowhere near as Carra.

So I was trying to tell you, that you should not know the players PA, you should rely on your scouts, and play the game. G Scout is a cheat and it changes the way you play the game. Get rid of it as i did!

Alright, let's take your example. Why did Danny Wilson stop developing? If he was a wonderkid and was playing very well, trained well, had a good attitude and you had good facilities (at Liverpool, you would) - why wouldn't he continue developing?

It sounds like, "Yeah, you got all the ingredients to make this cake, but it's not actually going to turn out to be a cake no matter what you do."

I would expect a player never to stop developing without a reason. There has to be a reason. In this case, the game has decided that Wilson has hit his limit - despite the fact he's still not actually at his peak age yet.

Even if his development is subsequently slow, I would still expect a Danny Wilson (not at his peak) to continue developing if there is no reason for him not to.

If this means we have to be harsher on players who underperform, so be it.

Drogba in CM01/02 3965 has 95/115 for CA/PA. He was about 24 years old anyway. Like I said researchers have no way of knowing whether a player is a late bloomer or not. That's why they are late bloomers.

I'm sorry to quote my model again but in my model, you may chuck Drogba a "talent level" of 110 or thereabouts. Then thanks to a solid stint in France he may skyrocket in terms of ability - consistent displays mean he has no problems reaching a high CA, say 140-150. This then in turn brings a move to Chelsea where improved training facilities and further good games results in him being world-class. If you like, it may be possible to replicate Drogba's career with a low "talent level" (although in this case I suspect it really is miles off the mark). However, the "talent level" isn't a limit - it's like a signpost at the side of the road. You can travel either side of it.

[Ishu]

You can't judge talent? If not, why bother scouting at all?

If talent could be judged, Drogba would not be a 95/115.

PS: I'm still refering to talent as the best someone can do in the most perfect circumstances.

I'm sorry to quote my model again but in my model, you may chuck Drogba a "talent level" of 110 or thereabouts. Then thanks to a solid stint in France he may skyrocket in terms of ability - consistent displays mean he has no problems reaching a high CA, say 140-150. This then in turn brings a move to Chelsea where improved training facilities and further good games results in him being world-class. If you like, it may be possible to replicate Drogba's career with a low "talent level" (although in this case I suspect it really is miles off the mark). However, the "talent level" isn't a limit - it's like a signpost at the side of the road. You can travel either side of it.

This means that if I can get a 115 PA player to perform, I can can slowly make him a world class player.

There goes the fun of the game(FM) for players who like to uncover hidden diamonds.

I am not going to bother responding to all the rest. You just blasted everyone's post. even the guy who was half in your favor .

[Ishu]

Alright, let's take your example. Why did Danny Wilson stop developing? If he was a wonderkid and was playing very well, trained well, had a good attitude and you had good facilities (at Liverpool, you would) - why wouldn't he continue developing?

It sounds like, "Yeah, you got all the ingredients to make this cake, but it's not actually going to turn out to be a cake no matter what you do."

I would expect a player never to stop developing without a reason. There has to be a reason. In this case, the game has decided that Wilson has hit his limit - despite the fact he's still not actually at his peak age yet.

Even if his development is subsequently slow, I would still expect a Danny Wilson (not at his peak) to continue developing if there is no reason for him not to.

If this means we have to be harsher on players who underperform, so be it.

If he was at his peak he would be performing great and would be improving a lot faster (His PA too)?

Contradicts that he was at his peak if he can improve.

[x42bn6]

If talent could be judged, Drogba would not be a 95/115.

PS: I'm still refering to talent as the best someone can do in the most perfect circumstances.

If talent could be judged? But it can... Which is why I see Ra'vel Morrison as one of the most talented youngsters in our (Manchester United) academy right now...

This means that if I can get a 115 PA player to perform, I can can slowly make him a world class player.

There goes the fun of the game(FM) for players who like to uncover hidden diamonds.

Surely Drogba would be a hidden diamond in this case? A not-so-talented player (using 95/115) who plays so well due to his physical nature, vastly outperforming his talent? That's a hidden diamond.

Another hidden diamond would be an extremely talented youngster whom nobody has scouted except you. Doesn't mean he'll succeed though - maybe he has a pathetic attitude.

If he was at his peak he would be performing great and would be improving a lot faster (His PA too)?

Contradicts that he was at his peak if he can improve.

Eh? If an in-game Danny Wilson is not at his peak, yes, I will expect him to continue developing as long as all the ingredients are there (training facilities, coaches, personality, first-team football, playing well, personality, etc.).

If Danny Wilson is at his peak, then he may stop developing, or start regressing due to age no matter what happens. I'm not suggesting my model forces him to develop anyway. Or maybe he might do a Giggs and start developing differently - maybe he might turn into a (slow) defensive midfielder as he gets older or something.

I don't see the contradiction.

[Ishu]

How do you decide peak.... if not with PA

[x42bn6]

How do you decide peak.... if not with PA

You don't. You know there's a peak because players degrade after a certain age, but you don't need to decide what it is right now. You don't need to decide what it is at all.

[Ishu]

You don't. You know there's a peak because players degrade after a certain age, but you don't need to decide what it is right now. You don't need to decide what it is at all.

So if a certain players age is 17 and he is going to peak at 30.

Then that gives me 13yrs to constantly improve him. He will be a monster by the time hes 30.

[x42bn6]

So if a certain players age is 17 and he is going to peak at 30.

Then that gives me 13yrs to constantly improve him. He will be a monster by the time hes 30.

Not true! It doesn't mean that there aren't any "obstacles" to stop his development.

When you make cereal in the morning, you need cereal, milk, a bowl and a spoon. The best breakfasts will have all four. It's not easy to get all four things - you're tired and it takes energy and time to get them all.

Here, our objects are things like talent, first-team football, training facilities, coaches and personality. The best players should have all of these. Most players - probably everyone barring the absolute best - will have only a few, and they will not turn out as good.

A 17-year-old that has all the ingredients to become a good player and who his circumstances all fitting the bill should turn out to be world-class with a bit of luck. In this case, yes, he will turn out to be a monster at 30.

But in reality the majority of players don't have it all - some aren't talented, some don't get a lot of first-team football during their tender ages, some have the attitude of Hatem Ben Arfa, some are unlucky enough to be training with terrible facilities. Some have multiple of these. And as a result they will not turn out as good as this 30-year-old monster.

[Ishu]

So if I give him first team football at united.

Get him tutored for personality.....

[x42bn6]

So if I give him first team football at united.

Get him tutored for personality.....

Still no guarantee! Look at Kieran Richardson for Manchester United...

Talent is another thing. Playing well is another. Richardson didn't have either, or at least only a little in both.

Luck and injuries are other things too.

[Ishu]

Still no guarantee! Look at Kieran Richardson for Manchester United...

Talent is another thing. Playing well is another. Richardson didn't have either, or at least only a little in both.

Luck and injuries are other things too.

I was able to gt Welback to score ~20 PL goals for quite a few seasons. Thats playing well.

Talent right now in FM is PA.

Therefore Welback was replaced by others.

Now in your theory, How would you decide talent and whether welback become THE greatest legend or just a decent player?

[x42bn6]

I was able to gt Welback to score ~20 PL goals for quite a few seasons. Thats playing well.

Talent right now in FM is PA.

Therefore Welback was replaced by others.

Now in your theory, How would you decide talent and whether welback become THE greatest legend or just a decent player?

Well, talent obviously... Welbeck is nowhere near as talented as Messi. And this would be shown in the database.

Messi was also lucky he joined a team where he was able to show his fullest talent as a youngster, and got more first-team football than Welbeck at the same age.

[Ishu]

You didn't even read my post.

[Brian Shanahan]

Maybe, you should not know what is the player's PA exactly. I tell you a story:

I'v managed Livepool recently, and I've bought Danny Wilson. My scouts told me he will be as good as Carra. He became wonderkid in no time, and I expected great thing from him. He had 13 tackling, 12 marking and 13 heading. I expeted those stats to raise. Then for the first time in my life i used thet scout program. I've discovered he had a PA of 145 and he will never be the player i expected him to become. I've stopped using him than sold him. My scouts in the game were wrong. He was nowhere near as Carra.

So I was trying to tell you, that you should not know the players PA, you should rely on your scouts, and play the game. G Scout is a cheat and it changes the way you play the game. Get rid of it as i did!

How could he be called wonderkid if his PA was 145, as the three things which decide that name are CA>140; PA>170; age<=21? Othewise your point conveys exactly what the problem is, peopleexpecting players to improve indefinitely and then moaning when they don't, and complaining that a fixed potential is unrealistic and wrong, when it is right.

[x42bn6]

You didn't even read my post.

I did. Talent would be innately decided by the Manchester United researcher and the Barcelona researcher and Messi will have a superior talent level than Welbeck. In addition, Messi played substantially better at Welbeck's age. Messi had better ingredients - and is therefore going to be the better player. Talent could be measured on a scale of some sort, or could be decided on some metric (i.e. the average peak CA of the player given sensible circumstances). For example, we could give Messi a talent level of 190, reflecting the fact he will likely turn out to be one of the best players in the world on average - and we could give Welbeck 160, denoting the fact he will turn out to be a very good striker but some way off Messi.

Also another note: You don't decide - the game simply chugs along. It notices Welbeck is doing well and duely "rewards" him. But it doesn't decide how good he should be - it just develops the player.

[x42bn6]

Othewise your point conveys exactly what the problem is, peopleexpecting players to improve indefinitely and then moaning when they don't, and complaining that a fixed potential is unrealistic and wrong, when it is right.

If a player (not at his peak) is not doing anything wrong at all (good attitude, playing well and frequently, good training facilities and coaches, etc. etc. etc.), would you expect him to continue developing?

"Er, sorry, you can't develop any further, because back when you started your game, we've decided you won't have a CA any higher 145. Sorry!"

[Brian Shanahan]

Drogba in CM01/02 3965 has 95/115 for CA/PA. He was about 24 years old anyway. Like I said researchers have no way of knowing whether a player is a late bloomer or not. That's why they are late bloomers.

Yeah regens are fine...in a way. However starting different games and know that there are only a handful existing players will make it....Um. Not so great.

But the problem here is not fixed PA is that the researcher got his numbers wrong, albeit based on the natural assumption that as a 24y.o. Drogba had done sweet FA to develop and was unlikely to in the future as he had nowhere to go. He is the extremely rare player that has actually blossomed at a late stage in his career. In fact when Chelsea bought him I was laughing at their idiocy (also not an unreasonable assumption at the time, but wrong). If you had no fixed PA eventually you'd get a team of Turs, Mendes', and Pedrosas when starting with players of the level Acosta. That's why fixed PA is in the game and will stay in the game.

[Ishu]

I did. Talent would be innately decided by the Manchester United researcher and the Barcelona researcher and Messi will have a superior talent level than Welbeck. In addition, Messi played substantially better at Welbeck's age. Messi had better ingredients - and is therefore going to be the better player. Talent could be measured on a scale of some sort, or could be decided on some metric (i.e. the average peak CA of the player given sensible circumstances). For example, we could give Messi a talent level of 190, reflecting the fact he will likely turn out to be one of the best players in the world on average - and we could give Welbeck 160, denoting the fact he will turn out to be a very good striker but some way off Messi.

Also another note: You don't decide - the game simply chugs along. It notices Welbeck is doing well and duely "rewards" him. But it doesn't decide how good he should be - it just develops the player.

And with him having all the ingredients of your choice, he will get better than Messi's current level.

[Ishu]

If a player (not at his peak) is not doing anything wrong at all (good attitude, playing well and frequently, good training facilities and coaches, etc. etc. etc.), would you expect him to continue developing?

"Er, sorry, you can't develop any further, because back when you started your game, we've decided you won't have a CA any higher 145. Sorry!"

You seem to be catching up.

[Ishu]

But the problem here is not fixed PA is that the researcher got his numbers wrong, albeit based on the natural assumption that as a 24y.o. Drogba had done sweet FA to develop and was unlikely to in the future as he had nowhere to go. He is the extremely rare player that has actually blossomed at a late stage in his career. In fact when Chelsea bought him I was laughing at their idiocy (also not an unreasonable assumption at the time, but wrong). If you had no fixed PA eventually you'd get a team of Turs, Mendes', and Pedrosas when starting with players of the level Acosta. That's why fixed PA is in the game and will stay in the game.

+1 to this.

off topic : BTW People seem to laughing at United's idiocy for signing Bebe, so maybe.......

[Brian Shanahan]

+1 to this.

off topic : BTW People seem to laughing at United's idiocy for signing Bebe, so maybe.......

Well it was pretty idiotic, I myself will say that (as a Utd fan). 6 weeks before he was signed he was available on a free, so why didn't Utd go in for him then. Over those 6 weeks he did nothing for Guimares, and then 2 weeks after signing he wasn't match fit enough for the reserves! At 20 that shows at best a player with potential but about 5 years behind the development curve.

[Ishu]

Well it was pretty idiotic, I myself will say that (as a Utd fan). 6 weeks before he was signed he was available on a free, so why didn't Utd go in for him then. Over those 6 weeks he did nothing for Guimares, and then 2 weeks after signing he wasn't match fit enough for the reserves! At 20 that shows at best a player with potential but about 5 years behind the development curve.

Yeah mate waste of money which apparently isn't there. hopefully he follows the drogba story.

Anyways this is not the tread for that.

[Brian Shanahan]

Yeah mate waste of money which apparently isn't there. hopefully he follows the drogba story.

Anyways this is not the tread for that.

No it isn't but a short digression won't hurt.

[ScouserHU]

How could he be called wonderkid if his PA was 145, as the three things which decide that name are CA>140; PA>170; age<=21? Othewise your point conveys exactly what the problem is, peopleexpecting players to improve indefinitely and then moaning when they don't, and complaining that a fixed potential is unrealistic and wrong, when it is right.

I don't know how he was wonderkid. He had low technikal stats, however he had good mental and physical stats. I was expecting him to get better technically tough... He was playing well too, 7.20 average is goot at the age of 19 I think.

I was trying to make a point, that we should not know a players PA, because that affects our decisions who to play, who to buy. I was happy to use Wilson before i knew about his PA, but now I'm not sure about him. There is a reason why PA and CA is a hidden stat in the game.

Every player has a potential ability in real life too. They have thier limits. The only thing in the game I would change is the was how and how fast PA points are distributed. I would not allow players to become better at technical skills when they reach about 85-90% of their PA. After that only physical and mental attributes would be allowed to progress. I don't like the way, that may Shelvey reaches his potential at the age of 19 and his mental stats cant get better.

[Ishu]

No it isn't but a short digression won't hurt.

Yeah its doing more good that bad.

[x42bn6]

And with him having all the ingredients of your choice, he will get better than Messi's current level.

If Welbeck was as talented as Messi and as lucky, then yeah, he may turn out as good (depending on luck and stuff).

But he's not as talented as Messi!

There's no point assuming he does have these ingredients and pointing out that in your game he's not as good as him...

You seem to be catching up.

So Wilson is not going to develop, because some invisible limit from the sky is stopping him from improving?

No, no, no. Wilson will continue to develop - but he will do so slowly, because he isn't the most talented player in the world. He'll have to work harder to get those extra CA points, while Messi blows past effortlessly. He's not going to stop developing full stop.

Only at his peak can Wilson say, "Aha! So this is my peak after all." But at that point does it really matter any more? All Wilson knows is that he's not going to get any better from now onwards.

I don't know of any player who literally hits a brick wall in his development for no reason - do you?

[Brian Shanahan]

I don't know how he was wonderkid. He had low technikal stats, however he had good mental and physical stats. I was expecting him to get better technically tough... He was playing well too, 7.20 average is goot at the age of 19 I think.

I was trying to make a point, that we should not know a players PA, because that affects our decisions who to play, who to buy. I was happy to use Wilson before i knew about his PA, but now I'm not sure about him. There is a reason why PA and CA is a hidden stat in the game.

Every player has a potential ability in real life too. They have thier limits. The only thing in the game I would change is the was how and how fast PA points are distributed. I would not allow players to become better at technical skills when they reach about 85-90% of their PA. After that only physical and mental attributes would be allowed to progress. I don't like the way, that may Shelvey reaches his potential at the age of 19 and his mental stats cant get better.

I was just wondering how he got the label as there is a fromula for all those labels you see. The rest of your point I agree with completely. Look at some of my above posts for attempts to model a slower, and more randomised growth path.

[Brian Shanahan]

If Welbeck was as talented as Messi and as lucky, then yeah, he may turn out as good (depending on luck and stuff).

But he's not as talented as Messi!

There's no point assuming he does have these ingredients and pointing out that in your game he's not as good as him...

So Wilson is not going to develop, because some invisible limit from the sky is stopping him from improving?

No, no, no. Wilson will continue to develop - but he will do so slowly, because he isn't the most talented player in the world. He'll have to work harder to get those extra CA points, while Messi blows past effortlessly. He's not going to stop developing full stop.

Only at his peak can Wilson say, "Aha! So this is my peak after all." But at that point does it really matter any more? All Wilson knows is that he's not going to get any better from now onwards.

I don't know of any player who literally hits a brick wall in his development for no reason - do you?

And this is why we need a hard-coded PA system in the game, because without it we'll have players developing until they're 32 without any kind of consequences to how good/bad they could possibly be. Thanks for destroying your own arguement for us.