Unlimited Potential

[charlo116]

Just to chime in on this... it is perfectly possible to have a "Pedro" situation happen in the game with newgens (or even some real youth players, depending on how their research is done). But like has been said above a few times, it is only possible if you look at the game from within the gameworld with the tools available there, without using outside editors etc to take a peek into the raw data. You can have a newgen "Pedro" in the game, who at 20 is judged by your scouts to be a no-hoper, but at 22 has turned the page and your scouts then admit he can be a world-beater. So from the gameworld viewpoint, the perceived PA of the player has changed, even though the "raw PA" on the code/data level has remained the same all the time.

In theory, the situation is the same with the real players researched in the DB. The PA that gets set into the DB is just a perception of the player potential as judged by the researcher and just like in the game these perceptions can turn out to be wrong (up or down) when looking back at old DB's. The use of negative PA's make the perceived PA more unpredictable and more "variable", allowing the researchers to give a player the chance to get a higher PA and thus a chance for a suprising development. Maybe the system that converts the negative PA's into the exact raw PA at the start of the game could use a rare chance, where the PA would sometimes get even more randomly assigned outside of the expected random range defined by the negative PA ?

In the game, the actual code is on the "god" level and can set a fixed PA's for a newgen when creating one, but as far as the habitants of the gameworld (managers, coaches, scouts... and human users not using outside editors) are concerned there is no "fixed PA" that they know of, but only the perceived PA that can change over time. In real life, all evaluations of "PA" (or talent or maximum peak ability or whatever you want to call it) are "perceived PA", an interpretation that can be wrong. So technically the game already features "unlimited potential", just like real life

i agree with this post except for when a player reaches their raw potential figure and there is no way they can grow any further.

On a Sydney FC save on fm 10 I had a younger MC start in my youth team who, according to coaches, had the potential to be a good a-league player. After developing him with game time he hit his peak at 19 and while this can happen irl it posed a problem within the game from an AI perspective. He'd become a leading a-league player and my star player at just 19 but anyone who scouts him would see he's never going to get better than that.

Here's the problem: a 19 yo player who is lighting the a-league up irl will generate interest from bigger leagues regardless of whether they will ever improve or not because they will be judged as a talented youngster. Whereas in the game the player has hit an unmoveable limit that can be seen with scouting and so he'll never get that chance to play at a higher level.

To test this out i tried offering around to other clubs, initially at his value and then below his value and the only interest it built was from other a-league clubs. After another season i left for a j-league job (custom db) and scouted this player and all my scouts said he had reached his potential and would only be a good j-league player. This is a problem with the system that annoys me as even though a scouts or coaches perception can change a young player who reaches their real potential early on will never be hyped up like they would irl.

[Riz Remes]

The Sydney FC example above is more of a problem with the scouting module than with the newgen itself, since the problem is with the perceived PA seen by the scouts. The scouts really shouldn't say that a player is all maxed out with regards to his potential when talking about young players, unless it is a very clear case.

At the start of a player's creation, there will always exist some peak CA value (call it X), but by putting this ceiling in at the start, you may prevent future positive circumstances from influencing X if X is low. I've argued above that this is wrong, because researchers may increase PA over a research phase - newer information changes PA, which may influence X because now X may be higher than before.

When the game is creating newgens, it can act in a "god" mode and set a PA ceiling already at this point, because the game code can "see" into the future and determine the ceiling of the player as controlled by genetics etc. Yes, this might in some cases prevent the player from developing beyond this certain point (if he reaches it early on in his career) but I still don't see why this is wrong, because you cannot really compare it to the researched players whose PA might change between DB updates based on how the researchers perceive the potential of the player. The newgen is being created by "god" (ie. the game code, that can set absolute limits on a player) where as the researchers are only entering their perceived PA (either a fixed value or a negative PA if they are unsure of the exact value and want the game to set the absolute PA).

If the PA was removed as a variable in the game, you'd still have to have the same routines that would calculate a perceived potential ability of the player for the scout reports in the game ("can develope into a key Premiership player" etc.) This means you would still need a concept of "perceived potential" in the game. Now, from the gameworld point of view, this is already the only instance of "PA" known since the gameworld objects don't really know of the fixed PA value variable. From a gameworld point of view, players can already reach their maximum "perceived potential" but if they perform well and are coached well, they can still develop further than that, if the perceived potential was not accurately judged earlier. So from the gamewold POV, the fixed PA variable is basically a non-factor and the only thing that matters is the perceived PA. The game code may use the fixed PA variable when controlling player progression etc but the game code is not a member of the gameworld, as it is rather the impartial "god" running the whole gameworld.

I still also stand by the other point I made about PA in one of the other threads: it makes it a hell of a lot easier to do research for the DB, rather forcing researchers to control multiple mental attributes that might affect how the player will turn out in the game. While the PA system might not be perfect, it strikes a good balance between modelling player progression and researching real players for the DB. At the end of the day, FM is still a game and not a 100% accurate simulation of human life as we know it

I can understand the arguments for having more flexibility and uncertainty in the game by having players overachieve and play beyond their perceived potential, but I don't see removing the absolute PA as a concept making things any better, as it is all about the perceived potential in the gameworld.

[x42bn6]

When the game is creating newgens, it can act in a "god" mode and set a PA ceiling already at this point, because the game code can "see" into the future and determine the ceiling of the player as controlled by genetics etc. Yes, this might in some cases prevent the player from developing beyond this certain point (if he reaches it early on in his career) but I still don't see why this is wrong, because you cannot really compare it to the researched players whose PA might change between DB updates based on how the researchers perceive the potential of the player. The newgen is being created by "god" (ie. the game code, that can set absolute limits on a player) where as the researchers are only entering their perceived PA (either a fixed value or a negative PA if they are unsure of the exact value and want the game to set the absolute PA).

Why can we not compare it to what is entered by a researcher? For all intents and purposes, perceived PA of a real player is equivalent to PA for a regen, because it is a maximum value that does not change within some initialisation of the game. Whenever the researcher enters a PA value, he explicitly puts a limit on.

In addition, consider what determines the "ceiling" of a player. Not only is it his current circumstances, but his future ones too. By determining the ceiling "now", the game has "determined" all future events leading up to his PA. So what happens if the circumstances don't turn out exactly as these future events suggest? The PA will be wrong! This is what I mean about players who have low PAs but vastly outperform at their low peak. It basically suggests that "no matter how hard you try, the PA will stop you".

This is the other reason why I think the "god" idea is a terrible one - it simply cannot predict the future. It will "eventually" know it, because the user will hit the "continue" button enough times and perhaps at around age 27, the peak will be "known" because it is not possible for him to go any further due to age. In other words, the maximum future is simply irrelevant. The expected future is relevant for scouting, but at, say, age 16, the maximum future is less relevant than the expected future.

PA can be wrong.

If the PA was removed as a variable in the game, you'd still have to have the same routines that would calculate a perceived potential ability of the player for the scout reports in the game ("can develope into a key Premiership player" etc.) This means you would still need a concept of "perceived potential" in the game.

Correct, and I provide this through "talent".

Now, from the gameworld point of view, this is already the only instance of "PA" known since the gameworld objects don't really know of the fixed PA value variable. From a gameworld point of view, players can already reach their maximum "perceived potential" but if they perform well and are coached well, they can still develop further than that, if the perceived potential was not accurately judged earlier.

Only if the player's PA is high enough.

If a player has a low PA, it doesn't matter what I perceive it is - the player will always have a low peak CA. I am not convinced that a player that continues to perform well and gets good training should stop developing due to a low PA - there is no reason for him to stop developing. Indeed, he may develop perhaps slower than his more "talented" counterparts, but there is no reason for him to hit a brick wall whilst doing nothing wrong.

This is the problem with PA - it lacks the ability to answer "why" questions when comfronted with a low PA.

So from the gamewold POV, the fixed PA variable is basically a non-factor and the only thing that matters is the perceived PA. The game code may use the fixed PA variable when controlling player progression etc but the game code is not a member of the gameworld, as it is rather the impartial "god" running the whole gameworld.

PA is clearly a factor as scout reports are a function of PA. It is not a non-factor. If a player's PA is low, then the perceived PA will change too.

I still also stand by the other point I made about PA in one of the other threads: it makes it a hell of a lot easier to do research for the DB, rather forcing researchers to control multiple mental attributes that might affect how the player will turn out in the game.

I actually think it will be easier. Just replace PA with "talent", and let the game engine worry about how they develop. No researcher has a crystal ball so allowing them to set an attribute that is only a rough guess will reduce the pressure on them in getting PA exactly correct. It is easier to judge talent by itself. When you make a judgement on the player, you don't say, "Wow, he won't be better than Xavi" (i.e. PA=-9) - you say, "Wow, he will probably be a solid Premier League player in the future" (i.e. talent=150). You actually care less about the mental attributes interfering because you are allowed to judge talent separately as you like, and mental attributes separately as you like.

This is where I think I differ in opinion from what PA is - I believe that we judge talent on the basis that a player is talented or not, while the game seems to judge talent as "the maximum upper-bound where a player peaks". I don't believe they are equivalent because talent is not the only factor in judging where a player peaks - talented players may fail, and untalented players may exceed expectations.

While the PA system might not be perfect, it strikes a good balance between modelling player progression and researching real players for the DB. At the end of the day, FM is still a game and not a 100% accurate simulation of human life as we know it

I can understand the arguments for having more flexibility and uncertainty in the game by having players overachieve and play beyond their perceived potential, but I don't see removing the absolute PA as a concept making things any better, as it is all about the perceived potential in the gameworld.

I see it as more realistic. A player that has CA/PA 69/70 cannot develop much at all, even if he trains well and plays well. I believe that there is no reason for this player to continue developing when he is doing nothing wrong - i.e. gets solid ratings whenever given a chance and has world-class coaches helping him out. It allows the PA value to only be a rough guess and is therefore allowed to be "wrong" in both directions - underestimating and overestimating. This is where PA falls down - it cannot explain "why" he won't develop.

I simply believe that PA makes the developers' jobs easier because you have PA to help balance out the game, in the same way that a football game is a lot easier if you capped player height at 2.1m (you will never need to worry that a player's height goes beyond normal). Yet limits are not necessary in programming - the limits can always be abstracted away.

[CMdan44]

This is due to a misunderstanding of what the word "potential" means.

Someone's potential is set from conception in the womb. Their ability to reach this potential can change depending on a number of factors such diet, upbringing, coaching quality, playing experience etc etc.

All Ferguson has done is helped Neville fulfil (or more likely get very close to) his potential. You can never exceed your potential as that is an oxymoron.

Gary Neville's potential never changed - it's only his development towards reaching that potential that changed.

Potential = as good as someone could ever possibly be assuming everything goes right. Every single person in real life has this.

I think you've both made errors here. You are using a textbook definition of potential, which admittedly is probably the same one used by SI, but nobody actually has a number out of 200 set in their soul to say how good they can be, potential in the real world is estimated, or at best calculated, it can't be known for sure, so it should be more dynamic

[charlo116]

The Sydney FC example above is more of a problem with the scouting module than with the newgen itself, since the problem is with the perceived PA seen by the scouts. The scouts really shouldn't say that a player is all maxed out with regards to his potential when talking about young players, unless it is a very clear case.

I see that more as a problem with the development system. Its quite easy with a bit of game time to develop young players to their potential and if there was an unlimited potential system this problem wouldn't exidt. It may only be my opinion but no matter how good the researchers are they can't accurately rate even half the potential of youngish players in the game. What i mean by that is the players who are too old for a random pa but still haven't reached their peaks. The current system just leads a lot to be desired and regardless of whether you think a players pa is fixed from birth or not a system that allows more flexibility with pa would just make things more realistic imo, due to the inability to rate all potentials accurately.

[BlueSqFCB]

Defo think the Sydney FC Example is to do with the the game code developing the player too quickly.

In this case it is clear that this players full PA development should have been held back till his "peak years" by which point he would have either been picked by a bigger league before then or he would not be good enough and stay in the a-league. It is more believable for a 27-29 to be lighting up the a-league but a scout to pass him over saying he has reached his potential

[Ljuba82]

.....

Altough I do agree that PA should exist and that unlimited potential is bad idea....can you please explain one thing...

...Why can't we see a player allmost full opf 20's once in a 200 years? I do believe that one day there will be player that is better than others in allmost every category, no matter the position. Also there are lots of oppinions that Messi should be better in game, but it's simply not possible cause of 200 CA/PA limit.

My point is that if hipoteticaly player has all 20's in attributes, he would have to have CA of around 270! You just make impossible that player can be better in all attributes than all others, it makes no logic sense in theory....and future will show it in real life for sure.

And not only future, the past tells that too. Messi today is probably better in every attribute than any player in '40's, or even '70's!

[milnerpoint]

Altough I do agree that PA should exist and that unlimited potential is bad idea....can you please explain one thing...

...Why can't we see a player allmost full opf 20's once in a 200 years? I do believe that one day there will be player that is better than others in allmost every category, no matter the position. Also there are lots of oppinions that Messi should be better in game, but it's simply not possible cause of 200 CA/PA limit.

My point is that if hipoteticaly player has all 20's in attributes, he would have to have CA of around 270! You just make impossible that player can be better in all attributes than all others, it makes no logic sense in theory....and future will show it in real life for sure.

And not only future, the past tells that too. Messi today is probably better in every attribute than any player in '40's, or even '70's!

are you saying in the future players will be world class at every position on the pitch??? How the hell could a player like messi have a 20 for jumping and heading when is is tiny??!!!! Messi cant tackle its not his job, he will never ever ever have a 20 for that or marking, i dont think i have ever read something as crazy as your suggesting.

[ozaniel]

I think mental attributes shouldn't have a limit, PA should only apply to physical and technical attributes. A player's concentration or teamwork can be 20 even if the player isn't gifted. Except creativity and anticipation, every mental attribute can be maximum even if the player has no talent. ı think mental attributes should have a different CA and unlimited PA.

[Ljuba82]

are you saying in the future players will be world class at every position on the pitch??? How the hell could a player like messi have a 20 for jumping and heading when is is tiny??!!!! Messi cant tackle its not his job, he will never ever ever have a 20 for that or marking, i dont think i have ever read something as crazy as your suggesting.

....no smart guy, read again and try to think a bit!

....no they will not be world class on every position, cause other players will be better too. And no...Messi would never have high attributes for jumping, heading and tackling, that is reality, but reality is also that some attributes of Messi today are too low comparing other players and it's only because of CA limit.

just for thinking....think that this Messi was playing in 1930. He would have better every single attribute than all other players, even probably tackling attribute (jumping would remain low altough).

So why is hard to imagine that in another 100 years there will be no such very dominant player?

[milnerpoint]

....no smart guy, read again and try to think a bit!

....no they will not be world class on every position, cause other players will be better too. And no...Messi would never have high attributes for jumping, heading and tackling, that is reality, but reality is also that some attributes of Messi today are too low comparing other players and it's only because of CA limit.

just for thinking....think that this Messi was playing in 1930. He would have better every single attribute than all other players, even probably tackling attribute (jumping would remain low altough).

So why is hard to imagine that in another 100 years there will be no such very dominant player?

no he wouldnt, messi would never be better at tackling in any year ever, that is a crazy suggestion. there will never ever be a player who is world class at every postition, its just not plausible at all. Defenders will always be better at tackling because that is their job, they train at doing that from a very young age. Who is to say messi would be better, there is no way at all of comparing them.

[tmonkey]

Grassroots football is interesting, especially the Acadamies of the top clubs (and the boys' clubs they tend to recruit from), there frequently comes along a kid with "unlimited" potential. Kids with the ability of Gazza, Totti, etc etc, the youth coaches I've spoken to have talked about kids who "had it all" but never made it. What the youth coaches say is that many of them just don't have the mentality to make it as professional footballers, or improve on their potential. They get distracted easily, lose sight of what is required of them to keep developing their bodies, get into bad crowds and drink/drugs/girls, so on and so forth.

As the OP pointed out, it is the players with the determination and willpower who make it to the top. Gary Neville is just one example of many - Thierry Henry, Alan Shearer, Gianfranco Zola, etc etc, many of them have had youth coaches who said they weren't the most talented youngster they had, indeed far from it, but they made it to the top because of determination and commitment, and the coaches spotted that early on. They know that it's the kids who are focused who will make it.

I think the game should have more of these "kids" in it, i.e. youngsters with very high ability for their age but lacking the mental strength to reach the top, and youngsters with average ability for their age but very strong mental attributes that will allow them to reach the top. You can still have the Messi's and Ronaldo's, i.e. teenage wonderkids, mixed in, players who at 14/15 clearly had a huge future in the game. It would then represent a challenge to coach the "troubled" kids and nurture them, because if you can get them past their mental problems then you'll have a potential Gazza or Romario or other troubled but brilliant superstar on your hands. But also give managers with the more determined kids something to focus on because if you nuture them also then they can develop far beyond their current abilities + age would suggest.

Don't know how that can be implemented though

[Gribster]

I'd absolutely love to see them introduce stats from 21-25 (along with the required CA augmentations), only for the most special aspects of the most special players. I'm not really sure if the game does enough to set generational talent apart.

The PA system is fine. I'd be surprised if anything better could really be developed. Something I really like that the game does is the creation of a certain number of youth regens with low CA and high PA to simulate "late bloomers." I stuck with a newgen named Oliver Stockdale for a very long time because even though he was kinda slow and kinda ****, he spawned with determination/work rate around 20. I had him on loan to the Championship from some point until he was around 23, and after a few years as a squad player Stockdale made my first team and made an England cap. My staff were as good as I could find, but they didn't rate the guy at all when he was young.

This was already done (in sorts) a few years back when they changed how stats where to be allocated, if youve played fm/cm over the years youll have seen the massive drop in players having 20's for things, this now being reserved for a player being one of the best in the world at said attribute

[Riz Remes]

BTW, a quick question on the "talent" model. If PA was taken out of the game and replaced with a sort of "talent" variable, what would prevent the same Pedro problem cropping up with the new system if the researchers consider Pedro a few years back to not have enough "talent" or the other mental attributes that would allow him to blossom like he did ? You'd still end up with players who are "wrongly" rated in the DB and can never turn out to be as good in the game as they might end up turning up in real life later on.

Or would "talent" be more freely given out to players so more and more players in the DB would have the chance to become great players if given the right positive circumstances with training and match experience etc ?

Just trying to get my head around the proposed concept

[tmonkey]

BTW, a quick question on the "talent" model. If PA was taken out of the game and replaced with a sort of "talent" variable, what would prevent the same Pedro problem cropping up with the new system if the researchers consider Pedro a few years back to not have enough "talent" or the other mental attributes that would allow him to blossom like he did ? You'd still end up with players who are "wrongly" rated in the DB and can never turn out to be as good in the game as they might end up turning up in real life later on.

Or would "talent" be more freely given out to players so more and more players in the DB would have the chance to become great players if given the right positive circumstances with training and match experience etc ?

Just trying to get my head around the proposed concept

Pedro's improvement has suprised everyone, including Barca fans I think, and the important thing to note is that it's not a case of CA/PA with him, but that he has come into the first team and just played very well on a consistent basis over and above what his PA was perceived to be.

Therefore, imo a good model to include in the game is one that a few posters have talked about down the years, i.e. for there to be some sort of dynamic PA that can be affected by performances and is linked to mental attributes. I realise the game already does something like this to a limited degree (e.g. playing a youngster with high PA who performs badly will affect his CA - I think), but it's not exactly what we're looking for. E.g. if you have a youngish palyer with PA set to about 130 but strong mental attributes, and he comes into the first team and performs well on a regular basis at the top levels (important that he has the mental attributes needed to continue "growing"), if his PA could then be boosted within the game then it would probably make youth development witihn FM a bit more enjoyable and "realistic".

I recently had a situation in the game that needed something like this. He was a young, 18 year old left winger with a few OK stats, so I used him as backup to Arjen Robben, and he put in some suprisingly good performances in the first team. On top of this, he had good mental and decent hidden stats. But using FMRTE/Genie I would see he had PA of 135, which is very low, and that he would not have developed anymore. If the game had dynamic PA, he could have really developed into a top player which would have made things more fun. And this would probably reflect real life better than the current model, though that is just opinion.

The "more dynamic" PA/CA linked to mental stats would also help adult players too. An example of a player who would probbly benefit from this is maybe Didier Drogba. AFAIK he was a run of the mill player operating in the lower leagues of France till he hit his mid 20's and he started putting world class performances in for Marseille and turning into one of the world's best strikers nearing his late 20's. Similarly, let's look at Maldini, Scholes, Javier Zanetti, or everygreen players like that - as they've consistently performed greatly at the highest levels right into their late 30's, which lets assume they would do in FM, the CA would not move much and the deterioration we get in FM for players in their 30's wouldn't be as bad as it is when compared to real life. As long as the mental attributes are high and the performances remain good, this would give us the Gary Nevilles, Maldinis, Shearers, Del Pieros, etc etc.

Although I'm sure it would be very difficult to implement such a system and get the balance right. But it's a "perfect world model" that I would love to see FM incorporate.