Potential Ability

[faraowww]

If a players development is based on a learning curve then the highest point in that curve is still a limit of PA (or maximum achieveable CA if you like).

As you have already stated, that means researchers would have to guess at talent as they do with PA now and therefore the PA limit(highest point in the curve) is still being guessed at by a researcher.

At this point that just sounds like a more complicated version of the current system.

No, you are missing the point. A PA is simply impossible to determine. A talent factor with learning curves are possible to model statistically. It is easier to estimate how much a player can improve in 1 year or half a year, than to estimate how much a player can improve in his whole career. You can look at players histories and check how they are learning. It's not exact science and it still depends on an opinion, but that is better and easier than just guessing a PA. And above that, it resolves the problem of players that can't improve anymore once they hit their PA, that is nonsense.

[Guest]

Surely you're restricting how much a player can develop over the course of a single season, also at what point & how do you produce the decline due to age?

[marty78]

No, you are missing the point. A PA is simply impossible to determine. A talent factor with learning curves are possible to model statistically. It is easier to estimate how much a player can improve in 1 year or half a year, than to estimate how much a player can improve in his whole career. You can look at players histories and check how they are learning. It's not exact science and it still depends on an opinion, but that is better and easier than just guessing a PA. And above that, it resolves the problem of players that can't improve anymore once they hit their PA, that is nonsense.

Do you simply mean a dynamic PA re-calculated annually? Why is a player not develping further at some point in their career nonsense?

[faraowww]

Yes I would restrict to some maximum possible improvment, you to prevent CA from 100 to 200 in a year. I'm not sure about the decline, maybe that should be mainly physical. I mean does your passing decline once you get older? Or does it decline, because your body can't do what you want anymore (less strength and balance)?

Do you simply mean a dynamic PA re-calculated annually? Why is a player not develping further at some point in their career nonsense?

No not re-calculated, I don't see the point of changing things while the game is running. Just one talent factor(how much can a player develop in a season) and a learning curve(you learn quicker while young, but some have more gradual improvement). The actual improvement then further depends on playing time/level, facilities, coaches. I just think we should not give researchers to impossible task to estimate how good a player can possibly become, it's better to break it down into shorter periods, that can more easily be measured and modelled statistically.

I don't think that a player not developing is nonsense, but that the impossibility of further development is nonsense. What if you have reached your PA at 26? To me it seems ridicilous to say that improvement is then impossible regardless of circumstances.

[marty78]

So what if a player reaches his peak at 26? Attributes can still be re-distributed with individual training schedules which may improve performances. A player with slightly less speed but higher mentals might play better (which is therefore an improvement) without having to increase the hidden numbers. As long as not every player hits their peak at the same age it doesn't really matter. Messi and Ronaldo are still relatively young men so how much more should they be allowed to improve? They can score upwards of 50 goals a season now and I think it would be ridiculous for them to able to improve much at all.

[faraowww]

So what if a player reaches his peak at 26? Attributes can still be re-distributed with individual training schedules which may improve performances. A player with slightly less speed but higher mentals might play better (which is therefore an improvement) without having to increase the hidden numbers. As long as not every player hits their peak at the same age it doesn't really matter. Messi and Ronaldo are still relatively young men so how much more should they be allowed to improve? They can score upwards of 50 goals a season now and I think it would be ridiculous for them to able to improve much at all.

For Ronaldo and Messi, it is very difficult to become much better, because they play at the highest level already for a couple of years. They got the best coaches, the best facilities, they play with and against the best players, and they won't meet players that are so good thay they can learn something from.

But if you are the 26, have played in League 2, and suddenly you play in the Championship or the Premier League, why wouldn't you improve? You play with and against better players, have better coaches and facilities than you've ever had, so it makes no sense if you couldn't improve in that situation.

[x42bn6]

I don't agree with x42bn6 on the point that PA (or any other variable) should be adapted based by match ratings in the game, even if the match rating system would improve. First of all, with the system I just described, players can always improve if they play at a higher level or get good match ratings, so we don't need to adjust anything. Second, I think it mixed up real life and virtual life in a wrong way. FM-life (W') is a model of real life (W), so it makes sense to change the input of W' when players perform good in W. But it doesn't make sense to change the input W' based on W', since they are not models of each other, so it can't improve realism.

I don't agree with this. FM-world player development is already dependent on FM-world performances, so W' can change based on W'.

I think the best suggestion ive read came in the start of the thread. Which was my not give regens a -PA number until they hit 21/22.

Because it's a hacky way around the issue. Say you assign a player a PA of -9 - why not just give him a PA of 180, if you are unsure?

This age is arbitrary as well and ignores similar changes that could happen after they turn 22.

So for example you have 2 -9 PA players come through in one season (i forget the range of -9 i think its 150-180??) The first one, A winger, starts with a CA of 84, whilst the other one a striker, comes in with a PA of 70. The striker due to coming in with a low CA isn't played much in the first team, he is tutored but left in the U18's only played 5 first team games before his 21st. Meanwhile the winger is used on the bench a few times and breaks into the first team by the age of 19. Due to these differing development rates lets say the striker at 21 has a CA of 118, whilst the winger has a CA of 160 (in the threshold). therefore the game calculates on their CA and mental attributes what their peak will be. The striker is given a peak of 155 whilst the winger comes in at 180. This allows for both players to develop further, whilst also giving them a peak limit of ability (like in real life). So as you would assume the winger goes on the become a world class players (what you would expect given his ability at 21) and continues to develop. Meanwhile the strikers get released and starts playing lower league football. But there is still the potential[\u] for him to develop further (say if he were picked up by a better team or started scoring prolifically) and be a late bloomer. But not able to become a star (as was never expected). I think the scope for development into 20's and the unknown quantity of youth is what everyone wants and is still a more flexible system than the current one.

But there are a specific set of scenarios that determine a late-bloomer. Everyone has the potential to become a late-bloomer - it is just that very few players "discover" a really purple patch so late in the game.

I also partly feel CA should be allowed to fluctuate 5 points either way depending on form and morale. So a player in great form sees his finishing go up etc and plays beyond his capabilities for a short period of time. It would then perhaps reflect examples such as Ba and Torres this season. But to the people saying "my player only has 120 Pa but hes a leading premscorer and scores 30 goals a season" you could argue with "so?" I dont see the problem with having a player who may not be the most gifted individual, but is perfectly suited to their role.

CA is the weighted sum of the attributes so I don't think CA should move up and down. Just let form affect how a player plays right now - which it does.

If a players development is based on a learning curve then the highest point in that curve is still a limit of PA (or maximum achieveable CA if you like).

But you don't know what that curve is! You are guessing! Because you are guessing, why tie down a player to a specific curv

As you have already stated, that means researchers would have to guess at talent as they do with PA now and therefore the PA limit(highest point in the curve) is still being guessed at by a researcher.

Nope! They don't have to care about the highest point of the curve. All they have to think about is the average case scenario. Not an optimistic nor pessimistic scenario. When considering the average, you don't have to consider the maximum scenario.

At this point that just sounds like a more complicated version of the current system.

It's not more complex - it's different.

Surely you're restricting how much a player can develop over the course of a single season, also at what point & how do you produce the decline due to age?

A player should naturally physically decline at ages determined by science in specific ways (i.e. pace goes first). A player who is relatively old but still performing well may be able to (somewhat) offset the decline with gains elsewhere. Late-bloomers may be able to even offset the decline so much that they... Late-bloom.

We don't have to determine the point at which a player starts to decline in advance. Why not just let it happen based on the players themselves, such as form, injuries and natural physical decline?

So what if a player reaches his peak at 26? Attributes can still be re-distributed with individual training schedules which may improve performances.

Hacky. A player who is playing really well and learning is not necessarily getting any worse in a particular area (in fact, it's usually just improvement!). Attribute redistribution is inferior to plain old improvement

A player with slightly less speed but higher mentals might play better (which is therefore an improvement) without having to increase the hidden numbers. As long as not every player hits their peak at the same age it doesn't really matter. Messi and Ronaldo are still relatively young men so how much more should they be allowed to improve? They can score upwards of 50 goals a season now and I think it would be ridiculous for them to able to improve much at all.

The simple answer is that the better you are, the harder you have to work in order to develop (i.e. a child develops quickly but an adult does not). So 7.00 in the first-team might be enough for a 15-year-old making his cup debut but will clearly not justify a boost of Messi's attributes further.

[marty78]

The simple answer is that the better you are, the harder you have to work in order to develop (i.e. a child develops quickly but an adult does not). So 7.00 in the first-team might be enough for a 15-year-old making his cup debut but will clearly not justify a boost of Messi's attributes further.

So if I play as Barcelona and put a 19yo league two player, of say 90PA, up front and set my tactic to make sure he scores lots of goals he will achieve a high ratings. If he also has a top class personality and will work his socks off he become Messi like.

Then we take Messi himself. I play him also and he gets consistant 9.0 average season ratings every year, will he ever decline if I can keep his ratings up? Can I end up with a squad of 40 yo's dominating Europe if my tactics are clever?

I can't understand the thinking behind a player ALWAYS being able to improve ability. Performances improving at 30+ is fine for me but actual ability improving I can't get my head round I'm afraid. I appreciate you trying to explain your ideas but I just don't like them and would prefer the current system with PA stars removed with further attribute masking if selected.

There has been a distinct lack of interest in this thread, so I think popular opinion, at least on these boards, is that nothing needs changing.

This will be my last post on the subject but feel free to reply as I will read it.

[x42bn6]

So if I play as Barcelona and put a 19yo league two player, of say 90PA, up front and set my tactic to make sure he scores lots of goals he will achieve a high ratings. If he also has a top class personality and will work his socks off he become Messi like.

Then we take Messi himself. I play him also and he gets consistant 9.0 average season ratings every year, will he ever decline if I can keep his ratings up? Can I end up with a squad of 40 yo's dominating Europe if my tactics are clever?

If you are such a good manager that you can get a 19-year-old player that the researcher doesn't rate to match Messi's ratings, then why not?

After all, a player who consistently gets 9.0 is the next Lionel Messi!

Realistically, this is going to be incredibly difficult, but if you can do it, then why shouldn't he turn out brilliant?

Can you keep a squad of 40-year-olds dominating Europe? Sure, if your managerial skills are top-notch.

I can't understand the thinking behind a player ALWAYS being able to improve ability. Performances improving at 30+ is fine for me but actual ability improving I can't get my head round I'm afraid. I appreciate you trying to explain your ideas but I just don't like them and would prefer the current system with PA stars removed with further attribute masking if selected.

The reasoning is simple.

Imagine you are a student. You learn when you figure out how to do something that you didn't know how to do before. This is shown by you gradually doing harder and harder work over time. As a child, you were doing 2 + 2 = 4. As a secondary school student, you were doing 2x + 2x = 4x.

For a footballer, they learn by being put into more and more difficult scenarios. Youth football is easier than first-team football. Once a youngster "graduates" from their academy, it is up to them to learn at a higher level, i.e. the reserves, on loan or for the first-team.

You can break that down further. A player learns on the pitch when the opposition puts the player in a different (possibly more difficult) scenario. An unknown youngster might burn an experienced full-back for pace the first time, but the full-back might react by shadowing the winger more aggressively or by tackling harder. If the youngster then figures how to get past this new scenario, then he is learning.

Which is why I think that a youngster who continuously shows consistent (or rising) performances despite the opposition trying to stop him, he should develop.

When a player stops developing or really hits a brick wall, then his performances might taper off to mediocrity. However, this is down to how he performs, not where the researcher thinks he will peak. A player makes his own destiny, independent of the researcher's opinion.

So it's "if a player stops developing, then he has reached his limit". However, this is not the same as "if he has reached his limit, he stops developing".

There has been a distinct lack of interest in this thread, so I think popular opinion, at least on these boards, is that nothing needs changing.

Nobody else posts here because few people like getting dragged into long debates.

A fairly uncontroversial bug thread (i.e. a spelling mistake) can "die" in a few days. A lack of interest? Sure. But it's still a bug. And it needs changing.

[Guest]

You're still working on the premise that a statistically significant percentage of players hit their PA, I'm yet to be convinced that this is the case.

Before this discussion can move beyond its current circular route we really need to quantify the scale of the perceived issue.

[x42bn6]

You're still working on the premise that a statistically significant percentage of players hit their PA, I'm yet to be convinced that this is the case.

I don't think it matters. As long as one player hits their PA, the argument works.

Before this discussion can move beyond its current circular route we really need to quantify the scale of the perceived issue.

It's an issue that affects few players, but it affects a few nevertheless.

[Guest]

The question still stands, do you have confirmed numbers?

If one player out of 250,000 hits their PA then it is not an issue worth investing any time on, probably not even worth development time if it's 1%.

[x42bn6]

The question still stands, do you have confirmed numbers?

If one player out of 250,000 hits their PA then it is not an issue worth investing any time on, probably not even worth development time if it's 1%.

Why don't you let SI decide how best they spend their development time?

[Guest]

Still no numbers, are you really enjoying the roundabout?

As you're advocating a change in the system I do feel the onus is on you to demonstrate that the current system is broken.

Someone saying that they've seen players decline at an age they felt was too young is not proof.

[looknohands]

I've chimed in on this subject before with my various ideas on a flexible PA/different PA categories/etc., so all I'll say is this:

The biggest issue with a "hard" PA cap is that it ignores a player's performance, which in turn leads to numerous other problems in the game.

For example:

in Fm

Say I'm coaching an MLS squad and have a 22 year-old striker with a CA/PA rating of 105. Despite these limitations, I'm able to devise a masterful tactical approach that results in the player bagging 50 goals in a season. So what happens next? Nothing. Given his ability ratings, it's highly unlikely that a foreign club will show much interest in him (I've sold players with a PA of 98, while also having players with a PA of 150 never having any interest shown in them at any point in their career) and the player will likely continue on in MLS until I find a replacement for him (which wouldn't be at all difficult.)

in Reality

You'd see two things happen. 1. The player would see improvements made to his CA and PA ratings, and 2. that player would be plying his trade in Europe (or else significantly richer in the US!)

I wish there was a way for FM to better reflect the impact of continued high levels of performance should have on a player vs. merely having a set ceiling in place that limits potential development.

[Cougar2010]

Why do people assume that when players perform well in real life they automatically improve??

[MSCCG]

The problem with the PA system isn't that it is rigid, it's that it assumes that physical, mental and technical abilities are co-dependent, and the rate at which players improve is unrealistic. Therefore, I agree with the OP in that PA should be split into three categories, because while some stats are linked across categories, it is not related enough for them to steal PA points off each other.

It's ok that player performances ignore PA, because it affects CA, which is what you want to happen, otherwise it defeats the point of having a PA. And of course a player improves when they perform well in real life, to suggest otherwise is being objectionable. There is a good amount of literature that supports high speed learning in conditions of highly recognizable stimuli. But there is a natural limit that the game must control for, because scouting and training players is an integral part of the game.

a player with a certain CA having good performances should not have their PA improved, because that would make them even better, which is unrealistic. For example, Theo Walcott has had his PA reduced, and he is still young right now. He does put in good performances but that doesn't mean his potential has increased. There may be an argument for CA to stretch beyond PA levels occasionally (sometimes players play better than they are for a short amount of time), but not for PA to be dynamic.

I look at CA and PA like IQ levels (CA is more like IQ than PA). It is an imaginary concept that is measured relative to others rather than as an absolute. The global mean should be 100 with a standard deviation of 33 or so (IQ is 15 but they only expect people to go up to 140-ish), to balance the database.

Because the main beef is that researchers cannot know the real PA of a player (since fluctuation of PA is not realistic, as we have discussed), we can make all PA random instead of having researchers decide. We base a player's PA on their CA and draw a distribution curve around a predicted mean PA and draw a pseudo-random number from it. That way players PA is not a guess but a set number based partly on current stats and partly on the luck of the draw, which means it will change every time you start a new game. Right now it seems like a player with negative PA has their PA sampled completely randomly from a set boundary, which is not so realistic, especially if this is a talented player.

[x42bn6]

Still no numbers, are you really enjoying the roundabout?

As you're advocating a change in the system I do feel the onus is on you to demonstrate that the current system is broken.

The current system is broken for any single player that reaches his PA.

It can be made broken by creating a custom player (create a player with CA/PA 120/120).

It makes no sense to consider whether it is statistically significant because we are not considering whether it happens by chance, nor are we interested in proposing a scientific theory for something happening in-game. We are interested in the specific niche case where players reach their PA (early, perhaps). With the editor, it can even be made to happen.

You can of course propose a hypothesis that explains why players reach their PA too early and then gather data for that. But I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in players that "given they reach their PA, the system fails". So the scale of the issue is of little concern to me in the same way that the scale of a player's age being 1 day too young on the grand scheme of things (in fact, n = 1 would probably be insignificant for loads of tests - yet it is still an issue).

I think I've shown the system is broken for a specific niche case.

Speaking of hypothesis testing and statistical significance... PA itself is untestable since it is by definition attempting to tell the future and some posters even justify it by the game being God! A real player's level of potential is untestable since you cannot rewind time and start his life again (not reproducible). So I doubt it actually makes sense to apply a hypothesis test to anything related to PA, since a crystal ball guess for a limit of a 16-year-old player has no place in real-world science.

Someone saying that they've seen players decline at an age they felt was too young is not proof.

It's not proof of a scientific theory, but it can certainly be made to justify the incorrectness of a mathematical model.

A mathematical model is by definition wrong, anyway, as it can always be made more accurate.

Why do people assume that when players perform well in real life they automatically improve??

As long as they play well enough to learn how to deal with the increasing difficulty of the opposition (that treats them more harshly), then they are learning. Being able to consistently play well in more increasingly-difficult circumstances is learning just as being able to do harder mathematical problems is learning.

Certainly, the rate at which you learn will differ over time in the same way that children learn quicker than adults. Certainly, these players will always be susceptible to wear-and-tear that might make development harder in later years. But you can still learn and in some cases, perhaps even "peak after you peak".

[Guest]

It can be made broken by creating a custom player (create a player with CA/PA 120/120).

That's an illogical input used solely for the purpose of proving your point.

You're an intelligent person with some form of scientific background yet you come across as someone who has committed a cardinal sin of science, you've reached your conclusion before testing your theory let alone even gathering any evidence that the perceived problem actually does exist.

I might actually make a donation to use FMRTE & run a 10 season soak to see how many, if any, players hit their PA & if so how that affects them for the remainder of their career.

[Cougar2010]

As long as they play well enough to learn how to deal with the increasing difficulty of the opposition (that treats them more harshly), then they are learning. Being able to consistently play well in more increasingly-difficult circumstances is learning just as being able to do harder mathematical problems is learning.

Certainly, the rate at which you learn will differ over time in the same way that children learn quicker than adults. Certainly, these players will always be susceptible to wear-and-tear that might make development harder in later years. But you can still learn and in some cases, perhaps even "peak after you peak".

Why are you assuming that the opposition increase in difficulty??

[whilewolf]

Because his system cant work with out that happening. He needs the AI to be strong enough to counter individual players so their improved attributes don't ensure that they perform even better next season and get another boost.

[x42bn6]

That's an illogical input used solely for the purpose of proving your point.

You're an intelligent person with some form of scientific background yet you come across as someone who has committed a cardinal sin of science, you've reached your conclusion before testing your theory let alone even gathering any evidence that the perceived problem actually does exist.

I might actually make a donation to use FMRTE & run a 10 season soak to see how many, if any, players hit their PA & if so how that affects them for the remainder of their career.

What is the theory I'm testing? If it's "you can't tell the future", then I hopefully won't have to run a scientific test on that.

The thing is - I'm not proposing an experiment. It wouldn't be possible since I would need one FM with PA, and one without, and I'd test which one matches reality better. Firstly, a PA-less FM isn't something I can whip up in a few days. Secondly, PA has no real-world basis as it is telling the future, so it makes no sense to even test this against reality, which should be the ideal baseline for any model striving to match reality, so I cannot test which one matches reality better. Thirdly, reality isn't retestable in this sense because I cannot "unlive" Messi and force him to relive his life again, measuring how he turns out.

Hypothesis testing is good for things like "FM scores too many goals" (H0: Reality, H1: FM); "FM has too many injuries" (H0: Reality, H1: FM) and so on. However, hypothesis testing is rubbish for things like "PA is illogical" (H0: Reality? PA is as crystal ball and has no real-world basis). Your experiment isn't even an experiment - it's data gathering - how would you compare that to reality? Which is why I have no idea why you are mentioning statistical significance.

And even so, I've never denied that some players never reach their PA.

All you want to show is that it is a small issue that is insignificant. However, even insignificant issues are issues. Things like Rooney's birthday being one day early (negligible effect on games) are still issues that need to be fixed.

"A hypothesis test is useless if you cannot test it." - The lack of a crystal ball and the lack of a PA-less FM "alpha" means that a hypothesis test is not really meaningful.

I would rather my ideas around "EPA" and the like fall under "proof by contradiction that PA doesn't work". Mostly because I don't have a PA-less FM.

Why are you assuming that the opposition increase in difficulty??

Because they do in reality, no? Do you really think a defender, say, tries to do the same thing again and again when it isn't working against a certain player? Certainly, the defender might not be capable of actually performing that different act, but he would at least try.

The reputation and CA system to a certain extent works like this - teams play more defensively against higher-reputation sides, and the assistant suggests to close-down/tightly-mark/etc. players that are very good.

After all, it's partly why youngsters want first-team football at higher levels, right? To test themselves more, and to develop quicker. Training (as in better facilities) is a school just as first-team football is a school that teaches you different things.

[x42bn6]

Because his system cant work with out that happening. He needs the AI to be strong enough to counter individual players so their improved attributes don't ensure that they perform even better next season and get another boost.

In a lot of ways, I think we can rely on the reputation system and the current way of rating players (i.e. assistant advice on individual opposition instructions). A team playing against Liverpool will suggest targeting Suárez and Gerrard rather than Spearing and Henderson. So if Henderson were to turn out like Gerrard, Henderson's treatment would ideally gradually get harder and harder as he did. And it does, to a certain extent, although it is probably not perfect as a mathematical model and things like the reputation system can always be improved.

[Guest]

The reputation system is probably the most flawed aspect of FM & I'd suggest that in the opinion of many FM12 players it needs to be replaced or at a minimum it's influence needs to be scaled way back.

[x42bn6]

Put it this way - I think that peak CAs are probably distributed something like this (probably skewed a little but I don't have MATLAB any more to plot fancier graphs; the PA-EPA gap might be a little larger but it's just a rough diagram, so take the ideas, not the numbers; since we flatten off the PA at 152, everything on the left side of 152 needs to be shifted up slightly as the area under this graph is no longer zero, but assume that it doesn't make too much visual difference):

Say the PA model is the red line (but not the green line).

Here, say the PA of a player is 152. Say that most players' peak CAs average at around 150 (possibly a professional attitude and few injuries). After 152, the red line drops to 0 and remains 0.

I think the PA model fails to take into account the green bit, which happens in reality, because PA is a guess. The green bit happens only if the player deserves it by performing well in-game/moves to a vastly superior club/etc.

One thing to note is that the graph flattens off very quickly (but never reaches zero) on the green bit. In other words - it's really rare for a player with EPA 150 to reach Messi levels, yet the model keeps that possibility open depending on how that player does.

Realistically, you'll see lots of peak CAs clustered around the 150 mark, with the odd value hitting the likes of 147/153, with the even odder value hitting 140/160, and the very occasional lottery winner 190.

[Guest]

That's an interesting model, at a basic level what it shows is a margin of error adjustment to take into account unexpected changes in circumstance which is something I can accept as a good idea.

The key concern with an uncapped or flexible PA is that you will get too many players rising up the footballing ladder to a point that is far beyond where they started as each move up opens up another potential move up or if using form & performances as a component to push up PA a player on a rich vein of form will show exponential growth as performances drive a PA increase which in turn leads to an even greater increase in performance & yet another increase in PA. Eventually the game could become overpopulated with extremely talented players.

[x42bn6]

That's an interesting model, at a basic level what it shows is a margin of error adjustment to take into account unexpected changes in circumstance which is something I can accept as a good idea.

The key concern with an uncapped or flexible PA is that you will get too many players rising up the footballing ladder to a point that is far beyond where they started as each move up opens up another potential move up or if using form & performances as a component to push up PA a player on a rich vein of form will show exponential growth as performances drive a PA increase which in turn leads to an even greater increase in performance & yet another increase in PA. Eventually the game could become overpopulated with extremely talented players.

Slippery slope much?

Firstly, it won't be exponential for the very reason that it is harder to move up the ladder the further you go. Like PES Master League - initially, your players develop really quickly, but once you reach Messi's level, you struggle to develop and you need exceptional (by Messi standards) performances in order to continue.

Secondly, players usually don't develop in tandem together due to limited opportunities.

Thirdly, sustaining a very rich vein of form should be rare - how many players are in outrageous form today? Not too many. If this happens in-game, then that's an additional bug.

You have to remember that this model works both ways - if you run into a "rich vein" of terrible form (which is also entirely possible, if perhaps unlikely), then you will deviate from that path as well, but not in a good way. Will that spiral out of control? Likely no, although it is probably more likely than spiraling up out of control due to the fact that learning isn't always easy. This is possible in-game today but you will likely never find any players who are at CA 20, PA 200 after their CAs are initially, say, 100.

Balancing will help ensure that players' development curves do not become too volatile. One possible measure is a 3-year or 5-year (weighted) average reflecting the fact that form is temporary, but class is "permanent".

[looknohands]

That's an interesting model, at a basic level what it shows is a margin of error adjustment to take into account unexpected changes in circumstance which is something I can accept as a good idea.

The key concern with an uncapped or flexible PA is that you will get too many players rising up the footballing ladder to a point that is far beyond where they started as each move up opens up another potential move up or if using form & performances as a component to push up PA a player on a rich vein of form will show exponential growth as performances drive a PA increase which in turn leads to an even greater increase in performance & yet another increase in PA. Eventually the game could become overpopulated with extremely talented players.

In a previous post I made in another thread, I stated that I believe that a system of checks and balances could be utilized to prevent this sort of thing. Theoretically, any player that plays in the absolute top league(s) should be able to reach a PA of 200...assuming that they can sustain their form long enough to warrant it. A player with a PA of 165 that averages a 6.8 over the course of a season shouldn't receive a boost, whereas a player that plays exceedingly well should receive one. A rating of 7.2 or 7.3 could be enough for 1 or 2 points, whereas a rating of 8.0 could result in an increase of 5. However, the gains would decrease over time outside of the absolute best leagues (a player such as Messi or Ronaldo that puts together a string of exceptional seasons at the highest levels would represent what it takes to reach 200PA) to prevent lower leagues from developing players too far out of the standard player. The entire point of this system would be to allow for players to "work up" the professional ladder by allowing them to progress to a point sufficient for bigger clubs to make a move for the player. So if a Championship-level player had a PA of 120 that was already reached, but was still putting together solid seasons, he could see a gradual rise in his PA to 130 or so, which would hopefully be enough to attract the interest of a Premierleague squad. In practical terms, you'd be looking at maybe a gain of 15 or so PA points over the course of a player's career...assuming he excelled in the vast majority of his years (and stayed healthy.) It wouldn't be a drastic change in how the game plays out, but it would be a nice incentive to keep "peaked" players around if there was still the possibility of overall improvement.

[Cougar2010]

You still have the back to front idea that performance drives skills whereas in the real world its skills that drive performance.

You also need to address the issue of ratings and how flawed they are in many areas.

[x42bn6]

You still have the back to front idea that performance drives skills whereas in the real world its skills that drive performance.

A player develops skills on the pitch, by learning how to deal with real (and possibly ever-changing) scenarios. Why else is first-team football so important for youth development?

It's practical science.

You also need to address the issue of ratings and how flawed they are in many areas.

I don't see why I have to address them. If there are issues with ratings then those should be solved in tandem, but I don't see it as necessary for me to describe since improving the ratings system can easily be done independent of any player development improvements.

[MSCCG]

I think what you do have to address is the way you are re-defining PA and making it do the job of the CA.

[Guest]

In a previous post I made in another thread, I stated that I believe that a system of checks and balances could be utilized to prevent this sort of thing. Theoretically, any player that plays in the absolute top league(s) should be able to reach a PA of 200...assuming that they can sustain their form long enough to warrant it. A player with a PA of 165 that averages a 6.8 over the course of a season shouldn't receive a boost, whereas a player that plays exceedingly well should receive one. A rating of 7.2 or 7.3 could be enough for 1 or 2 points, whereas a rating of 8.0 could result in an increase of 5. However, the gains would decrease over time outside of the absolute best leagues (a player such as Messi or Ronaldo that puts together a string of exceptional seasons at the highest levels would represent what it takes to reach 200PA) to prevent lower leagues from developing players too far out of the standard player. The entire point of this system would be to allow for players to "work up" the professional ladder by allowing them to progress to a point sufficient for bigger clubs to make a move for the player. So if a Championship-level player had a PA of 120 that was already reached, but was still putting together solid seasons, he could see a gradual rise in his PA to 130 or so, which would hopefully be enough to attract the interest of a Premierleague squad. In practical terms, you'd be looking at maybe a gain of 15 or so PA points over the course of a player's career...assuming he excelled in the vast majority of his years (and stayed healthy.) It wouldn't be a drastic change in how the game plays out, but it would be a nice incentive to keep "peaked" players around if there was still the possibility of overall improvement.

You're still setting a limit, only this time it's PA+n rather than PA.

There is also still the issue of the false premise that every player who plays in the top leagues has the capability to reach the equivalent of 190+ PA, I still don't think this is true other than in a theoretical perfect world.

[x42bn6]

I think what you do have to address is the way you are re-defining PA and making it do the job of the CA.

CA? I don't see how that is relevant compared with "EPA". CA is just a weighted average or shortcut to define a player's ability or compare players.

You're still setting a limit, only this time it's PA+n rather than PA.

There is also still the issue of the false premise that every player who plays in the top leagues has the capability to reach the equivalent of 190+ PA, I still don't think this is true other than in a theoretical perfect world.

But hold on, isn't that the point of setting PA? A researcher today looks at the ultimate-case scenario where everything is perfect?

It's more like: Some players will realistically never reach 190+ peak CA - but we don't know who those people are (unless some formula exists that shows at what point a player simply cannot reach a specific, vague level), so it makes no sense to limit a particular player.

[Unknown Hacker]

But hold on, isn't that the point of setting PA? A researcher today looks at the ultimate-case scenario where everything is perfect?

It's more like: Some players will realistically never reach 190+ peak CA - but we don't know who those people are (unless some formula exists that shows at what point a player simply cannot reach a specific, vague level), so it makes no sense to limit a particular player.

That sort of sounds like nonsense. Of course we know who isn't going to reach the top threshold of footballing ability...

[x42bn6]

That sort of sounds like nonsense. Of course we know who isn't going to reach the top threshold of footballing ability...

Do you have a crystal ball?

Let's face it - a lot of modern-day's top footballers don't even come from the best clubs in the world (i.e. where the best facilities are). Zidane, Ronaldo, Drogba...

No human can read the future. While we can make educated guesses - they remain just that - guesses - that can be wrong - both underestimated and overestimated.

[MSCCG]

I think we all understand your basis for advocating dynamic PA. I disagree with this because the CA is already dynamic. There needs to be a ceiling because it keeps the system in line, because PA, like IQ is always rated relatively to every other person and is not an absolute like you are suggesting. I don't think there can be any disagreement to this, though an argument can be made that PA (especially a single PA for all categories of stats) restricts players from having a realistic set of stats and doesn't do the job that it says it should.

Let's make IQ metaphorically equivalent to PA in the gaming world. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you are more productive than someone else with lower IQ. It does mean that you tend to learn faster etc. The main point is though, your IQ stays fairly constant throughout life. if your IQ is 100 at age 15, your IQ should be 100 at age 30. You may well overtake your peers in income and education, but your IQ will still be around the same level. This should be the same for PA. You may perform better than other people your age but this does not mean that your footballing IQ is now better than everyone else (and therefore have more room for improvement). It may suggest it, but it does not lead to it logically. What we can say is that young people who are better (at anything) than their peers at a young age are likely (but not always) to be better than their peers in the future, Ceteris paribus. There are reasons for this but I won't get into it.

The biggest problem I have with your suggestion is that it doesn't solve the simple problem that you wanted to avoid, which was researchers predicting PA wrongly. In your system, an initial PA still has to be predicted, and the entire career of a player will still depend mostly on that initial setting, because of the scouting system and the training system. You can argue that it doesn't have to depend mostly on the initial PA, but then this would not be substantially different to the suggestions of removing PA entirely. Also, if PA growth is based on match performance, this will cause a bias in the favour of players in strong teams (player rating is buffered by team performance in the game, and in real life too) which may contradict your belief that talent can come from anywhere.

I still believe that the answer to your problem is not to make up a new system of changing PA in-game (because aside from the research data not always being accurate, the system is OK), but to distribute the set PA randomly at the beginning of the game, the range determined by base CA and age. This will give a PA within reasonable limits but at the same time random so that any player could potentially be a star or a dud. I did some work on excel and put in some calculations but I'm not at home so I'll just write what I did:

1) I started by thinking about a player at age 16, when they first enter the game. I assumed that CA should predict PA, because if a young player is better than their peers at a young age (the researcher's ability to judge CA is not in question here), then they are likely (not always) to be better than their peers when they grow up. I also assumed that PA can never be below CA or above 200, and that the range of possible PA gets more narrow as players get older (until they reach the age that they do not improve anymore, when it should be equal or almost equal to their CA) because their trajectory of development is more easily determined holistically.

2) I also assumed that globally, PA should have a mean of 100.5

3) I drew a normal distribution with the 0 point being at the player's CA and the mean being the midpoint between that CA and 200 and used CA 50 as an example. What I mean is, if you count up all players beginning the game (age 16) at CA 50, then the total PA should have a mean of 125.

4) I worked out using PA values in the game that the top .135% of players with PA over 50 have PAs of around 161, and used this figure to estimate that a player at age 16 with CA 50 should have a PA within the range of 89 - 161 99.73% of the time. I worked out a standard deviation that would allow a random PA to fall within that range and generated 30,000 random samples of possible PAs for a new player and ended up with a normally distributed set of PAs, with a similar spread as that of the game.

5) I then divided the PA and standard deviation by 14 (with the assumption that players stop growing at 30 - this was a test run, numbers are not fully accurate) to model the predictions with players of increasing ages (modelling the increased knowledge that a researcher has for an older player and better knowledge of their limits). For example, I divided 75 by 14, and then took the result off 125 as used the new mean to predict for players at age 17, then took off another 75/14 for age 18 and so on. I generated another 30,000 random samples from this distribution for players with the ages 21, 26 and 29 and found reasonable-looking distributions that seem logical.

6) I tried to do the same with different CA levels and got a nice range of distributions with CAs of 100 and also 150. The sample distributions are shown below.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

In conclusion, if we are going to keep PA, then we should at least make it reasonable and logical. Random PA with a probability density function across the whole board of possible PAs is better than having a negative number and choosing a totally random PA in a small range. The way that I have suggested removes researcher's role to guess a player's PA, which we have agreed is not always accurate. This way, a player's development in the game will be less predictable, can change every game, but will not have to be dynamic and change the whole point of PA. For newgens, the game can decide a player's starting CA at random but modified by nation and club factors, and then the system can generate a realistic PA based on that CA. It means that players who come through better systems (who tend to be better) have a PA range with a higher mean, but this will not guarantee that they will come good. This will also control the PA distribution of wonderkids that show up with high CA but have an unrealistically low PA (it will still happen, but less often). It also makes it possible for older players to improve, without their PA being blown out of proportion.

Yes, I finished a huge assignment last night and chose to do this to celebrate.

[x42bn6]

I can't see the image at work, so I'll respond to the rest later when I get home...

I think we all understand your basis for advocating dynamic PA. I disagree with this because the CA is already dynamic. There needs to be a ceiling because it keeps the system in line, because PA, like IQ is always rated relatively to every other person and is not an absolute like you are suggesting. I don't think there can be any disagreement to this, though an argument can be made that PA (especially a single PA for all categories of stats) restricts players from having a realistic set of stats and doesn't do the job that it says it should.

Let's make IQ metaphorically equivalent to PA in the gaming world. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you are more productive than someone else with lower IQ. It does mean that you tend to learn faster etc. The main point is though, your IQ stays fairly constant throughout life. if your IQ is 100 at age 15, your IQ should be 100 at age 30. You may well overtake your peers in income and education, but your IQ will still be around the same level. This should be the same for PA. You may perform better than other people your age but this does not mean that your footballing IQ is now better than everyone else (and therefore have more room for improvement). It may suggest it, but it does not lead to it logically. What we can say is that young people who are better (at anything) than their peers at a young age are likely (but not always) to be better than their peers in the future, Ceteris paribus. There are reasons for this but I won't get into it.

IQ is relatively similar to physical ability in the sense that if you were born with a specific proportion of twitch fibres, then you are very likely to become a very quick sprinter/very good high jumper.

However, footballing ability is a lot more than just IQ or physical ability - it is a combination of the two, plus some other bits (like personality). A perfect footballer can be like Ronaldo, who is a physical monster, or like Messi, who is tiny but extremely technical.

So while it is true that IQ is fixed, I only see that as possibly a fixed factor that determines PA. If IQ, personality and physical ability were the only things that determined a player, I would see that as being plotted on a 3D graph where the best players are furthest away from the origin in the (>0, >0, >0) space, and it just so happens that IQ is fixed in a player's lifetime.

The biggest problem I have with your suggestion is that it doesn't solve the simple problem that you wanted to avoid, which was researchers predicting PA wrongly. In your system, an initial PA still has to be predicted, and the entire career of a player will still depend mostly on that initial setting,

It doesn't have to depend "mostly" on the researcher's rating. I would expect it to be initially important, but as a player develops in-game, it becomes less and less relevant in the same way that today's predictions about tomorrow are less relevant than tomorrow itself.

Some value still has to be set - this is expected and nothing can be done to eliminate the human error involved. Which is why I do not really see the researcher predictions as being an "issue" as such - because it is not really a fixable thing. What can be fixed is the modelling of the uncertainty involved - where a researcher can underestimate a player.

because of the scouting system and the training system. You can argue that it doesn't have to depend mostly on the initial PA, but then this would not be substantially different to the suggestions of removing PA entirely.

It's not substantially different but different nevertheless.

Also, if PA growth is based on match performance, this will cause a bias in the favour of players in strong teams (player rating is buffered by team performance in the game, and in real life too) which may contradict your belief that talent can come from anywhere.

This is sort of true anyway, right? The worst players at a top club will still develop better than the worst players at worser clubs due to the fact that they still play better at better clubs, as they have better players around them to mop up their mess.

In addition, better clubs generally have better players, and better players need to work harder to develop in the same way that Messi needs to work very hard to become better, while a mediocre player can get away with substantially-worse performances. So, say, 7.30 might be "par" for a very good team where an average rating of 7.30 will result in "average" development, but 6.40 might be "par" for a relegation-threatened team where 6.40 will result in "average" development. But if this relegation-threatened team had one gifted player, that player might need an average rating of, say, 6.90 to "support" his development.

I still believe that the answer to your problem is not to make up a new system of changing PA in-game (because aside from the research data not always being accurate, the system is OK), but to distribute the set PA randomly at the beginning of the game, the range determined by base CA and age. This will give a PA within reasonable limits but at the same time random so that any player could potentially be a star or a dud.

The reason why this won't work is that a player potentially becomes a star or dud because of some random number generator, not because of what they do in-game. If your random number generator throws up a low number, your player can't become a star regardless of what he does in-game. And we know this happens, because a player can be underestimated by a researcher, and neither a researcher nor random number generator can tell the future.

----

I'll take a look at the rest later once I can see the image, but you can chew on the above for now.

[C-Mon]

I'd like to point out to everyone in this thread that you aren't actually meant to know the potential ability of a youngster, just make a valid guess. Cognitive, coordinative and physical capabilities are very much determined by genetics; and although potential is not as extreme as it's made out in FM, you do have to be born with specific sets from a rather narrow gene pool if you want to become a successful football player.

I think that there are three things that could be done to to make the game more realistically immersive. It's not making a flexible PA, as this could make the game too easy (good training facilities would have the advantage of boosting loads of players, giving big teams an even larger advantage when it comes to talent development). It's not form-based stats either, as that would be a hell of a bitch to program.

The first thing that should be done is to give young players better PA's on average. There's already a problem with regens being too poor in general, making a few select teams wildly superior by having the few world beaters. Secondly, this should be remedied by progression curves that are influenced more by training and psychological treatment. A training system where you could tailor training specifically to a type of player, not just position, but personality, would be much more realistic. Secondly, scouts should be more critical of talents, fluctuating a lot in opinion of a players PA.

Additions?

[x42bn6]

I'd like to point out to everyone in this thread that you aren't actually meant to know the potential ability of a youngster, just make a valid guess.

So why does PA, as a guess, represent a hard limit in-game, if we aren't meant to "know"? A limit implies knowledge - that a player cannot be better than this specific value.

Cognitive, coordinative and physical capabilities are very much determined by genetics; and although potential is not as extreme as it's made out in FM, you do have to be born with specific sets from a rather narrow gene pool if you want to become a successful football player. I think that there are three things that could be done to to make the game more realistically immersive. It's not making a flexible PA, as this could make the game too easy (good training facilities would have the advantage of boosting loads of players, giving big teams an even larger advantage when it comes to talent development). It's not form-based stats either, as that would be a hell of a bitch to program.

We've discussed various reasons above why it won't just be easy for big clubs to develop players. For example, big clubs have bigger expectations so in order for these players to develop, they have to do better. 6.60 might be acceptable for a youngster at a small club in the relegation zone but not Joe Wonderkid at a title-challenging side.

Secondly, even if there is a narrow gene pool that produces football players, we don't know how to estimate that for a player today, and any estimation we can make can be underestimated (which is the key point). Any measure that is a function of things like physical, mental and technical skills that determines some measure of "talent" or "potential" can be underestimated; therefore inputting this into some mathematical model cannot be a hard limit, as it does not carry the same "uncertainty distribution" as reality.

Customers shouldn't care how hard something is to program. It's up to SI.

The first thing that should be done is to give young players better PA's on average. There's already a problem with regens being too poor in general, making a few select teams wildly superior by having the few world beaters.

Better PAs would only shift the problem by changing the percentages, not addressing the root issue that even upward-shifted PAs might still be underestimated.

Secondly, this should be remedied by progression curves that are influenced more by training and psychological treatment. A training system where you could tailor training specifically to a type of player, not just position, but personality, would be much more realistic.

I don't see how this is different to what is possible today, having custom training schedules per player (although this would require loads of mouse-clicks).

Secondly, scouts should be more critical of talents, fluctuating a lot in opinion of a players PA.

You could do that if PA wasn't a limit, too.

[sjm]

I haven't read the thread, because this topic comes up all the time (and I'm pretty sure the OP has been involved in these discussions in the past), but there's a good reason for the PA system.

It's called game balance, and is there to ensure that, by and large, the spread of abilities in the game is consistent. The game would be silly if every player could become Lionel Messi, and it would probably create issues with player managers exploiting the system. By having a fixed and relatively consistent distribution, the game ensures a good spread of players of varying abilities, with only a few very very top players. That's the way it should be.

Now, unless you disagree with that premise, changing the way PA works would simply replace one system - one that's really easy to code and manage because you just assign a single value to each player on creation - with another system that has the same result, but which requires incredibly detailed testing and maintenance. There's no point in simulating something in a complicated way of you can get the same results with a very simple method.

Or, to take a really silly analogy... imagine if player names weren't created randomly by choosing a first name and surname in the database, but instead simulated the naming of a player by first creating a short list of names, then simulating the debate between mother and father as they agonise over the name to choose, ask their friends and relatives for input over a period of 5 months before plumping on a name. The end result is still that one name is chosen. Why would you then want to complicate this procedure for nought? Why would you want SI spending time creating this "in-depth, realistic" simulation of player naming when all you need is a name to be chosen? You could argue that it's more realistic until the cows come home, but in terms of a difference in results - nada.

Whether or not the spread of CAs is ideal is another discussion of course.

[C-Mon]

So why does PA, as a guess, represent a hard limit in-game, if we aren't meant to "know"? A limit implies knowledge - that a player cannot be better than this specific value.

Hard limit is only there for simplicity. I find it to be a decent representative of real-life scenarios as well; you never know when a player is going to stagnate. Let's view an example: Eljero Elia was a few years back considered one of the greatest talents in the world, yet he never amounted to anything beyond being an 'eternal talent'. SI choose to remedy this by reflecting upon the question of why? Why did he not develop the way people expected? They then altered his personality unto someone who doesn't progress due to lack of determination.

The problem is that everything is so set in stone, and information being fed to the player is not nearly diffuse enough. You ask why we aren't meant to know PA. Well, for one, that would ruin the game, if you knew for certain which players would become world class and which would fail. We are meant to have an estimate of how good a player might become, but we're not meant to know it with utmost accuracy. This is where even the game's most superior scouts are too competent; they can tell you just about exactly what kind of talent you're looking at. I would ask for a more widespread specter, such as a player with a PA at 160 could be estimated by even the best scouts to have potential between 140 and 180. That would be more real to life, after all.

We've discussed various reasons above why it won't just be easy for big clubs to develop players. For example, big clubs have bigger expectations so in order for these players to develop, they have to do better. 6.60 might be acceptable for a youngster at a small club in the relegation zone but not Joe Wonderkid at a title-challenging side.

An odd statement, seeing as ratings are always according to their skill level. A player playing 6.60 in the Conference league is necessarily much worse than a player playing 6.60 in the Premiership. Or do you suggest an entirely new rating system?

Secondly, even if there is a narrow gene pool that produces football players

There is.

we don't know how to estimate that for a player today

We do...

and any estimation we can make can be underestimated (which is the key point)

...although not to the accuracy of FM, indeed. This is the point where we both agree, yet have wildly differing opinions on how to handle.

Any measure that is a function of things like physical, mental and technical skills that determines some measure of "talent" or "potential" can be underestimated; therefore inputting this into some mathematical model cannot be a hard limit, as it does not carry the same "uncertainty distribution" as reality.

Customers shouldn't care how hard something is to program. It's up to SI.

I realize what you mean, but I disagree with us caring how hard programming something would be. A customer should be sensible in their demands towards a developer, and while programming this certainly isn't impossible, it would be significantly harder to balance the game what with all the unpredictable factors that couldn't possibly be calculated - because, indeed, they would have been made that way. The solutions we're both suggesting will amount to the same: scouts underestimating/overestimating would have the same effect, unless you use a tool like Genie scout (in which I find this debate to be pointless anyways, since the line for immersion loss has already been crossed).

Better PAs would only shift the problem by changing the percentages, not addressing the root issue that even upward-shifted PAs might still be underestimated.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I figure that since you're talking about how everyone has more potential than SI makes out for them to have, this would only be a fair way to do it.

I don't see how this is different to what is possible today, having custom training schedules per player (although this would require loads of mouse-clicks).

Further customization options, more hands-on approach in training, introducing different styles for the various groups. (Different base workout programs for the physical stats, for instance. Some players (in real life) respond to 4-minute runs on the anaerobic border better, and others would be better off jogging an hour a day.)

You could do that if PA wasn't a limit, too.

True.

[x42bn6]

I haven't read the thread, because this topic comes up all the time (and I'm pretty sure the OP has been involved in these discussions in the past), but there's a good reason for the PA system.

It's called game balance, and is there to ensure that, by and large, the spread of abilities in the game is consistent. The game would be silly if every player could become Lionel Messi, and it would probably create issues with player managers exploiting the system. By having a fixed and relatively consistent distribution, the game ensures a good spread of players of varying abilities, with only a few very very top players. That's the way it should be.

A PA-less model that is well-balanced will have a relatively consistent distribution with a good spread of players of varying abilities with only a few very very top players. It won't be fixed, of course, but then again, neither is the current system thanks to the fact that the game has a degree of randomness.

Every player can theoretically become Lionel Messi - in practice, this isn't going to happen often and it will be very rare if it does. This is a logical deduction from the fact that no researcher can tell the future (imagine if the researchers set 16-year-old Ronaldo or Zidane's PAs appropriately with the benefit of hindsight - that's right - the head researchers wouldn't have allowed it!).

Now, unless you disagree with that premise, changing the way PA works would simply replace one system - one that's really easy to code and manage because you just assign a single value to each player on creation - with another system that has the same result, but which requires incredibly detailed testing and maintenance. There's no point in simulating something in a complicated way of you can get the same results with a very simple method.

It wouldn't give you the same result. In a PA-less world, a player's ultimate peak is dependent only partly on what the researcher thinks it will be - and that peak could exceed it (which makes sense, as a researcher could have underestimated that player).

Or, to take a really silly analogy... imagine if player names weren't created randomly by choosing a first name and surname in the database, but instead simulated the naming of a player by first creating a short list of names, then simulating the debate between mother and father as they agonise over the name to choose, ask their friends and relatives for input over a period of 5 months before plumping on a name. The end result is still that one name is chosen. Why would you then want to complicate this procedure for nought? Why would you want SI spending time creating this "in-depth, realistic" simulation of player naming when all you need is a name to be chosen? You could argue that it's more realistic until the cows come home, but in terms of a difference in results - nada.

It's not comparable as a PA-less world is different to a PA world.

[sjm]

You completely failed to understood my post... but whatever.

[x42bn6]

Hard limit is only there for simplicity. I find it to be a decent representative of real-life scenarios as well; you never know when a player is going to stagnate. Let's view an example: Eljero Elia was a few years back considered one of the greatest talents in the world, yet he never amounted to anything beyond being an 'eternal talent'. SI choose to remedy this by reflecting upon the question of why? Why did he not develop the way people expected? They then altered his personality unto someone who doesn't progress due to lack of determination.

Elia works in a PA world because Elia was overestimated. It does not work for players that are underestimated; nor does it fix a saved game that has started, unless you dig out an editor (and that lacks fairness as you wouldn't be changing every single player, and it would be tedious if it did).

The problem is that everything is so set in stone, and information being fed to the player is not nearly diffuse enough. You ask why we aren't meant to know PA. Well, for one, that would ruin the game, if you knew for certain which players would become world class and which would fail. We are meant to have an estimate of how good a player might become, but we're not meant to know it with utmost accuracy. This is where even the game's most superior scouts are too competent; they can tell you just about exactly what kind of talent you're looking at. I would ask for a more widespread specter, such as a player with a PA at 160 could be estimated by even the best scouts to have potential between 140 and 180. That would be more real to life, after all.

Where did I ask why we weren't supposed to know about PA?

Even if no PA exists, we can still get a rough estimate of a player's future that has a degree of uncertainty.

I'd prefer a model where a researcher thinks the player will peak at CA 150; a scout gets it wrong with a range of 140-160, and depending on how good you are at Football Manager, you might be able to raise it to 170 or perhaps even higher. When he is, say, 29, does it matter what the researcher thought of him? No! He's aged 13 years in your game. Data 13 years ago should be less relevant than data "today" in FM world.

An odd statement, seeing as ratings are always according to their skill level. A player playing 6.60 in the Conference league is necessarily much worse than a player playing 6.60 in the Premiership. Or do you suggest an entirely new rating system?

What I mean is that an average youngster at a top team is likely going to be superior in CA to an average youngster at a relegation-threatened team but if 6.60 will be good enuogh for the latter youngster to develop at a certain rate, 6.60 won't be good enough for the former youngster. In other words, the higher you go, the better your performances need to be to develop.

This makes sense because if a player isn't good enough at the top level, he ends up stagnating and other players overtake him, and he eventually ends up leaving to a worse club. Arsenal's Denílson is an example.

I realize what you mean, but I disagree with us caring how hard programming something would be. A customer should be sensible in their demands towards a developer, and while programming this certainly isn't impossible, it would be significantly harder to balance the game what with all the unpredictable factors that couldn't possibly be calculated - because, indeed, they would have been made that way. The solutions we're both suggesting will amount to the same: scouts underestimating/overestimating would have the same effect, unless you use a tool like Genie scout (in which I find this debate to be pointless anyways, since the line for immersion loss has already been crossed).

It wouldn't have the same overall effect, because now a researcher's opinion can be underestimated and the game can dynamically fix it depending how that game progresses.

I don't think a customer should consider the scale of his or her demands since we are not privy to SI's timescales, resource plans or financing. If you want value for your money, why aim low?

I don't buy the argument that the fact that we should not be able to see PA so there isn't a problem if we only have uncertainty in-game. The difficulty bug where opposition teams weren't teaching their teams second and third formations was partly discovered due to FMRTE. The black box can be wrong even if we are not "meant" to see something.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, but I figure that since you're talking about how everyone has more potential than SI makes out for them to have, this would only be a fair way to do it.

The issue lies with the fact that no researcher can be 100% certain. If PA 150 is a researcher's "95%" certainty, then raising it, say, 10% might only be the researcher's "97%" certainty. It only shifts the problem a little and fails to address the root cause that PA can be underestimated, no matter what the value is (save setting it to 200, of course, which is a modelling constraint).

[x42bn6]

You completely failed to understood my post... but whatever.

Where did I misunderstand it?

You first claimed that it was silly for all players to theoreticaly become Lionel Messi. I said this was wrong, as it is a logical extension of a researcher not being able to tell the future, as a researcher can never be 100% sure, due to the fact that they cannot tell the future. Any input PA has a degree of uncertainty about it, both positive and negative.

You also said it would have balance problems. It wouldn't, for many reasons I've stated above. I'll restate one: There are only so many top-class clubs, and therefore only so many top-class first-team players. There will always be implicit caps without a hard-coded limit. Another example: There are probably no caps on a scoreline in-game, but why do we never see games finishing 36-43? We don't need to limit scorelines in order to keep things balanced. As long as the game has sensible barriers (not necessarily hard-coded limits), then the game won't go out of control.

You said it would produce the same result. No it wouldn't, since players can now exceed expectations, so there will be some players who are "155/150", say, where a player exceeds a researcher's opinion by 5 CA points.

The last paragraph is not meaningful since a PA-less world produces different results, while arguing doesn't change the underlying distribution of names in a country, given the name list is compiled including couples that argue (it's not a list of names argued by couples - it's a list of names of people distributed within a certain nation).

Where did I misunderstand something?

[sjm]

You're also failing to understand that PA for the current players is just a crutch (that makes everything much simpler as explained above), and is there because of newgens. You can argue about researchers all you like, but that's completely missing the point. Who cares if a player doesn't turn out to be exactly the same in FM as IRL, it's just a game and doesn't suffer because of it. So what if Joe Hart was pretty crap in FM2006?

[sjm]

You first claimed that it was silly for all players to theoreticaly become Lionel Messi. I said this was wrong, as it is a logical extension of a researcher not being able to tell the future, as a researcher can never be 100% sure, due to the fact that they cannot tell the future. Any input PA has a degree of uncertainty about it, both positive and negative.

That's false logic; one does not imply the other.

You also said it would have balance problems. It wouldn't, for many reasons I've stated above. I'll restate one: There are only so many top-class clubs, and therefore only so many top-class first-team players. There will always be implicit caps without a hard-coded limit. Another example: There are probably no caps on a scoreline in-game, but why do we never see games finishing 36-43? We don't need to limit scorelines in order to keep things balanced. As long as the game has sensible barriers (not necessarily hard-coded limits), then the game won't go out of control.

Good players aren't limited to top clubs. Simulating a match is not the same as creating a binomial distribution, I don't see why you're equating apples and oranges.

You said it would produce the same result. No it wouldn't, since players can now exceed expectations, so there will be some players who are "155/150", say, where a player exceeds a researcher's opinion by 5 CA points.

I said it SHOULD create the same result; if it didn't any player could be Messi, and we know from real life that this isn't the case. This is due to the binomial distribution you'd expect in any population.

The last paragraph is not meaningful since a PA-less world produces different results, while arguing doesn't change the underlying distribution of names in a country, given the name list is compiled including couples that argue (it's not a list of names argued by couples - it's a list of names of people distributed within a certain nation).

See above; if it's not creating the same distribution, you get problems. If it is, you get the same result.

Where did I misunderstand something?

Where didn't you?

[x42bn6]

You're also failing to understand that PA for the current players is just a crutch (that makes everything much simpler as explained above),

So it's an assumption. Well, simulations become more realistic with less assumptions.

and is there because of newgens. You can argue about researchers all you like, but that's completely missing the point.

Newgens have the same issue. It is just easier to explain with real players (otherwise I will be comparing players in my save, which will bewilder anyone).

A newgen who performs very well in-game may run into his PA cap and therefore suffer from the same problem.

Who cares if a player doesn't turn out to be exactly the same in FM as IRL, it's just a game and doesn't suffer because of it.

Oh, it does suffer. I think the game would be miles more interesting if you could show-off your managerial skills by turning unheralded players into world-class performers.

Imagine being able to pick up "Football Manager 1993" and turn Ronaldo, then at a lower-league Brazilian side, into the world's best player - and sustain his performances unlike the real-world counterpart.

This wouldn't be possible unless the São Cristóvão researcher was drunk and gave Ronaldo a PA of 190+. He would also have been slapped-down by the Brazil head researcher because that isn't realistic in 1993 terms.

There are a set of circumstances C that result in a player's PA getting raised in reality. It would be more realistic and therefore better if there were a set of circumstances C' such that C and C' correspond exactly between the real world and virtual world that resulted in that virtual player's PA being raised by the same amount.

The game would then be compensating for researcher error - and best of all - it would be explainable (i.e. a player moves to a much bigger club, like Chris Smalling to Fulham). Things like random number generators giving a range of results lack this explainability - a player gets a low limit - why? Because some random number generator said so?

[C-Mon]

Where did I ask why we weren't supposed to know about PA?

Here:

So why does PA, as a guess, represent a hard limit in-game, if we aren't meant to "know"?

Otherwise, I see your points and I understand (and disagree with) what you mean. I won't argue though, because it's clear we have fundamentally differing opinions and getting into a heated debate on this subject is unlikely to lead anywhere for us ;P

[sjm]

Oh, it does suffer. I think the game would be miles more interesting if you could show-off your managerial skills by turning unheralded players into world-class performers.

but you already can...