AN IDEA: Removal of PA, Addition of "Learning Rate"

[aenariel]

Not really. The youth academies of top clubs such as Man Utd, Chelsea, Milan etc will produce players every year and a large percentage of them will never make it as Premiership footballers, some will not even make a career in football at all. These players must have had decent CA as youngsters to get into the youth academy in the first place, but their low PA prevented them from improving enough to make it.

This is what happens in the game currently. Every year you get a group of players come through and some will not even be good enough to play above conference level, some will even retire from football completely. Some will be a little better and some might even be good enough to play in a top league. To me this is completely realistic.

Yea. What should be changed though is giving the manager ability to deny such players. At the moment, we can't really decide which ones get through and which don't. And dismissing youths cost money. Or at least did on 08.

[Mitja]

Not really. The youth academies of top clubs such as Man Utd, Chelsea, Milan etc will produce players every year and a large percentage of them will never make it as Premiership footballers, some will not even make a career in football at all. These players must have had decent CA as youngsters to get into the youth academy in the first place, but their low PA prevented them from improving enough to make it.

This is what happens in the game currently. Every year you get a group of players come through and some will not even be good enough to play above conference level, some will even retire from football completely. Some will be a little better and some might even be good enough to play in a top league. To me this is completely realistic.

hard to argue about that.

well I think they don't succeed becouse of their poor current ability compared to better players at their age or older players at that age. mostly they will lack some phisical aspect or talent. and that's how their potential is judged. to put it into FM words, player who's got pace attribute- 6 can't have it- 15, no metter what happens...

what happens in the game is that you already have these good youngsters/players with better PA (normaly) than those poor ones. the difference between poor-avarega-good players is getting bigger than it should.

probably we're talking about same thing, just a different wiew...

[chopper99]

probably we're talking about same thing, just a different wiew...

As always

[Nomis07]

Now you know why I didn't want to get involved in this debate I don't even know if anyone agreed with me, but i'll assume I was wrong

[Neb]

Not you again

I promised myself I'd ignore all future CA/PA debates after spending weeks having some excellent discussions with you about it, but I guess I'm a sucker for punishment

Me Too!! Its good fun though!

The CA/PA debate is always going to happen as it is just an approximation for use in a game. If we couldn't see the CA/PA I personally wouldn't have a problem with it. because I can see it, I feel that it doesn't really work very well and is a bit inflexible.

I see it that every player starts off with a certain amount of ability (or none if you are me!) at a certain age. The only thing that limits your potential is how much you can learn in the small amount of time before you stop developing. Its as simple as that as far as I'm concerned. A wonderkid should be a lad who at 17/18 is already very good, the assumption is that he'll improve lots before he hangs up his boots. he might not though (look at freddy adu!) he might never get any better. The reasons why he never gets better needs to be developed in FM. Personally I reckon the pressure got to him, if FM was perfect it'd realise that he had low pressure stats and as a result his performances and training would be less good so that he didn't develop. At the moment FM would have him at CA=120 and PA=140. which would mean AI scouts would discount him, managers wouldn't play him. Thats plain wrong. If he's young and good then he should be considered to have 'potential' by the game. because not only has he the base skill level, he has time on his hands. How he makes use of that time should be down to him and the opportunities he is given not some arbitary stat that someone guessed how good he could become.

No one is perfect, so no one is ever the best they can be at something. If einstein had worked a bit harder at school, he might have actually been better at physics. If Pele had been brought up in the modern age of football techniques would he have been better? If george best had been as boring as michael owen off the pitch, would he have been a better footballer? Of course they would have been! so no-one is ever as good as they could be if things were perfect. so why artificially limit development if everything is there for improvement? doesn't make sense.

I agree that some players will never get any better and that I'll never be as good as Pele. I'm not arguing otherwise. I'm just saying that the REASON they are better is that they are more gifted football players, ie much much better than me at 16 (CA) and they've been given a fantastic opportunity to improve at professional football clubs from a young age. so their peak CA will be a hell of a lot higher than mine is. but their CA will never hit a ceiling and won't go higher, they'll just start to get old and stop improving. its like a self regulating PA.

All of the factors that made ronaldo/pele/maradona/eusabio fantastic are the same factors that made me rubbish (and injury prone!) to code that up would be a nightmare! CA/PA is a reasonable approximation and if you didn't know it was there works suprisingly well. But in a perfect FM it wouldn't be there.

[x42bn6]

I think the CA/PA simply makes the game easier for SI to program - it would be difficult to make decisions based upon custom metrics and they would have to project a player's potential growth (imagine Messi at 14 - SI would have to figure out how to code Messi into the database and then find a way of discovering, "Yes, he's going to become one of, if not the, best in the world").

In real-life, though, when we say X has potential, we're really saying that X already is good for his age, and therefore will be very good in the future if he keeps improving. There are multiple reasons why players never reach the top clubs (not "potential level") but nothing to do with a ceiling. You'd've thought Luca Toni would have a low PA at 26, for example - but then he's a late-bloomer and now a good striker for Italy and Bayern.

It's why I think the PA model is flawed. Because we measure potential based on current ability, it makes no sense to have a ceiling.

So why do players fail to make the grade?

~ Not good enough - the primary reason. Nothing to do with PA. It's to do with CA. If a player is 20/200 when he arrives in your Under-18s team, you throw him out based on his CA; you don't keep him because of his PA.

~ Poor attitude - doesn't train well (nothing to do with PA), picks up cards faster than Materazzi (nothing to do with PA), lacks determination/work rate/temper/composure/ambition (nothing to do with PA), etc. Accurately represented in the game somewhat - lack of ambition and determination does separate the best youngsters from the good ones.

~ Wrong club - Any central midfielder coming through Chelsea's academy will struggle at the moment because of the sheer number of central midfielders they have at the club. Nothing to do with PA. They're not going to wait for 5 years before the midfielders start to deteriorate - even if the youngsters' PAs are 200, they're going to go, full-stop.

~ Wrong career choice - related to the above, but some players do make some really stupid career choices and set their careers back several years.

About academies: True, Manchester United, Chelsea, Milan and even the touted "best academy in the world" (Ajax, Arsenal, etc.) pull out rubbish players most of the time, such is the quality of the teams. Most players will end up in lesser leagues and some will go on eventually to reach the top tier ("reaching their potential"? Or simply "making good career choices and playing well"?). Arsenal fans may dislike this but what has happened to Graham Stack, Stathis Tavlaridis and Quincy Owusu-Abeyie? Even Arsenal's academy produces dunces every once in a while. And I'd hazard a guess that it's only Wenger who's keeping the likes of Merida and Gibbs at the club - in most clubs, they would be on loan or sold by now.

Conversely, it's possible to produce excellent, top-tier players in lower leagues. The number of players in the Italy, Spain and England squads having youth careers at clubs lower than the top-tier is quite large. However, at the moment, it's impossible for Serie B teams to produce eventual world-beaters when in reality it's possible. Some might scoff at the possibility of a Serie B player who's a 50/200 to eventually become world-class but it's certainly possible.

I'll just take an example - one of my youngsters arrived in my team with CA 89 at 16, which is very good. However, his PA is 122 - so apparently, no matter what I do, he's only going to be good enough for Serie B. His good attributes for his age mean that it's likely I could give him first-team appearances as substitutes in lower-games but even if I devote all my resources into improving him, he's suddenly going to hit 122 and stop. No, that's not right. He might fail because he might suddenly demand a bad career move and I'll let him go, or he might fail due to a big injury, but he doesn't have a ceiling potential from the start. He makes that ceiling for himself based on his attitude, ability and career choices (as well as luck).

I personally would like to see the system scrapped somewhat. I'd like to see a much, much larger variation in starting "abilities" as opposed to CAs for players across the globe, where reputation and facilities take only a very small account. I'd like to see equivalent-to-CA 100 players appear in Championship sides (like Aaron Ramsey, I guess) and perhaps every 5 years on average a Messi or Ronaldo appear. But these players don't have preset ceilings for potential. By all means, Messi could have had the worst attitude in the world and he would have ended up with a career like Anelka's, or he could have had a terrible attitude anyway and still managed to hit the heights he has today. But that's not decided from his career at 16 years old - that's decided as he goes along.

[André from Göteborg]

Spot on. that was exactly what i was trying to say with my other thread !

Well done

Just don't forget one of the major factors.. Luck

[Wayne\'o]

Niel melloer scored a fabolous goal for Liverpool against Arsenal. but he never improved as a player playing in Liverpool 1st team and training with the likes of gerrard. now hes an average to good player in the championship with Preston.. cant see him ever becoming the next dean Ashton etc. his PA means he will never be a world class football how ever much he trains..

[x42bn6]

Niel melloer scored a fabolous goal for Liverpool against Arsenal. but he never improved as a player playing in Liverpool 1st team and training with the likes of gerrard. now hes an average to good player in the championship with Preston.. cant see him ever becoming the next dean Ashton etc. his PA means he will never be a world class football how ever much he trains..

I think Mellor's a bad example. He and Sinama-Pongolle (and perhaps Le Tallec) "broke" into the first-team when Liverpool had a billion injured strikers - they didn't have much choice, really. He didn't make it because he didn't have a high PA - he didn't make it because he was a Reserves-quality striker (and if you look at the state of the England Reserve League, that's not a complement).

The fact he found a Championship club so quickly is testament to the training he did get at Liverpool (same argument applies to Sinama-Pongolle). If he was a bit better or perhaps with a bit of luck, he might have been able to improve enough at Preston to be able to return to the Premiership, or, like Anelka, go one step further and eventually return to one of the best teams in the world. Unfortunately, it turns out he simply wasn't good enough.

[SCIAG]

Graeme Stack signed for Reading and won promotion to the PL. After a few months they loaned him to Leeds (I think) but he was second choice. He's now at Plymouth.

Quincy is on loan at Birmingham, who are second in the Championship.

And Gibbs has been on loan...

[x42bn6]

Graeme Stack signed for Reading and won promotion to the PL. After a few months they loaned him to Leeds (I think) but he was second choice. He's now at Plymouth.

Quincy is on loan at Birmingham, who are second in the Championship.

And Gibbs has been on loan...

I know, but hardly the "Arsenal don't produce rubbish" sort of thing, which was the point I was trying to make.

With Ajax, for example, it's a bit silly to assume every striker in their Under-15s will be the next Huntelaar. There might be a Huntelaar in there. There also might be a Voronin-sort of player, or even worse. And there is a slight bias towards mediocre players, sadly.

[Neb]

I think the CA/PA simply makes the game easier for SI to program - it would be difficult to make decisions based upon custom metrics and they would have to project a player's potential growth (imagine Messi at 14 - SI would have to figure out how to code Messi into the database and then find a way of discovering, "Yes, he's going to become one of, if not the, best in the world")...........etc

Thats spot on. Completely my interpretation of a) why its like it currently it b) how it should be implemented

Turning real life into a perfect mathematical model is a nightmare, nigh on impossible. The CA/PA system has worked, but I feel its a bit simple and could do with being updated.

most of whats needed is currently in the game, but I think the AI relys too much on PA to make decisions. It should see the CA, the rate of improvement and from that work out whether the player will be any good. Good mental stats will ensure the player develops more, for longer. but the most important factor is how good he is as he enters the game. It would make it more likely to get really skillful young players that don't have the right attitude, playing in the higher leagues (Joey Barton and the like) only there by the virtue that they entered the game as good players, not because the have the right mental attributes. Also the players that start off as poor players, but with the right mental attributes to work their way up. As long as the game rates a players 'potential' as CA + (improvement x years left to develop) = 'PA' then if a young players got a good base CA but not the right attitude, is unhappy, not playing, dislikes the manger, injured, etc. then the rate of improvement is slow and the player seems to have no 'potential'. he might be free transferred and picked up by another club who reverses his fortunes...

Think shearer being released by newcastle when he was 16, picked up by southampton and never looked back, that kind of thing. Also the opposite is true, a player playing very very well, improving lots being bought by a bigger team but never seeming to meet his 'potential'...happens all the time, his base skill stays the same, but he doesn't settle so the improvement stops suddenly hes got no 'potential' and deemed a failure (francis jeffers for example...)

The attribute distribution needs reworked as well, but if you remove the 'PA' ceiling you do remove some of the issues with it. The two footed issue for example, that the second foot skill limits the overall skill due to the PA limit.

It would also improve scouting, scouts shouldn't look at a fixed PA and be able to tell if that player has potential, he should see the CA and the age and make a quick judgement. but in depth scouting would take months to complete as in real life. track the CA improvement and be able to say that with the 4 years of improvement left, the player will be a class act, or not as the case maybe. Thats kind of how it works in real life. a scout doesn't see a player play a match and know they'll be world class player, they see a good youth player who has time on his side to be class. but the scout would track the progress and report back that due to a lack of drive the player isn't progressing as hoped... again, it sounds like real life!

Apologies for the ramble!

[Neji]

There is one major confusion people are making in this thread. The PA system is different to the development system.

All I've seen is people suggesting that the development model needs to be changed. No one will ever achieve past their potential. Fact. Whether they reach it should be based on several things like Nomis pointed out BUT that doesn't have anything to do with the PA. I would love to see a major overhaul in the way players develop but there is nothing wrong with PA.

[Neb]

There is one major confusion people are making in this thread. The PA system is different to the development system.

All I've seen is people suggesting that the development model needs to be changed. No one will ever achieve past their potential. Fact. Whether they reach it should be based on several things like Nomis pointed out BUT that doesn't have anything to do with the PA. I would love to see a major overhaul in the way players develop but there is nothing wrong with PA.

No!

What we are talking about is how the peak CA (what you call potential) is defined. It shouldn't be a guess by a researcher, it should be defined on the CA and mental atributes. The player will still hit a limit, but that limit would be defined by the development model, not a guestimate at the start of the game.

So a player with 100 CA at 18 could hit 110 or could hit 170 if his attitude to training, is nutured by the coach at a young age. for example.

I can't think of any player that should hit CA=200, there's only so much development time in the game, normally between the ages of 15 - 22, sometimes sooner sometimes later. so a player of starting CA of 1 will never get to much more than 120 even if everything is perfect (which it never would be, as it never is in real life). so the scout wouldn't ever think this fella had potential.

but if he was to start at CA of 100 at age 16, thats a different matter. but he could peak at 101 if he was never played but could hit 140 if things went well, 160 if things went very well. maybe even 180 if he was very very lucky. but he might go up to 140 quickly, then fall out of favour at the club and stay there for the majority of his development meaning he'd never get to 160. he might even rot in chelsea's reserves for a season or two and drop back to 110 when hes picked up by sunderland and rises to 150 (again never as high as it could have been had he had better development)

My point is that his maximum CA is undefinable at the start of the game, it all depends on what happens to him during the first crucial few years of development....

[Neji]

The player will still hit a limit, but that limit would be defined by the development model, not a guestimate at the start of the game.

So why not give every player a PA of 200?

[Mitja]

it looks like giving PA 200 to every player but it's not the same. imagine the scout reports then...

[Neji]

it looks like giving PA 200 to every player but it's not the same. imagine the scout reports then...

I know it's not the same thing being asked for but it does the exact same job.

[x42bn6]

Well PA 200 might not be enough as theoretically the perfect player could have 20 in all areas, which is PA 256, right?

But it's a "solution" - in the sense that by having no PA we're giving each player a PA of infinity.

It's just that players will develop slower than others, and only a few will become world-class. But every player can be world-class if they had the correct attitude and played in Manchester United's first-team all the time, and a bit of luck.

Nobody can predict with absolute accuracy the peak of a player's ability simply because there are too many variables involved. A ceiling's a simple but naive solution.

[prome]

this is pretty much what pa does anyway, they have a maximum ability, like we all do, and whether they reach that ability depends on the factors you listed, coaches,facilities etc.

I think that's quite narrowminded. I don't think there's maxium of how good one can become. I would rate some people as rare expections who are truly geniuses like Einstein but generally almost all people can achieve almost anything. At the moment I couldn't become next Ronaldinho though but were I 5 year old and with right circumstances and hard work (nothing but football) that indeed could happen, and I believe any people could be trained to be top of the given field if they are willing to pay the price.

I bargained with Life for a penny,

And Life would pay no more

However I begged at evening

When I counted my scanty store.

For Life is a just employer

He gives you what you ask,

But once you have a set the wages,

Why, you must bear the task.

I worked for a menial's hire

Only to learn, dismayed,

That any wage I had asked of Life,

Life would have willingly paid.

cheers.

[Neb]

So why not give every player a PA of 200?

If potential is the best a player can ever be and no one ever has the perfect development, it stands to reason that no one should meet their PA in the game.

If no one is meeting it, why have it?? if a players development is halted due to him effectively running out of time to develop, no player would get to PA of 200,

If a player with perfect mental stats, perfect training, perfect experience, can only improve by 100 points during his career, if he starts off with a CA of 50 he'll get to 150 and he's never going to be world class. If his CA is 50, his mental stats would be rubbish anyway, further preventing him becoming world class anyway...

It would mean that his PA (as defined as the best a player can be) is self regulating, purely dependant on his starting ability and his rate of improvement, which is decided by his training (Some of which would be down to the players mental stats) and his experience.

[André from Göteborg]

Like i said in the other thread, has a man ever in the history of mankind got anywhere near his potential at anything? There is no need for a PA since no man ever will get anywhere near that level. It it much better to have a "learning rate" wich changes over time. Then training, managers encouragement, injurys and luck will have the power when it come to player development. Just like IRL.

[x42bn6]

Like i said in the other thread, has a man ever in the history of mankind got anywhere near his potential at anything? There is no need for a PA since no man ever will get anywhere near that level. It it much better to have a "learning rate" wich changes over time. Then training, managers encouragement, injurys and luck will have the power when it come to player development. Just like IRL.

The only reason I'm uneasy with this "learning rate" is because it sounds like something EA would do.

I'm against putting anything which gives players an unfair disadvantage for their unpredictable future, but I'm fine with slight disadvantages (i.e. the next Messi appearing in a Blue Square North side) with ample opportunities to still make the top grade - and with plenty of opportunities to ruin your career.

[Rasgriz]

this is a great idea better than PA and it reflect real life. also training will have huge effect now. But they just now perfected the regent players if they introduced new feature it will be bugged

[Bongo-Bongo]

The learning rate idea would be fine if the youngsters coming into the game were around 8-11 years old. There is still an awful lot of work for youngsters at this age to do, and it's incredibly difficult to guage which one have what it takes, hence why some clubs take on upwards of 30 players around the age of 9 each year. The problem is though, in FM, the players coming through are aged 15-16. At this stage, the players have arguably gone through what is the most important part of their development as a footballer. By this stage, the vast majority of the players who started with them are no longer involved in football as it became clear to the club that they just didn't have what it takes.

Whilst, obviously, it's still impossible to tell just exactly how good a player could become, it becomes much clearer. Any half decent coach could tell you a player that has the makings of a star and one who can only hope for playing at the lower levels. Thats not to say that the coach will know whether or not the player can will get to that level, but he will generally be able to tell the more promising ones from the less promising ones (of course, mistakes will be made).

Personally, I think it's the development module that needs improving. At the age of the players we are dealing with, having potential for each player is perfectly realistic. There are only so many hours in the day in which a player can train without over exerting himself, and the players only really have about 5-8 years left where rapid improvements are likely to be seen. Giving any player the possibility to reach the levels of Ronaldo, Messi or Kaka, just isn't realistic. Like I said earlier, at the age of the players we are dealing, it does become much clearer to see who has something special and who doesn't.

The only change to the PA system that I would make wuld be to scrap the random PA's such as -8,-9 and -10 and instead, allow the researcher to put their own custom ranges in that would give them more freedom when deciding a players PA. So, for example, with Lucas, the researcher could perhaps give him a PA of 160-180, with Nemeth he could give a PA of 140-170 and with Pacheco, a PA could be given of 140-190. A static PA would still be decided when a new game is created, but it would give each new game a lot more variety.

[Neb]

I think learning rate is already in the game. the players learn don't they? No two players learn the same amount over the same time.

The problem isn't how they learn, it that the learning only stops because the player hits his PA and stops. he should stop because he can't learn any more due to being restricted by age, club, experience, personality etc.

I'm pretty sure that a player with all the mental stats wouldn't learn much if he was sat in chelseas reserves for 5 years. but if he moved to sunderland and started playing, he'd get better. or if he was playing but didn't have the professionalism to push himself and improve then if a new manager managed to teach to be more professional he'd be able to improve.

I've a 19 year old midfielder, he's professional, hard working, determined, intelligent, high natural fitness, strong... all the things you'd need in a midfielder but he's not improving even though he's getting first team experience. its because his PA is limiting his development. The way I think it should work is that fair enough he doesn't improve, but if I was able to identify WHY he isn't improving, say perhaps a lack of workrate, I could mentor him, improve his workrate and he'd begin to improve again.....

Some players would never be good no matter what, some players would be amazing, some would be mediocre, some would peak early but never improve, some would continue to improve at some things until they retired, some managers would have a nack of improving youngsters, some managers would have the ability to keep older players playing for long, getting the best out of misfits, etc, etc.

You'd have the whole range of posibilities in the game, it'd make for a much richer experience.

Like I said earlier, I reckon it'd be a b*gger to code up all the various interactions and make it consistently varied.

[André from Göteborg]

The learning rate idea would be fine if the youngsters coming into the game were around 8-11 years old. There is still an awful lot of work for youngsters at this age to do, and it's incredibly difficult to guage which one have what it takes, hence why some clubs take on upwards of 30 players around the age of 9 each year. The problem is though, in FM, the players coming through are aged 15-16. At this stage, the players have arguably gone through what is the most important part of their development as a footballer. By this stage, the vast majority of the players who started with them are no longer involved in football as it became clear to the club that they just didn't have what it takes.

And those players are sorted out of the game and will never even be a regen..

If you noticed whenever your youth squad gets a bunch of new kids most of them come from clubs other than your own.

And it is NOT realistic to have a max potential for each player. It IS realistic to have a learning rate for each player.. Like ive said too many times already:

If i could be immortal and stay 18 years old forever, im sure I could be the worlds best player. No doubt about it. I'm sure you could too unless you are in a wheelchair or something.. you cant say that i or any one else who is healthy have a limit to how good they can be at anything given the right time..

[Neb]

Whilst, obviously, it's still impossible to tell just exactly how good a player could become, it becomes much clearer. Any half decent coach could tell you a player that has the makings of a star and one who can only hope for playing at the lower levels. Thats not to say that the coach will know whether or not the player can will get to that level, but he will generally be able to tell the more promising ones from the less promising ones (of course, mistakes will be made).

The coach would just look at a youngster and think, he's much better than the others. not that he's got potential. The potential bit comes from the fact he's better than the others and is still young. No one looks at me and tells me I have potential at something. All they see is how good at it I currently am and how much I'm improving. Then its an estimate to say that I'm going to be so good in so many years.

There is no such thing as a defined potential! Its a guess based on other tangible evidence.

Personally, I think it's the development module that needs improving. At the age of the players we are dealing with, having potential for each player is perfectly realistic. There are only so many hours in the day in which a player can train without over exerting himself, and the players only really have about 5-8 years left where rapid improvements are likely to be seen. Giving any player the possibility to reach the levels of Ronaldo, Messi or Kaka, just isn't realistic. Like I said earlier, at the age of the players we are dealing, it does become much clearer to see who has something special and who doesn't.

Your spot on here, its not the PA limit that is the problem, if the development model was working perfectly you wouldn't need a PA, as each player would reach as good as they are going to get, but they'd stop improving for a REASON! if that reason was removed they could possibly improve.

I don't think anyone has suggested that every player should have the possibility of reaching the leves of ronaldo, messi of kaka. just that they can improve if the circumstances are right. the circumstances would not be right for 99.9% of the players in FM to reach those levels. but there would be some way of improving everyone a little bit in the right circumstances.

The only change to the PA system that I would make wuld be to scrap the random PA's such as -8,-9 and -10 and instead, allow the researcher to put their own custom ranges in that would give them more freedom when deciding a players PA. So, for example, with Lucas, the researcher could perhaps give him a PA of 160-180, with Nemeth he could give a PA of 140-170 and with Pacheco, a PA could be given of 140-190. A static PA would still be decided when a new game is created, but it would give each new game a lot more variety.

Its still a fixed limit based on a guess. Too inflexible for my liking.

the question to ask would be why has a player stopped improving? if that can't be defined, then he shouldn't have stopped. FM is poor in this feedback, your promising midfielder stops for no reason at all. and there is nothing that can be done to continue his development. not very realistic in my mind!

[Bongo-Bongo]

And it is NOT realistic to have a max potential for each player. It IS realistic to have a learning rate for each player.. Like ive said too many times already:

If i could be immortal and stay 18 years old forever, im sure I could be the worlds best player. No doubt about it. I'm sure you could too unless you are in a wheelchair or something..

Learning rate is basically development. There is no real need need for a learning rate. The basics for how a player can improve are already there, such as some mental attributes, some hidden attributes, injuries, traiing facilities and coaching staff, as well as some luck. So why would a rate at which a player can learn be needed on top of this? It wouldn't. Removing PA isn't a realistic approach. Like I said, it becomes much clearer for coaching staff to see whether or not a player has the potential to make it at the club or not around the ages of 15-16. Arguing that if you were to remain 18 could see you become the worlds top football is utterly pointless as that just doesn't happen IRL. Players only have so much time to improve their skills, therefore, most just do not have the potential to become world beaters. Around the ages of 21-24, most players development will slow down. Removing the PA system is enabling any player to become the best, which just isn't realistic.

[chopper99]

I've still yet to see a better system than PA mentioned. There are a few issues brought up and I'll address them individually:

1 - Youngsters with high PA are recognised by their ability at the time so potential should be based on CA.

Wrong. Yes, in the real world managers and scouts recognise a good player by how good he is at that time. This should be in the game, ie managers and scouts should work mainly from the players current attributes and performances when forming opinions, rather than the players PA. But, a players current ability has no bearing on their potential. A player could be better than his peers at 15 and go onto never make it. Yet other players of his age who were not as good can go onto excel this player and become better. This is because the first kid had a high CA but his PA wasn't much higher whereas the second kid's CA was lower but he had more potential. Managers would choose to sign the first player as a 16 year because at the time he looked better, but ultimately the 2nd player would be better in the long run. This happens in real life, if it didn't all players who were good as kids would go onto being good players as they got older. This simply doesn't happen.

2 - If players get top coaching and facilities etc they can improve past their PA.

Wrong. Again let me put it this way. If a group of players with similar abilities are taken on as youngsters at a top club, they won't all improve to the same level, despite having exposure to the same coaching and facilities. This is simply because all of these players will have different potentials. Everyone will reach a point where they cannot get any better at something no matter what happens. As I've said, the development model should be improved so that changes in clubs and facilities have more of an impact on a players ability to reach his potential, but that potential should always be there and cannot be changed.

3 - Anyone can become good given the right training so there is no such thing as potential. If I'd dedicated my life to football at an early age I could now be as good as Ronaldo.

Wrong. If that were the case then there would be no difference between any players at the top level, they would all be as good as Ronaldo. Enough said.

4 - No-one has ever reached their potential so for that reason PA is a nonsense concept.

Wrong. How can you possibly say that no-one ever reaches their potential? How can you tell? Are you telling me that olympic athletes who dedicate their life to training for the olympics haven't reached their potential and at that time most of them are the best they could ever be? Again, if there was no such thing as PA then all olympic athletes would be the same as they all dedicate their lives to their sports and when they get to the olympics many individuals are the best they could possibly be. i.e they've reached their potential and cannot get any better.

[chopper99]

If i could be immortal and stay 18 years old forever, im sure I could be the worlds best player. No doubt about it. I'm sure you could too unless you are in a wheelchair or something.. you cant say that i or any one else who is healthy have a limit to how good they can be at anything given the right time..

I'm sorry but this is the most rediculous statement I've ever seen. Do you really believe this? That all it would take would be time and training for any person to become the best in the world at what they're trying to do?

You're wrong. I could start learning to play music now, something not effected by how old I am. But it doesn't matter how many years I practice or for how long I practice I'll never be Mozart. Why? because my genetic makeup and my experiences as a child never gave me a chance of being Mozart. By the time I was 15/16 (the age players enter the FM world) I would only ever be able to get to a certain ability as a musician. That would be my PA as a musician, I could practice as much as I wanted, for an infinite amount of time if I want and my CA would never reach that of Mozarts, as he had a higher PA than I could ever hope for.

[Rickooko]

The coach would just look at a youngster and think, he's much better than the others. not that he's got potential. The potential bit comes from the fact he's better than the others and is still young. No one looks at me and tells me I have potential at something. All they see is how good at it I currently am and how much I'm improving. Then its an estimate to say that I'm going to be so good in so many years.

There is no such thing as a defined potential! Its a guess based on other tangible evidence.

Exactly, and that is why i come up with the idea of Learning Rate instead of PA.

In real what a coach or scout can tell you on youngster:

1. Youngster A play better than Youngster B now. [in FM term: Youngster A have higher CA than Youngster B]

2. Youngster B seems to learn faster than Youngster A. [in FM term: Youngster B have higher LR than Youngster A]

3. However, nobody can tell the "Maximum" ability either youngster A or B can reach [in FM term: There should be no PA]

I have to agree a CA/PA system will make things much easier for programming. But i believe a system similar to the LR i suggested can make it even better and realistic.

For example: [The problem of PA system]

Messi is among the very best player in the world now with his young age. Therefore in FM we gave him, lets say a CA/PA of 185/200, as simply a CA of 185 can represent his ability, disregarding his young age.

Now, does it fair to say in 10 years time Messi can only gain 15 CA at most in abilities? As we put a unfair and unrealistic cap of PA 200 on him?

[With the LR system]

Now we remove the PA system, and use the LR system.

Messi would still have a CA of 185. The reason for this is he learn and improve extremely fast in compare with players with others at the same age. Therefore, he will be have a LR of 10. [Which is the maximum of a player can born with]

Now, with all the LR bonus or penalties [From training or whatever reason which will affect a player in learning or maintaining his abilities], Messi will have the chance to keep developing way beyond CA 200, OR, he might just peak his CA at 185 or even declining for whatever reason.

And surely, we cant let every player hitting sky high CA in the game cheaply. Therefore, the higher CA you want to develop and maintain, the higher LR you require.

CA 200+ - LR 10+ (LR required to gain and maintain CA on this level)

CA 180-200 - LR 9+

CA 160-180 - LR 8+

CA 140-160 - LR 7+

CA 120-140 - LR 6+

CA 100-120 - LR 5+

CA 80-100 - LR 4+

CA 60-80 - LR 3+

CA 40-60 - LR 2+

CA 20-40 - LR 1+

[Neb]

But players currently learn in the game! so there is a 'learning rate' already. not sure what difference your thing is.

The problem is that they learn then stop for apparently no reason. thats the problem for me.

[Nomis07]

This thread is becoming hard work to keep track of, I come on here to avoid work.

[Neb]

I'm sorry but this is the most rediculous statement I've ever seen. Do you really believe this? That all it would take would be time and training for any person to become the best in the world at what they're trying to do?

You're wrong. I could start learning to play music now, something not effected by how old I am. But it doesn't matter how many years I practice or for how long I practice I'll never be Mozart. Why? because my genetic makeup and my experiences as a child never gave me a chance of being Mozart. By the time I was 15/16 (the age players enter the FM world) I would only ever be able to get to a certain ability as a musician. That would be my PA as a musician, I could practice as much as I wanted, for an infinite amount of time if I want and my CA would never reach that of Mozarts, as he had a higher PA than I could ever hope for.

you've hit the nail on the ehead with that one! The things that will limit how good you get are things you currently are aware of now. so for a footballer it'd be his lack of stamina, or lack of concentration, lack of determination, etc, etc. This are the things that'll limit him from being like pele.

I'm not saying everyone can be like mozart, I'm saying that if a young lad had all the building blocks to be like mozart he could be that good.

The building blocks in FM are pretty obvious depending on position, if a 15 year old player has them all there, why can't he be as good as pele? what exactly is stopping him outside of luck? thats my point! If these building blocks are there, why restrict improvement artificially?

All players will hit a natural limit, where their lack of pace becomes evident, where their anticipation isn't enough for a higher league, their passing isn't up to scratch etc, etc, The match ratings don't get to a certain level where improvement can be made. The lad might just have missed out on a loan when he was 18 that might have given him the boost needed to get into the team and getting experience when he's at the right age. to improve his prospects.

thats just the same as you never being able to get to the same level as mozart. you will be limited. but you will be limited by your ability and lack of improvement, not some random 'potential'.

[Neb]

This thread is becoming hard work to keep track of, I come on here to avoid work.

me too! is it obvious??!!

[Rickooko]

CA 200+ - LR 10+ (LR required to gain and maintain CA on this level)

CA 180-200 - LR 9+

CA 160-180 - LR 8+

CA 140-160 - LR 7+

CA 120-140 - LR 6+

CA 100-120 - LR 5+

CA 80-100 - LR 4+

CA 60-80 - LR 3+

CA 40-60 - LR 2+

CA 20-40 - LR 1+

Take this as an example:

Arsenal spot a 16 yrs youngster in lower division team with decent ability and according to the scout he is learning and progressing well. [in game term, he have a CA 80, and LR 6, at the age of 16]

Scenario 1:

Arsenal decide not to buy this player. He is so upset and mixing up with some bad mates [well....]. This have negative impact on him and lately his LR drop to 4 by time. This guy end up with a CA around 80~100, and finish his career in lower division.

Scenario 2:

Arsenal decide not to buy this player. He is disappointed but keep his feet in training. However, with the training facilities and competition level, he can still at best maintain a LR of 6. He end up as player with CA 120~140, doing decently in the lower division.

Scenario 3:

Arsenal decide to buy this player. Although he is not have the highest LR of 10, this young lad works very hard and will to learn. Also, with the superior mentoring from Wenger, together with the best training facilities and coach, this youngster is able boost his LR to 8! He end up developed as a good player with CA 160~180, playing for Arsenal in the preimer league.

As you can see the LR system can make a players career much lively and unpredictable like IRL. In contrast, a PA system simply limit all possibilities once a player was regen with a cap PA.

[Rickooko]

But players currently learn in the game! so there is a 'learning rate' already. not sure what difference your thing is.

The problem is that they learn then stop for apparently no reason. thats the problem for me.

Yea, they do learn, but a talented player should learn faster than the others, which is the LR i was suggesting.

Without PA, what you can make a youngster more "talent" than the others, is the LR, which they learn faster by the same amount given.

[Rickooko]

This thread is becoming hard work to keep track of, I come on here to avoid work.

VERY TRUE!!!!!

Although i was the starter of it....

[chopper99]

The building blocks in FM are pretty obvious depending on position, if a 15 year old player has them all there, why can't he be as good as pele? what exactly is stopping him outside of luck? thats my point! If these building blocks are there, why restrict improvement artificially?.

Because how many young players in real life have been labelled the next Pele, Maradona or whoever, just to go on to do nothing despite having the same opportunities as everyone else? The reason they don't reach the hights that other people do reach is down to something outside of their abilities and mentality. To me this something is simply potential, what else would you call it?

Pele played in Brazil all his life, a poor country with poor facilities, yet he was still the best in the world. That's because he had the potential to be better than other players who may have been as good as him at 15 even though many of these players will have played at bigger clubs with better coaches and facilities. That's because of Pele's natural talent for football, something that can also be described as potential.

[chopper99]

This thread is becoming hard work to keep track of, I come on here to avoid work.

You realise you don't have to keep track of it don't you

[bigdunk]

That's all well and good Rickooko, but your scenarios are full things like 'the player decides..." and 'will to learn'. Those would all need to be defined somehow as attributes in the game (or how would the game know what a player is deciding to do, or how willing he is). You'd either to have to get the researcher to define them, which would be virtually impossible, or have the game decide them randomly. But either way, you still have a fixed PA, it's just that in your case, the PA doesn't exist as an actual number, it's the result of a complex calculation involving lots of other smaller numbers. Which just makes the DB a lot harder to balance and the research a lot harder to do.

[Rickooko]

That's all well and good Rickooko, but your scenarios are full things like 'the player decides..." and 'will to learn'. Those would all need to be defined somehow as attributes in the game (or how would the game know what a player is deciding to do, or how willing he is). You'd either to have to get the researcher to define them, which would be virtually impossible, or have the game decide them randomly. But either way, you still have a fixed PA, it's just that in your case, the PA doesn't exist as an actual number, it's the result of a complex calculation involving lots of other smaller numbers. Which just makes the DB a lot harder to balance and the research a lot harder to do.

Those things of 'the player decides..." and 'will to learn'.....well, i will leave it to SI to think about it, i am not programmer!

But i think they can be link with hidden attributes like professionalism, ambitious, workrate, determination etc....

And if we have a fixed PA, all those scenario will unlikely happened, imagine the player is born with a PA 100...

[chopper99]

Take this as an example:

Arsenal spot a 16 yrs youngster in lower division team with decent ability and according to the scout he is learning and progressing well. [in game term, he have a CA 80, and LR 6, at the age of 16]

Scenario 1:

Arsenal decide not to buy this player. He is so upset and mixing up with some bad mates [well....]. This have negative impact on him and lately his LR drop to 4 by time. This guy end up with a CA around 80~100, and finish his career in lower division.

Scenario 2:

Arsenal decide not to buy this player. He is disappointed but keep his feet in training. However, with the training facilities and competition level, he can still at best maintain a LR of 6. He end up as player with CA 120~140, doing decently in the lower division.

Scenario 3:

Arsenal decide to buy this player. Although he is not have the highest LR of 10, this young lad works very hard and will to learn. Also, with the superior mentoring from Wenger, together with the best training facilities and coach, this youngster is able boost his LR to 8! He end up developed as a good player with CA 160~180, playing for Arsenal in the preimer league.

As you can see the LR system can make a players career much lively and unpredictable like IRL. In contrast, a PA system simply limit all possibilities once a player was regen with a cap PA.

This is all already in the game. Players CA's increase/decrease at different rates depending on where they play, what facilities the team have, what coaches they have, what mental attributes such as determination the players have (apparently) and what injuries they pick up. Removing PA and replacing it with this proposed LR would add nothing that you couldn't get from simply improving the development model so that more factors have an impact on the rate of change of CA.

Replacing PA with a more fluid system opens it up for all kinds of problems to be honest, for very little benefit.

[bigdunk]

So basically, what you are saying is that you believe players that haven't reached the top, are either unprofessional, unambitious or lazy? And all of those scenarios can quite easily happen with a fixed PA, as easily as with your system in fact, because your system is basically the same as having a fixed PA.

[Rickooko]

This is all already in the game. Players CA's increase/decrease at different rates depending on where they play, what facilities the team have, what coaches they have, what mental attributes such as determination the players have (apparently) and what injuries they pick up. Removing PA and replacing it with this proposed LR would add nothing that you couldn't get from simply improving the development model so that more factors have an impact on the rate of change of CA.

Replacing PA with a more fluid system opens it up for all kinds of problems to be honest, for very little benefit.

Oic, it will be really good if thats already in the game, and honestly i want to see more fluctuation in CA for sure.

However....

"For example: [The problem of PA system]

Messi is among the very best player in the world now with his young age. Therefore in FM we gave him, lets say a CA/PA of 185/200, as simply a CA of 185 can represent his ability, disregarding his young age.

Now, does it fair to say in 10 years time Messi can only gain 15 CA at most in abilities? As we put a unfair and unrealistic cap of PA 200 on him?

How can the current CA/PA system solve this problem, i dont think it is fair to say Messi can only develop 15 CA in all coming years.

[Rickooko]

So basically, what you are saying is that you believe players that haven't reached the top, are either unprofessional, unambitious or lazy? And all of those scenarios can quite easily happen with a fixed PA, as easily as with your system in fact, because your system is basically the same as having a fixed PA.

They are different, with the PA system, once a player born with PA 100, all the best he can get is a CA 100 no matter what happened.

With the LR system, lets say a player born with LR 5. If the LR remain the same all over the years, he will at best get a CA 100. However, it is possible to change the LR during his career and therefore other variations of CA beyond 100 is possible. [You can say it is a "non-fixed PA system" if you like, so PA can be changed in the course of life ]

[bigdunk]

They are different, with the PA system, once a player born with PA 100, all the best he can get is a CA 100 no matter what happened.

With the LR system, lets say a player born with LR 5. If the LR remain the same all over the years, he will at best get a CA 100. However, it is possible to change the LR during his career and therefore other variations of CA beyond 100 is possible. [You can say it is a "non-fixed PA system" if you like, so PA can be changed in the course of life ]

But the factors that govern changes in LR are fixed attributes (whatever the 'will to learn' is defined as). So his maximum LR is fixed, hence his maximum CA is fixed. Which is basically the same as a fixed PA.

[playmaker]

The player development model is changing in FM2009, why not wait and see how well it works before redisigning the whole system. If you play the game without using an editor and without viewing anyone's PA you might just be pleasantly surprised.

[Nomis07]

You realise you don't have to keep track of it don't you

Now you tell me.

I'm going to cover myself for the rest of this thread and say I agree with what chopper99 has been saying, from what I can make out it's sort of similar to what I was saying.

The learning rate thing sounds like change for change sake btw.

[playmaker]

The player development model is changing in FM2009, why not wait and see how well it works before redisigning the whole system. If you play the game without using an editor and without viewing anyone's PA you might just be pleasantly surprised.

Great spelling! That would be redesigning not redisigning.