[Suggestion]"Floating" potential ability

[Firecracker048]

What I mean by this is players like Jamie Vardy. In FM, you will never find a 16 year old in the lower English tiers who has potential to play at a championship level, let alone go unnoticed by larger teams for years or have the potential for premier league. Having a floating PA would allow for some of these players to show potential to play at that level in later years, like Vardy.

 

This would also go hand in hand with another attritube idea I had, the late bloomer. The Late Bloomer would not realize their potential until much later into their careers, like 25-28 years old where they go from mediocre players to stars at a time where most players tend peak or max out. Thoughts?

[Maaka]

Still, the POTENTIAL was always there, it's not as anyone can be better than the best they could possibly be. His PA shouldn't fluctuate, however, their CA should rise slower (in a case like this), and maybe the scout reports could reflect that they don't believe that his potential is as high as it actually is, or they don't believe he'll reach his potential.
But the PA should be fixed anyway.

[borivoje213]

I like the thinking.  Because there are players IRL who make drastic leaps.  Rickie Lambert is another IMO.

I can see where you're coming from because there are hundreds of players in the game that don't reach their PA for whatever reason.

For that reason there have to be a percentage of players who exceed their "perceived" PA to some degree.

Perhaps it's not the PA that's the problem.  Perhaps it's that scouting is too accurate from too young an age and there needs to be more "fog of war" in terms of potential ability.

There are very few (speaking relatively) players IRL we hear about having  top clubs scrambling for them, and a lot of those flop too. The world is full of FM legends who were said to be the next big thing but didn't get anywhere. Cherno Samba anyone. Freddy Adu. Mark Kerr was pretty decent. I digress.

The point is all you need is a half decent scouting network and you instantly know which 1/2 regens you know are worth chancing on and the rest definitely won't become world class.  The club already knows it and asks way too much, and before long everyone else in the world knows it too. But there's no one who goes and makes it contrary to their 3 star rating from the best scouts.

How about still having a fixed PA. But scouting is much less accurate. Instead of a scout recommendation (predicted PA) being taken from the actual PA relative to the scouts Judging PA & time scouted. Predicted PA could be calculated on CA compared to average for age group/competition level, then the JPA attribute and depth the player is scouted decides how accurately a scout predicts the level the player could improve.  That would tie in to people developing at different ages.

A player could have a really low CA compared to his age group and competition but a really high PA overall.  That way compared to his current age group/level he looks like a dud. but he continues developing long after his high CA low PA team mates have stalled.

You'd end up with players being sold off on the belief that their inability to excel among their peers leaves them unable to compete at the next level.  They get binned to the lower leagues where their CA is actually ok by comparison, they play and keep developing. Before long they're one of the stronger players in the side and bigger clubs are starting to look at them.

Similarly someone high CA amongst his peers gets kept on, they might even give him a few games but he doesn't develop far enough because of his low PA. Ends up on the fringes, loaned out, finally sold.

This way the PA remains fixed. But the perceived PA is much more flexible allowing for players to develop at different paces with slightly less predictability.

[Firecracker048]

Well here is my argument for a floating pa. I had a gent in my last game called Tony Lee. I acquired him during the Jan transfer window in the 5th tier of england. He ended up leading our team to promotion. The following year, he ended up maxing out his PA(around 82) but still scored a respectable 18 goals as my main striker. The following year we won promotion with TL getting the scoring title with 28 goals. At this point his value skyrocketed to 450k while still only a 2 star player.when we started skybet 1 play, he managed 14 goals in 11 games, still at 2 freaking stars with a maxed out ability. There is no way someone should be pulling numbers and averages(over a 7.3) and not be able to progress even a little bit. So I got frustrated, fired up the editor and sold him for 2 mil.

[borivoje213]

I'm guessing this floating PA would need some kind of Cap on it to prevent players from getting too good/bad too quickly.

Because if it's just rolling and open then there might as well not be a PA and just have a CA that reaches upper and lower limits based on performance.

Is that close to the kind of thing you had in mind?

[borivoje213]

...Thinking more on what you're saying.  An alternative would be Creeping CA.

By that I mean all players have a CA that can go in either direction but slowly throughout their career.

Based on Training Facilities, Coaches and Match Experience you can generate gains. But also poor morale/performance ratings, lack of match experience and injuries can hinder/stall/reverse progress.

The higher a player's CA the higher quality facilities/competition level/coaches/performance ratings would be needed to maintain or improve CA.  So the speed of improvement would be relative to a number of factors.  You couldn't just buy a load of cheap players thinking you can turn them into stars because their performance ratings and morale will just stall them.  The very top players with really high CAs would need excellent management to maintain those same levels, 200 being utter perfection which isn't likely to happen.

Higher CA youngsters would have the immediate advantage but wouldn't necessarily progress for a variety of the above reasons throughout their careers. 

But others who are slow burners could see rapid improvement at any point during their career in the right circumstances.  A good run of form, staying injury free, the right transfer at the right time and actually holding it together to win a place when they make the step up etc.

 

[borivoje213]

Scouting in terms of CA wouldn't change, but scouting PA would then lean more towards determining the things you can't see that would impact whether or not a player is capable of meeting the levels to maintain improvement...

The right personality for your squad

Injury Proneness

Good/Bad Traits

Consistency

Adaptability

[matisptfan]

This concept would be, in my view, what would project the game to the next level. Really hope there´s more flexibility in CA and PA. The better we are as managers, the more we could influence a player´s development.

[herne79]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

Vardy is mentioned in the OP as an example of this.  But on the other hand you could argue that Vardy's potential was there all along, it just took Leicester to recognise the untapped potential and put him into an environment that would release it.  That's not a floating PA, that's simply recognising potential, albeit at a relatively late stage.

For another example, this time from FM - in my 30 year save I found a 35 year old goalkeeper with a PA of 190 that had spent his entire career at a 4th division club, never realising his potential.  His CA was something like 95.  He'd flown completely under the radar for all those years, and more fool me (and every other club) for not spotting him.  So high potential players do exist (rarely) in low league clubs in game.

Isn't having a floating PA just a way to try to keep a player at a club for a long period of time as promotions are gained without needing to replace him?  You can't turn somebody into the next potential Messi just because our club is getting better, or because as managers we can influence the player.  The player needs to have the potential in the first place.  All we have to do is spot that potential and develop it.

I could see an argument to help develop possible "late bloomers" in some fashion, but that impacts CA not PA and would also be quite rare.

[KUBI]

The potential itself should be a fixed number. But there could be some "hidden" potential, say 10% to 20% that a player could only show when he is at the right club, city, with the right manager, or other players with a similar personality or playing-style.

[Maaka]

27 minutes ago, herne79 said:

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a moment.

Vardy is mentioned in the OP as an example of this.  But on the other hand you could argue that Vardy's potential was there all along, it just took Leicester to recognise the untapped potential and put him into an environment that would release it.  That's not a floating PA, that's simply recognising potential, albeit at a relatively late stage.

For another example, this time from FM - in my 30 year save I found a 35 year old goalkeeper with a PA of 190 that had spent his entire career at a 4th division club, never realising his potential.  His CA was something like 95.  He'd flown completely under the radar for all those years, and more fool me (and every other club) for not spotting him.  So high potential players do exist (rarely) in low league clubs in game.

Isn't having a floating PA just a way to try to keep a player at a club for a long period of time as promotions are gained without needing to replace him?  You can't turn somebody into the next potential Messi just because our club is getting better, or because as managers we can influence the player.  The player needs to have the potential in the first place.  All we have to do is spot that potential and develop it.

I could see an argument to help develop possible "late bloomers" in some fashion, but that impacts CA not PA and would also be quite rare.

Exactly. The potential ability is capped. How to get there is another question, but the fixed PA is not affected.

[Cougar2010]

These threads always end up the same way.

There needs to be a fixed PA and it has a base IRL with players who perform at one level but fail to at higher ones.

It always comes down to how CA develops and in that respect I'm not sure SI really understand where us as users are coming from.

There seems to be a difference of opinion with SI saying that the bulk of players in the game never reach their potential but as users we still find it too easy to identify those that potentially can and give them more or less ideal conditions to bloom.

There have been improvements over the last couple of years with stars & staff opinions fluctuating a bit more but we still don't really see the late blooming scenario while FM can never be coded to adapt to those who want to look under the hood at the actual CA/PA numbers.  At the moment I feel like the 16-25yo ages work fairly well but I dislike how improvement is sort of cut off after 25yo and its this that takes away the late bloomer scenario.

[Firecracker048]

11 hours ago, KUBI said:

The potential itself should be a fixed number. But there could be some "hidden" potential, say 10% to 20% that a player could only show when he is at the right club, city, with the right manager, or other players with a similar personality or playing-style.

This is something of what I had in mind. Like in a comment I made above, I had a low CA guy VASTLY over performing in leagues he shouldnt be anywhere near(and he did for 3 seasons, not just one, so it wasn't s fluke). Im sort of seeking a solution to that problem occurring. I also mentioned a "late bloomer" trait, where a player at 27(like hardy) all of a sudden make massive leaps at an age where players shouldn't be making those types of leaps

[HUNT3R]

4 hours ago, Firecracker048 said:

This is something of what I had in mind. Like in a comment I made above, I had a low CA guy VASTLY over performing in leagues he shouldnt be anywhere near(and he did for 3 seasons, not just one, so it wasn't s fluke).

If he IS already over-performing, why does he need more CA? He's already playing better than everyone thought he would, so he is already playing as if he's had a CA increase.

[HUNT3R]

4 hours ago, Firecracker048 said:

I also mentioned a "late bloomer" trait, where a player at 27(like hardy) all of a sudden make massive leaps at an age where players shouldn't be making those types of leaps

Which is a CA related thing, not PA at all. 99% of threads I've seen over the years, asking for PA changes, is actually just a reason for development to improve and not PA at all.

Your potential is the best you can be. How and if you get there is what's important and also the when - now, average or late.

[borivoje213]

If PA is fixed, surely that means it's a number determined right at the beginning.  I'm reading people say about "potential" as a real life term, then linking it directly back to it being a number, some mystical unknown thing.

It's not a number IRL, it's a mixture of an assessment of a player's ability learn, their character, their strengths and weaknesses whether they be physical or technical.  All of these things are already in the game and can be used to naturally influence how far a player can possibly develop under relative conditions.

Currently it's very simplified, contradictory in some cases, and development of players doesn't seem to mirror real life. Scouting ends up being over simplified as a result. This may be just my own humble opinion surprises all the time in football from all different age groups stars who vanish and those who come from nothing, we're not talking about 1 or 2 cases.

The depth is there already to have a more realistic way to measure speed of progression, I think it's being missed.

[Cougar2010]

10 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

If PA is fixed, surely that means it's a number determined right at the beginning.  I'm reading people say about "potential" as a real life term, then linking it directly back to it being a number, some mystical unknown thing.

It's not a number IRL, it's a mixture of an assessment of a player's ability learn, their character, their strengths and weaknesses whether they be physical or technical.  All of these things are already in the game and can be used to naturally influence how far a player can possibly develop under relative conditions.

Currently it's very simplified, contradictory in some cases, and development of players doesn't seem to mirror real life. Scouting ends up being over simplified as a result. This may be just my own humble opinion surprises all the time in football from all different age groups stars who vanish and those who come from nothing, we're not talking about 1 or 2 cases.

The depth is there already to have a more realistic way to measure speed of progression, I think it's being missed.

With FM being a piece of software everything needs to be broken down to a number for it to function.  Its done with every attribute which is rated on a 1-200 scale within the game and CA/PA is no different.

There also needs to be a ceiling on in game ability which is outside of the other factors else you have a situation where a player never stops improving.

With newgens FM is essentially God and in that respect PA functions perfectly well.

The only time PA is an issue is with real players where the researchers don't have a crystal ball to look into his future.  Even then its a best fit option and is only shown to be incorrect years later when a real life player has seen his career take a turn for the better or worse.  By this time though most users are playing a more updated version of FM and that player has been adjusted by researchers to reflect his current RL situation.

So as a function its fine behind the scenes with much of the discussions over the years about how thats communicated to the user along with how CA develops.

 

[HUNT3R]

34 minutes ago, borivoje213 said:

If PA is fixed, surely that means it's a number determined right at the beginning.  I'm reading people say about "potential" as a real life term, then linking it directly back to it being a number, some mystical unknown thing.

It's not a number IRL, it's a mixture of an assessment of a player's ability learn, their character, their strengths and weaknesses whether they be physical or technical.  All of these things are already in the game and can be used to naturally influence how far a player can possibly develop under relative conditions.

It's not being missed at all. Again, at age 16/17, you have a set potential. If you work your hardest at the best facilities with the best coaches etc - the best you could become. At 17, I was never going to be Messi. Ever. I had a set potential. Researchers estimate that based on their research and knowledge and what they've seen of the player. They can be wrong.

You also talk about development, which has nothing to do with PA. It is CA and the progression of that.

 

[borivoje213]

36 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

With FM being a piece of software everything needs to be broken down to a number for it to function.  Its done with every attribute which is rated on a 1-200 scale within the game and CA/PA is no different.

There also needs to be a ceiling on in game ability which is outside of the other factors else you have a situation where a player never stops improving.

With newgens FM is essentially God and in that respect PA functions perfectly well.

The only time PA is an issue is with real players where the researchers don't have a crystal ball to look into his future.  Even then its a best fit option and is only shown to be incorrect years later when a real life player has seen his career take a turn for the better or worse.  By this time though most users are playing a more updated version of FM and that player has been adjusted by researchers to reflect his current RL situation.

So as a function its fine behind the scenes with much of the discussions over the years about how thats communicated to the user along with how CA develops.

 

I guess I'd just like to see PA applied to players more realistically than a mystical number.  I don't necessarily have an issue with their being a PA, but it'd make more sense to me for their PA to be a resulting calculation of say Technique, Determination, Work Rate, Natural Fitness, Consistency, Injury Proneness and perhaps 1 or 2 other mental attributes perhaps.  That way their "potential" is linked to something tangible.  Then the game runs it's course as whether they actually reach it.

But I do agree with you, the game works on numbers and it is a phenomenal task to put a number on something as philosophical as potential.  There's nothing "broken" about how they've done it.

27 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

It's not being missed at all. Again, at age 16/17, you have a set potential. If you work your hardest at the best facilities with the best coaches etc - the best you could become. At 17, I was never going to be Messi. Ever. I had a set potential. Researchers estimate that based on their research and knowledge and what they've seen of the player. They can be wrong.

You also talk about development, which has nothing to do with PA. It is CA and the progression of that.

 

And I only referenced development in terms of "potential limits".  I understand what CA means.  The two ARE related.

[dspeters]

I think we are talking about 2 different kinds of PAs: The PA 'behind the scenes', which is the rating the game gives the player (0-200), and the PA determined by staff (the stars). The first one is fixed and is fine, while I think the second one should vary much more when looking at reports of different staff members. Obviously the higher the judging PA attribute is, the better this judgement would be, but I got the feeling that the reports in the game are a bit too precise regarding player potential. In real life judging PA is much harder than judging CA, so the error margin for staff members should be much higher.

The second issue is the 'late bloomer'. In the game I rarely see players from lower leagues reaching top level (e.g. first 11 of a club capable of winning the Champions League), unless a human manager gets involved in managing this player. The improvement of the CA should depend on specific details, as was mentioned earlier in this discussion by some of you. I guess some sort of system is already in place (how else would CA rise?), but the mix of which details are required and to which amount is different to each player in real life, so it should differ in the game as well. I think SI can win some ground in this area.

Thirdly, the opposite of the late bloomer is the early fader, the players of which de abilities start to rapidly decline at a relatively young age. A good example of this is Patrick Kluivert, who could barely kick a ball at a goal when he was 30. The specific mix of details leading to this could differ from player to player, just like with the late bloomers.

I hope I made any sense. I love the game, but these little things could bring it from world class to heavenly.

[FurkanMumcu]

I do understand what OP is trying to say here but I also think PA should be fixed.

However, I think consistent good performance should effect CA in a way regardless of age. 

 

[Cougar2010]

1 hour ago, FurkanMumcu said:

I do understand what OP is trying to say here but I also think PA should be fixed.

However, I think consistent good performance should effect CA in a way regardless of age. 

 

Performance doesn't drive ability, abilty always drives performance.

The concept of players improving due to playing well is wrong.  They play well because they have the ability.

[FurkanMumcu]

Do I get this wrong?

 

PA: Potential Ability = I believe this value should not change.

CA: Current Ability = This value can change to max value of PA.

 

I totally agree that CA should drive performance but CA isn't the only parameter that runs performance. Every player shows different performance values on different positions / instructions / teams. In a case where player is playing at their best for a time, wouldn't it help them to improve? I know a lot of players in real life have proven this. 

[doucong]

My suggestion is when we create a new save, there could be a tick option for "PA change".

For "PA change" I mean at the beginning of the game and at the start of every year, there is a chance that a very small percentage of people's (e.g. 1% or 0.1%) PA will change.

Why:

1) For now, let's say two young player, one with (-3) and one with (-5) PA, the (-5) one will always better than the (-3) one, the (-3) player will 0 chance better than the (-5). And when we play the game again and again, we somehow have a shortlist in mind which player is good and which player is bad. But I feel every new game is a new "parallel universe", that the bad player in some world will end up to a good player.

2) Imaging at the start of game a real player with age 28 and CA/PA 120/120. That means in the next few years he will have 0 chance to play as a higher level player. I know this may 99.9% true, but still I believe there is 0.1% chance that he could turn out to be next Vardy.

3) Every year when the new-gens come to the reserve team, I believe almost all of us will keep those high potentials and release those low potential (another question is the potential judgment is always so accurate). And if the potential could change, we may have an incentive to keep a large youth team to increase the chance have player PA jump (or fall as well).

I do agree PA should capped. the 1% I said is just for "everything could happened" and "every new save is a new parallel universe".

The chance of been selected by "PA change" may related to performance/work rate/professionalism/conversations/language and adaption/etc. If a player with CA/PA 50/50 score 15 goals in a Premier League season he should have a better chance to breakthrough his PA limit, as apparently his CA is better than 50 if he could score 15 goals in Premier League.

[Cougar2010]

3 hours ago, FurkanMumcu said:

Do I get this wrong?

PA: Potential Ability = I believe this value should not change.

CA: Current Ability = This value can change to max value of PA.

I totally agree that CA should drive performance but CA isn't the only parameter that runs performance. Every player shows different performance values on different positions / instructions / teams. In a case where player is playing at their best for a time, wouldn't it help them to improve? I know a lot of players in real life have proven this. 

Yes we are more or less in agreement.

Performances do help players improve in FM much like RL but its a balancing act so you don't create a situation that spirals out of control: Good performance > Improve > Perform better because of improvement > Improve further etc etc.

FM does a decent job of throttling that kind of spiral by the use of tactics, hidden attributes, morale etc.

 

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, doucong said:

Why:

1) For now, let's say two young player, one with (-3) and one with (-5) PA, the (-5) one will always better than the (-3) one, the (-3) player will 0 chance better than the (-5). And when we play the game again and again, we somehow have a shortlist in mind which player is good and which player is bad. But I feel every new game is a new "parallel universe", that the bad player in some world will end up to a good player.

Whilst I disagree with PA changing once a save has started I have many times over the years floated the idea of an option for totally random PAs.

FM already has a system mostly in place for doing this.  Instead of using -1 to -9 for the PA in the database using 0 will give you a totally random PA which changes from save to save so a player could be a 200PA in one save and 120PA in the next.

The way I see it working is that you have it as a tick option on the setup screen and then the real players would be given a random PA above their current CA level when a save is setup. 

Its something that has/is used by other management games in the genre - Pro Cycling Manager by Cyanide for instance is one that has had it in for a number of years as has some of the Grey Dog Software titles (Called a dynasty rating).

 

 

14 minutes ago, doucong said:

3) Every year when the new-gens come to the reserve team, I believe almost all of us will keep those high potentials and release those low potential (another question is the potential judgment is always so accurate). And if the potential could change, we may have an incentive to keep a large youth team to increase the chance have player PA jump (or fall as well).

Its not the same issue for newgens as they don't have a base in the real world.

As you say its more to do with how PA is presented to the user.  FM has made improvements in this area over the last few years with PA not as obvious as it used to be but there are still improvments that could be made.

What I would add if you are basing your judgment of youth on the PA stars then they are far from accurate.  I've had 5* PA youth players who had 2* CA at 17yo and still had 2* CA at 22/23yo by which time their PA stars had dropped to 2.5*  I've also seen many examples of players who have come in via the youth intake with 1.5/2* PA but have made consistent improvment and each year their PA has increased by 0.5* and they've been a 3*+ CA player at 22/23yo.

 

 

14 minutes ago, doucong said:

If a player with CA/PA 50/50 score 15 goals in a Premier League season he should have a better chance to breakthrough his PA limit, as apparently his CA is better than 50 if he could score 15 goals in Premier League.

This is the performance vs ability discussion that has gone on above.

If he has scored 15 goals Premier League goals as a 50/50 player why does he need his CA improved.  This will only result in him scoring more in the future leading to the ever increasing spiral I mentioned above.

[jozza800]

As always with this topic - the issue goes away if you don't know about a players PA. You're not supposed to know about how far a player could reach.

Personally I would do away with the PA stars in the game.

If you think of the players CA journey as a curve on graph. Some players will stay quite flat for the early part of their career. Others will peak very early.

 

What I do think needs to happen is for the curves to vary a bit more. And for the rates of improvement / decline should be more drastic in some players.

[noikeee]

I don't think PA should float throughout a career, but I do think a random element should be added to the PA of players initially on the database, because no researcher ever will spot a Jamie Vardy unless they're a promising youngster, and even then, if they think a player has a little more than popular opinion and could become a late bloomer, researchers tend to be a little cautious as per SI's indications and guidelines (to avoid To Madeira situations).

What I'm saying is, at the beginning of every career, when the database is loaded up, a random element is added up (or subtracted from) every player. For the vast majority of players this should be a miniscule amount, say 5 points of PA at very most. Specially high reputation/high ability players, as these are very well researched and don't need this randomization. But for unknowns.. maybe 1 in every 1000 players could get a +20 PA boost or something. Regardless of age.

This would have the rather beautiful effect of every savegame, there's a different gem waiting to be spotted that is unique to your own savegame. So this is not a To Madeira situation where you can recommend a beast super-signing to all your mates: this is a player that is a unique overperformer to your career. Which also retains the integrity of SI's data for professional purposes.

I think this would be enough to simulate these situations of late bloomers, unexpected overperformers, and researchers being on the understandable cautious side.

For regens this is already simulated somewhat well enough, I have found late bloomers - however there could still be some refinements, as often these are players that WERE spotted by big clubs early on, didn't make it because they didn't get first team football, dropped down the leagues and eventually only became beasts at 30. That is great but what about the players whose PA never gets spotted early on? I feel the AI is a little too good at that, some players' PA should be "hidden" and consistently underrated by the staff of the entire gameworld.

[doucong]

3 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

This is the performance vs ability discussion that has gone on above.

If he has scored 15 goals Premier League goals as a 50/50 player why does he need his CA improved.  This will only result in him scoring more in the future leading to the ever increasing spiral I mentioned above.

I think I have a different understand about CA, maybe different with most people here, maybe I am wrong.

I believe CA present how good a player could be, but not guarantee the lower side. A player with CA150 could play as bad as a player CA30, but a CA30 player could not play as a world class player.

For example, if we say 100m/11s is speed 20, a speed 20 player could run very slow in a match due to low determination/work rate/consistency/etc. But a speed 10 player can never run 100m within 11 second, even for once. If he could do once, he will be speed 20. Same reason, a CA 150 striker may not score a single goal in a season, but a CA50 player can never score 15 goals in a Premier League season. If he can, in real life, then his CA in the game will surely not be 50. Maybe he only score that 15 goals in his entire career, but that only mean he may have a bad consistency/work rate/etc. Increase his PA or CA to 150 is not necessary lead to spiral effect, as when his CA improved, his consistency may drop to 1 for example which mean he can only do that good very occasionally.

Further more, I feel it may make sense to have a fixed physical PA but variable tech/mental PA. Like we know a 160cm player can never jump as high as Crouch, but will Batotelli have good mental like other world class player in 30? Who knows. Imaging a PL player with CA capped with PA but only 1 in long shot, is it possible that he score long shots in 5 consecutive games? Sure it is possible. If that 0.01% thing happened should his long shot attribute improve? Of course I think, and thus his PA must have a 0.01% chance to goes up after the next 5 games. So you see that it is very hard to say what is the PA for a players tech attribute.

A bit off topic, I have tried to put Messi into a lowest division team. I believe in real life it that happened, he could dribble from one box to the other, make himself unstoppable and score a goal as long as he wish, but with the game engine I couldn't tell much difference from pitch to my crappy striker. Maybe the database is perfect, it is the game engine narrow the difference between CA50 and CA150, and there should be a huge difference between what CA50 can do and CA150.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

A player with CA150 could play as bad as a player CA30, but a CA30 player could not play as a world class player.

This is close to how it works now, basically. Consistency is very important as that decides how often he plays to his full ability.

[doucong]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

This is close to how it works now, basically. Consistency is very important as that decides how often he plays to his full ability.

Then do you agree if a CA/PA 50/50 player make 15 goals/10 assists in a PL season, his CA/PA must have to improve to present his upper side limit?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

Then do you agree if a CA/PA 50/50 player make 15 goals/10 assists in a PL season, his CA/PA must have to improve to present his upper side limit?

No. Of course not. His upper limit is 50 CA.

[doucong]

5 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

No. Of course not. His upper limit is 50 CA.

Haha that is our difference. I believe a player can do 15 goals/10 assists in PL season, for once in his life, is not CA50.

CA means how good he could be with his full ability. What I expect for CA150 should never be done by CA50, otherwise the difference between CA50 and CA150 is only the possibility. The possibility should not be determine by CA, but by consistency/work rate etc.

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, doucong said:

Then do you agree if a CA/PA 50/50 player make 15 goals/10 assists in a PL season, his CA/PA must have to improve to present his upper side limit?

I don't think you fully understand the relationship between CA, attributes & the ME.

CA means nothing on the pitch, it doesn't do anything in the ME.  All it does is control the distribution of points to attributes.

To the user it represents a kinda overall ability level but thats as far as it goes.

On the pitch, in the ME attributes are what matters and what are used for the millions of calculations that go on.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

CA means how good he could be with his full ability. 

So if he's able to hit 15 goals and 10 assists, he's already playing 'above' his ability. There's no need to increase it.

[doucong]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I don't think you fully understand the relationship between CA, attributes & the ME.

CA means nothing on the pitch, it doesn't do anything in the ME.  All it does is control the distribution of points to attributes.

To the user it represents a kinda overall ability level but thats as far as it goes.

On the pitch, in the ME attributes are what matters and what are used for the millions of calculations that go on.

No one here fully understand the relationship between CA, attributes & the ME

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

No one here fully understand the relationship between CA, attributes & the ME

CA doesn't enter into the equation when it comes to the ME. It just determines attributes and those attributes are what's being read in the ME. Consistency alters a player's attributes on the day, so it's important to know that.

[doucong]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

So if he's able to hit 15 goals and 10 assists, he's already playing 'above' his ability. There's no need to increase it.

My understanding is CA decide the upper side he could play with his full ability, and consistency/work rate/etc. decide the performance of each game. If a player can play above his CA ability, there is no need to have CA.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

 If a player can play above his CA ability, there is no need to have CA.

Exactly, so why are you saying different then? CA is the best he can do. CA needs to be in the game.

[doucong]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Exactly, so why are you saying different then?

I am saying his CA should be improve and make his performance in line with attributes. It is you say his CA is limit with 50 and he is playing above his ability

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, doucong said:

My understanding is CA decide the upper side he could play with his full ability, and consistency/work rate/etc. decide the performance of each game. If a player can play above his CA ability, there is no need to have CA.

Not directly it doesn't.

CA decides the number of points allocated to attributes but not which attributes get the points and there are also several attributes that don't use CA (Especially the hidden ones).  A player's attributes decide how a player performs on the pitch along with the tactical choices made of the AI/user.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

I am saying his CA should be improve and make his performance in line with attributes.

Which doesn't make sense at all. If his CA improves, his attributes improve and then so will his performances. When does it stop? When he is Messi?

 

He won't just hit 15 goals anymore, it'll be much more. So you're left with and endless cycle of this spiraling out of control.

 

I have to point out that a player's performance is far more than just CA/attributes. Tactics, teammates and league quality is forgotten, for some reason.

[doucong]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

Which doesn't make sense at all. If his CA improves, his attributes improve and then so will his performances. When does it stop? When he is Messi?

I said, he could have improved CA but fall in consistency, which means he could do that good when he play with full ability, but very occasionally.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

which means he could do that good when he play with full ability, but very occasionally.

No it doesn't mean that. It means he's going to be better than what he actually is occasionally.

[doucong]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

No it doesn't mean that. It means he's going to be better than what he actually is occasionally.

Sorry my English is bad, could you explain what you mean

[doucong]

7 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Not directly it doesn't.

CA decides the number of points allocated to attributes but not which attributes get the points and there are also several attributes that don't use CA (Especially the hidden ones).  A player's attributes decide how a player performs on the pitch along with the tactical choices made of the AI/user.

I know that already.

I am saying regardless how you/AI set up tactic, how good the player hidden attribute, a player with CA50 should not make 15 goals and 10 assists in a PL season. If you once do, it represent he is not CA50

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

Sorry my English is bad, could you explain what you mean

It means he's going to play EVEN better than what he's playing now, if you raise CA.

If you lower his consistency, you're going to make a consistent player (15 goals/10 ass) inconsistent. What's the point?

Far more goes into it than blindly looking at CA.

[herne79]

CA is simply an arbitrary number placed against each player in the game to stop every attribute reaching the maximum 20.  That's all it does.

A player with a CA of 100 can actually be better in your tactical system than a player with a much higher CA.  How?  Because of the spread of relevant attributes. 

TBH this conversation shows exactly why CA (and PA) should be a complete unknown and always remain hidden.  CA (and PA) are nowhere near as important as attributes.  The example of a low CA striker grabbing 15 goals and 10 assists in the PL demonstrates that very well - he might have a low CA but he has the right attributes for the system, thus there is no reason why he shouldn't be capable of doing that.

[doucong]

4 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

It means he's going to play EVEN better than what he's playing now, if you raise CA.

If you lower his consistency, you're going to make a consistent player (15 goals/10 ass) inconsistent. What's the point?

Far more goes into it than blindly looking at CA.

A player with 15 goals/10 ass is not equal to consistent, he could only shining for that season and be below average for all other season, it happened in real world. If I want to present such a player in game, he should have good ability and very bad consistency, where am I wrong?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, doucong said:

A player with 15 goals/10 ass is not equal to consistent, he could only shining for that season and be below average for all other season, it happened in real world. If I want to present such a player in game, he should have good ability and very bad consistency, where am I wrong?

Then you don't know what consistency is. It doesn't change from season to season, but game to game.

[doucong]

5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

CA is simply an arbitrary number placed against each player in the game to stop every attribute reaching the maximum 20.  That's all it does.

A player with a CA of 100 can actually be better in your tactical system than a player with a much higher CA.  How?  Because of the spread of relevant attributes. 

TBH this conversation shows exactly why CA (and PA) should be a complete unknown and always remain hidden.  CA (and PA) are nowhere near as important as attributes.  The example of a low CA striker grabbing 15 goals and 10 assists in the PL demonstrates that very well - he might have a low CA but he has the right attributes for the system, thus there is no reason why he shouldn't be capable of doing that.

Yes I know that, the CA is a combination of attribute, calculate by some secret algorithm.  Different by position etc. Determination/Aggressive/etc is not calculated in. What I am trying to say is, no matter how you arrange the attributes within CA50 limit, you cannot design a player that can do 15 goals and 10 assists. If you could, there must in history such a player and  in the database his CA is 50. And we all know that in database there is no real player how did that before been marked PA50(his peak). So for the same reason if a player in the game did that, he should not be mark as 50 as well