Revaluation of the CA - PA system

[mersk]

8 minutes ago, Maaka said:

 

I never said that it was dynamic, I just said it already was "dynamic" in the sense that it's a hard cap for the CA, meaning that the CA can fluctuate within those limits (that's why I put it in quotation marks.

For the first part of your post, please read my previous post again, I'm not advocating for the current PA-system to be the perfect solution, I'm just saying that it wouldn't make any sense to replace it with something that most likely will not be an improvement. "Change for the better is good, change for the sake of a change is not."

 

 

But we all know it's a hard cap for the CA, and we all know what that means. We've all played the game.

 

Also, no one is arguing for a change for the sake of change itself. It's been repeated multiple times how and why the proposed solution would be an improvement, with the key element being that you allow for a more dynamic and realistic experience. You're simply saying "no, I don't like this" without offering an improvement yourself. We're talking about how to improve an outdated system, and your contribution is "no".

[santy001]

Usain Bolt could never do a 100m sprint in 8 seconds. His limitations, and indeed quite likely the limitations of all human kind prevent that. It's a genetic limitation. 

We all have a potential for the fastest we can run 100m in. For person A he might currently do 100m in 11 seconds and his potential might be to do it in 10.2 seconds, for person B currently running 100m in 11 seconds, to do it in 10.35 seconds. There is a limit though, that no amount of training, nutrition, altering the early development of etc can surpass (for what its worth, FM does not simulate the potential for use of performance enhancing drugs)

When you get to these malleable, semi-permeable limits you're using the argument of "we don't know the limit, therefore it should be unlimited" which isn't true. What you're saying is that you should put the potential on the table for person A to run 100m in 9 seconds, because you don't yet know that 10.2 is actually his limit. Which isn't realistic. 

You can put all the barriers in the way, with obscure things like "elite players" (there's no definitive guide to elite players after all, its a judgement call from a researcher, exactly like a 190PA for a youngster is) and build in diminishing returns and diminishing likelihood of success but all that means is that when the next Lionel Messi comes through, when the next Cristiano Ronaldo comes through, you actually end up creating a research team that performs even worse in trying to gauge where they will end up in world football. 

- - -

The idea that your potential increases by playing with better players is ludicrous though, its literally the exact same thing as suggesting someone gets stronger by training in a gym of bodybuilders, or that by running on a track with top level sprinters you become faster. It's mistaking correlation with causation (suggesting something akin to that a surge in the sales of scissors is responsible for a recent increase in stabbing victims), and furthermore its mistaking the fact that this isn't a persons potential going higher, its them fulfilling more of their potential in a different environment. 

Collectively we do sometimes get it wrong, that happens and we amend it when we next get the chance to do so, but instead of it being a sensible situation where very few of those players in a lower level can easily step up to the top level in their country, all of these players would immediately become capable of it. Thousands of players would have an immediate 10-20CA worth of growth in terms of player development at their tips. 

Not to mention, how do you even attempt to normalise this for players who have recently been relegated? How do you alter it for players who have been down for 2 years? What about players who are on the up, you end up with a million and one different arbitrary rules to make it work. 

Let's say Championship Bob, the journeyman with 5 championship teams under his belt has 10CA of growth within 2 months of moving to a premier league team, because they threw that special improvement juice on him in training. Does ex-premier league Dave who's team come down last year only get a 5CA free boost? And what about ex-premier league Tim who had a few years up there and wasn't up to it have if he goes back? 5 or 10CA for him going back to that level even though he failed would be silly, maybe we give him a +2. Meanwhile, League 1 Freddy, who has just been signed by a championship side and has gone in 4 years from non-league to the championship, he should have a +20 burst in CA if he gets to the premier league right?

- - -

Ultimately, no matter which way you take this kind of system, you have to impose arbitrary, nonsensical limitations. Not because I can't envisage what you're saying or what you're trying to get at, but because its a computer game. If you don't put shackles on a computer game, you end up with players being able to dramatically take advantage of the game.

I know this first hand from the days when attribute weightings were worked out somehow, and training regimes were developed (for example train a striker to be competent in MC and DC, maintain this and alternate between them, never going above or below competent). Go back through my post history, you can see I had Keirrison scoring 2000 goals in the premier league. That wasn't because I was some tactical master at the game, the game had arbitrary limitations that if you pushed the right way would cause unintended things to happen. The game has since made a raft of improvements on the player weightings attribute whether organically or in direct response to what it was players found out at this time. I've not seen anyone come close to even remotely figuring the current system out, and it works a lot more organically and seamlessly in the game. It's not perfect, but it is better. 

Could it be made to work? Yes. Would it be worth the effort it would take to get working and be seamless to players? Almost certainly not. 

[Haiku]

I think Raptor's idea sounds right and realistic. Replace PA with Natural talent, which is basically the tempo of growth. You can observe this easily over each research cycle and you can alter it quite easily for every new fm release. If you have seen the player developed quite rapidly during the past year, set a high number, if he hasn't improved at all set a low number and he'll barely improve further in the game. PA is not impacting speed of growth at all, it just puts a limit at where the player suddenly stops improving once he has reached it.

[Raptor Longe]

16 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Usain Bolt could never do a 100m sprint in 8 seconds. His limitations, and indeed quite likely the limitations of all human kind prevent that. It's a genetic limitation. 

We all have a potential for the fastest we can run 100m in. For person A he might currently do 100m in 11 seconds and his potential might be to do it in 10.2 seconds, for person B currently running 100m in 11 seconds, to do it in 10.35 seconds. There is a limit though, that no amount of training, nutrition, altering the early development of etc can surpass (for what its worth, FM does not simulate the potential for use of performance enhancing drugs)

When you get to these malleable, semi-permeable limits you're using the argument of "we don't know the limit, therefore it should be unlimited" which isn't true. What you're saying is that you should put the potential on the table for person A to run 100m in 9 seconds, because you don't yet know that 10.2 is actually his limit. Which isn't realistic. 

You can put all the barriers in the way, with obscure things like "elite players" (there's no definitive guide to elite players after all, its a judgement call from a researcher, exactly like a 190PA for a youngster is) and build in diminishing returns and diminishing likelihood of success but all that means is that when the next Lionel Messi comes through, when the next Cristiano Ronaldo comes through, you actually end up creating a research team that performs even worse in trying to gauge where they will end up in world football. 

- - -

The idea that your potential increases by playing with better players is ludicrous though, its literally the exact same thing as suggesting someone gets stronger by training in a gym of bodybuilders, or that by running on a track with top level sprinters you become faster. It's mistaking correlation with causation (suggesting something akin to that a surge in the sales of scissors is responsible for a recent increase in stabbing victims), and furthermore its mistaking the fact that this isn't a persons potential going higher, its them fulfilling more of their potential in a different environment. 

Collectively we do sometimes get it wrong, that happens and we amend it when we next get the chance to do so, but instead of it being a sensible situation where very few of those players in a lower level can easily step up to the top level in their country, all of these players would immediately become capable of it. Thousands of players would have an immediate 10-20CA worth of growth in terms of player development at their tips. 

Not to mention, how do you even attempt to normalise this for players who have recently been relegated? How do you alter it for players who have been down for 2 years? What about players who are on the up, you end up with a million and one different arbitrary rules to make it work. 

Let's say Championship Bob, the journeyman with 5 championship teams under his belt has 10CA of growth within 2 months of moving to a premier league team, because they threw that special improvement juice on him in training. Does ex-premier league Dave who's team come down last year only get a 5CA free boost? And what about ex-premier league Tim who had a few years up there and wasn't up to it have if he goes back? 5 or 10CA for him going back to that level even though he failed would be silly, maybe we give him a +2. Meanwhile, League 1 Freddy, who has just been signed by a championship side and has gone in 4 years from non-league to the championship, he should have a +20 burst in CA if he gets to the premier league right?

- - -

Ultimately, no matter which way you take this kind of system, you have to impose arbitrary, nonsensical limitations. Not because I can't envisage what you're saying or what you're trying to get at, but because its a computer game. If you don't put shackles on a computer game, you end up with players being able to dramatically take advantage of the game.

I know this first hand from the days when attribute weightings were worked out somehow, and training regimes were developed (for example train a striker to be competent in MC and DC, maintain this and alternate between them, never going above or below competent). Go back through my post history, you can see I had Keirrison scoring 2000 goals in the premier league. That wasn't because I was some tactical master at the game, the game had arbitrary limitations that if you pushed the right way would cause unintended things to happen. The game has since made a raft of improvements on the player weightings attribute whether organically or in direct response to what it was players found out at this time. I've not seen anyone come close to even remotely figuring the current system out, and it works a lot more organically and seamlessly in the game. It's not perfect, but it is better. 

Could it be made to work? Yes. Would it be worth the effort it would take to get working and be seamless to players? Almost certainly not. 

 

What a coincidence, I was an athlete in the category of hundred meters, after an injury suffered as a kid that did not allow me to become a football player (I had been already bought by the Turin), and I was also a youth football coach for about 3 years (I have some trainee license FIGC). And I would also be one who at the University has studied motor science... 

 

It is true that there are human PHYSICAL limits. Science tells us that a man in a hundred meters will never go beyond 9.48 seconds. And there are people who have a better physical predisposition than others (not everyone can do 10 seconds in one hundred meters). But it is also true that a man can improve his performance if he has had bad coaches. When I became an athlete I started 12.5 seconds with a footballer training, at 12 seconds, at 11.7 seconds, reaching a time of 11.18 seconds. Do you know why? Because I ran badly, because I had an excess of fat in my body (from 97 to 88 kg), because I trained my muscles differently.
I made the example of Petagna, who weighed 95 kg, and before returning to Atalanta on the loan, he lost 10 KG, improving his speed (less weight, but identical physical strength), increasing his resistance. Certain physical improvements are rare for those who have already reached full physical maturity.

But here we are talking about football, not athletics. And in football, improvements are not just physical ones. They are technical, they are mental, they are tactical, they are getting used to playing at a higher level. There are plenty of players who, from lower training structures, to better training facilities, have improved their physical performance. Though passing from poor coaches to better coaches, they improved tactically, and with more experienced teammates, they improved their approach to the game. And playing against stronger opponents, if you have a bit of talent, generally a player improves.

So why put limits on this growth? If one does not grow physically because he does not have the right qualities, he can grow in other ways, technically, mentally. Andrea Pirlo (great talent) did not have the dynamic qualities to play as offensive midfielder, changed role, and became a world top. A Marco Parolo (medium talent), he did not have the technical qualities but he improved physically and mentally, and became a good box-to-box midfielder.

Here is not being said that a 23-year-old C Series player, with CA 95, is in Serie A, he immediately improves to 120 CA (without playing). In fact it will hardly reach 100 CA during that season, without playing, and without much talent. I'm talking about gradual growth for normal talents, a little better growth for good talents but not just the best facilities (and it's not said that a Serie A club has better facilities than a Serie C club). Even because the current system already allows a certain kind of growth, it is not the PA that decides it, but PA stops it.

We remove this limit, and let the starting abilities we have given to a player, and the game, to allow each player's growth to the maximum that allows him his abilities and career. Is it so complicated?

 

 

[eliseo]

Wouldn't it be possible to stick to PA but make it maybe an interval (similar to negative PAs, maybe with narrower limits for "grown-ups"). And instead of it generating a PA within that range for each new game, make it "fluctuate" maybe in the way Raptor Longe explained?

I am just thinking out loud here.

[santy001]

PA is representative of the limitations we all have though. That is its sole, defining purpose. There is the understanding that unfortunately, from time to time we will get it wrong but unless we start importing researchers from the year 2030 we're never going to get it right all the time.

It's literally, exactly the equivalent, of saying that your 23 year old C series player with CA 95 goes to 120 CA and he also goes from 170cm to 185cm. Or that he goes from being blonde haired to brown haired, or even that he goes from having 2 eyes to 3 eyes. You're removing what is supposed to be his limitations as a footballer and the entity that we create within FM.

It's not what its supposed to represent. 

And the system you're talking about, that which governs player development is covered directly and indirectly by professionalism, ambition, determination, work rate and pretty much the entire package of what makes a player. Directly you have the attributes like professionalism, indirectly you have the attributes like work rate and consistency which means a manager is more likely to see positive things and keep giving him the platform on which to develop.

 

[Raptor Longe]

6 minutes ago, santy001 said:

PA is representative of the limitations we all have though. That is its sole, defining purpose. There is the understanding that unfortunately, from time to time we will get it wrong but unless we start importing researchers from the year 2030 we're never going to get it right all the time.

It's literally, exactly the equivalent, of saying that your 23 year old C series player with CA 95 goes to 120 CA and he also goes from 170cm to 185cm. Or that he goes from being blonde haired to brown haired, or even that he goes from having 2 eyes to 3 eyes. You're removing what is supposed to be his limitations as a footballer and the entity that we create within FM.

It's not what its supposed to represent. 

And the system you're talking about, that which governs player development is covered directly and indirectly by professionalism, ambition, determination, work rate and pretty much the entire package of what makes a player. Directly you have the attributes like professionalism, indirectly you have the attributes like work rate and consistency which means a manager is more likely to see positive things and keep giving him the platform on which to develop.

 

But who said that one should grow taller or something else? The game already has limitations on physical growth, and generally improves slightly the other attributes and focuses on the main ones.
I have never seen a player with 180 of PA, starting with 100 of CA, with 9 in Speed and Acceleration parameters, get to have 20 in the two parameters, even training them for years. At most it will come if they are fortunate to 13, but in general the game will increase the rest. Physical parameters, especially in certain roles, are those that have slower growth. They grow on average when players are young, and then grow more slowly.

Anyway, this is not the point.
Let me make another example.

I currently have the player "John Smith" in the team, the player has 20 years and 90 CA and 110 PA.
The player is good, he plays well in my team, but for a CA limit he has been imposed with PA despite being well trained (15 in the Professional Parameter), despite being young and I have the right structures, he will not exceed never the limit that was imposed on him.

Let's say this limit does not exist, and instead of 110 of PA, a 10 in the Natural Talent parameter has been inserted.
This player will never become a phenomenon, because with the starting CA, and with medium-level growth, despite all those structures, he will never go beyond a certain level. Instead of 110 of CA, he will reach a decent 125 or 130 or even 135.

A 19-year-old Tielemans, compared to John Smith, who is a talented player, instead of -9 / -10 PA, a 20 in Natural Talent and a 15 in Professionalism. Although placed under the same conditions (90 CA), Tielemans will at the same time reach a much higher value, 150 or 170 or 190, will decide on the video game in each save, which will be different from the others.

 

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, Raptor Longe said:

We remove this limit, and let the starting abilities we have given to a player, and the game, to allow each player's growth to the maximum that allows him his abilities and career. Is it so complicated?

If you want to remove this limit, you have to make a convincing argument either that (i) all young players with high starting ability should be able to continually improve until they have 200 CA (ii) it's better for the maximum PA a player can achieve to be set by a function of their age, CA "professionalism", "ambition" and similar attributes and a value called "natural talent" so the researcher still effectively sets a maximum PA, they just don't understand what number it will be.

You have not done either, and both making growth totally unlimited or making players develop in similarly predictable ways but with much more researcher error will result in much more unrealistic futures and unbalanced games.

I mean, what's the difference between setting John Smith's PA at 135 and setting his "natural talent" to 10 in your example, except that researchers understand that the first example means that they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player if they have a good career and don't understand that setting "natural talent" to 10 means they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player because "natural talent" levels have to be set differently for players of different professionalism?

[legend_killer82]

15 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

I currently have the player "John Smith" in the team, the player has 20 years and 90 CA and 110 PA.
The player is good, he plays well in my team, but for a CA limit he has been imposed with PA despite being well trained (15 in the Professional Parameter), despite being young and I have the right structures, he will not exceed never the limit that was imposed on him.

Let's say this limit does not exist, and instead of 110 of PA, a 10 in the Natural Talent parameter has been inserted.
This player will never become a phenomenon, because with the starting CA, and with medium-level growth, despite all those structures, he will never go beyond a certain level. Instead of 110 of CA, he will reach a decent 125 or 130 or even 135.

A 19-year-old Tielemans, compared to John Smith, who is a talented player, instead of -9 / -10 PA, a 20 in Natural Talent and a 15 in Professionalism. Although placed under the same conditions (90 CA), Tielemans will at the same time reach a much higher value, 150 or 170 or 190, will decide on the video game in each save, which will be different from the others.

 

I think this example fits perfectly, it gives much more the idea of it with worse players. Why to a 17 - 23 years old player we should destroy all his possibilities to become an average player? Not always there are the likes of Messi or CR7, easy to understand they will become top players. Why should we block most of players to 10-20 points of his actual CA? It doesn't have to become a world class player, but maybe a 90 CA could become a 120 or 130 with hard training and other variants, instead of being forced to block at let's say 110 cause of the PA limit

[Maaka]

1 hour ago, mersk said:

 

But we all know it's a hard cap for the CA, and we all know what that means. We've all played the game.

 

Also, no one is arguing for a change for the sake of change itself. It's been repeated multiple times how and why the proposed solution would be an improvement, with the key element being that you allow for a more dynamic and realistic experience. You're simply saying "no, I don't like this" without offering an improvement yourself. We're talking about how to improve an outdated system, and your contribution is "no".

The idea that this proposal would be an improvement is just an opinion, not a fact, I've argued (and has others) that it does not represent an improvement on the current system. To boil it down to one word, "no", is technically true, yes, but please, read the arguments that have been made against this proposal.

This is a game of numbers, everything in the game has to be quantified (at least "under the hood") somehow, and this proposal just says that we should remove one attribute, and replace it with another, and this would in effect not change the end result, just give other "results" during the game (meaning that the current system allows some players to evolve a certain way, the proposed system would allow other players to evolve certain ways instead).

That's why I'm not convinced this would be a change for the better, or to sum it up the way it seems you prefer to read it; "no".

[Longhorn]

Since the game itself points out that a player's CA will not change much once the player reaches the age of 24 it would seem that there is a natural upper limit to a player's development, even if there were no PA in the game.  Thus, the player's experiences up to that age would govern his ultimate CA even without a PA.

[Haiku]

I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

[Longhorn]

17 minutes ago, Haiku said:

I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

I haven't done exactly what you suggest but I have done this:

I played with several managers at once, one with my main club team, one with the national team, and others with lower level leagues.  Using the editor I give each team excellent facilities and staffing.  Then in the academy for my main club I use the editor to give a few players a PA of 170, a few of 150, and one with a PA of 200.  I do this each year with newgens.  I play the kids to the max in the various teams I manage over a number of years, using loans.  I can get a CA close to  their max of 170 or 150, but I don't recall ever getting anybody up to anywhere close to a CA of 200.  Another thing I noticed is that the player's development for the first few years (16-18) is generally proportional to their PA.  For example, taking 2 kids in the same academy, one with a PA of 150 and one with a PA of 130, and giving them identical amounts of playing time, personalities, etc, the one with the higher PA will develop faster.

So based on this sort of test I might conclude that the PA is not a necessary upper limit for highly talented kids, but does limit moderate to lower talent kids.

[enigmatic]

47 minutes ago, Haiku said:

I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

Editor allows you to filter players by club, select a large number of players and change one attribute for all of them at the same time

Doing it with an entire database might be ambitious, but doing it with all players for all the top tiers of the top 3-5 European leagues should be feasible without taking too long.

[santy001]

54 minutes ago, Haiku said:

I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

I can recount previous examples from research which not exactly what you're looking for, will perhaps demonstrate the development.

At Stoke down the years I've rated a lot of players as -7 and -8 PA's. Florent Cuvelier, Oliver Shenton, Karim Rossi, Thibauld Verlinden, Julien Ngoy, Harry Souttar and various others over the last couple of years.

They're players who are in bands that if I had desired, I could have made very good players when fully developed in FM. That's not beyond the scope of a researcher, and while the development path means its not such a sure thing anymore it was do-able. But this also meant the opposite was true.

I'm sure the immediate thought is "but those aren't so high" but I'm fairly confident I can create a world class CB at around 130CA, and midfielders & strikers at around 150CA. So they can meet this criteria if I were to go against the spirit of what research is and decide "I want Stoke to have uber youngsters coming through" and somehow managed to get it past the testing team.

For each of those players over the last few FM's, I don't think (and I keep tabs on the forums) more than 1 or 2 people have had them develop into really good players. 

After Seb mentioned the changes of last year I kept an especially close eye on them, in my own saves and others where ever I could. Right now in my game at the age of 22 Thibaud Verlinden is a bit part player for Huddersfield in the Championship, Julien Ngoy is playing for Augsburg in the German second division, Harry Souttar is on loan in League 1 with Nottingham, and Oliver Shenton is in the reserves of championship side Sheffield Wednesday. 

4 players who have PA's that mean they are at least Premier league squad players in terms of potential, but also capable of being in Premier league title squads are all at the 2nd tier or lower. 

Maybe they'll develop later in their careers, as that is a distinct possibility, but even as anecdotal as this it, none of them have even come close to hitting their PA. 

- - - 

And now to bring this back to the point at hand...

If natural talent was the factor at play here, and these CA gains were coming by virtue of playing with higher level players. As soon as a human or AI manager decided to try and bring one of these players through, they would immediately be on an express track to a top flight career because they are naturally talented. Their relatively high -X PA's reflect this "natural talent". The way in which I set-up the rest of their toolkit of attributes lends itself to how they develop. With a natural talent replacement governing this instead, and easy to come by CA gains just by virtue of playing with better players, then I'm pretty sure all 4 would be at a much higher level than they are. 

[enigmatic]

Does SI keep stats on CA/PA changes from version to version? Would be interesting to know the percentage of players which ended up peaking at or below the level they were given by researchers several years ago (apart from doubtless having plenty of other benchmarking and anomaly-spotting uses for SI)

[TheGreat10ne1]

I myself have, in the past, discussed the idea of removing PA from the game, and I must say that this is a great idea.

The only thing is that, a player isn't limited by his PA, just as much as he isn't limited by his CA. I've seen a 28 year-old striker with 120 CA score 20+ goals per season in the Premier League for 5 seasons. I've seen a player with 169 PA win the Golden Ball 7 years in a row. Fact of the matter is that Vardy could happen in-game, he just might be a 115 PA player who's defying odds by being amazing. And it does happen, just as rarely as it happens in real life.

But as someone who hates to see a wonderkid suddenly stop improving at the age of 19 for absolutely no reason has just infuriated me so much in the past that I'd love for your idea to go through. I don't even see the need for CA, why not just have attributes and let in-game issues affect how a player develops.

[Maaka]

1 hour ago, Haiku said:

I would like to test a save with all players set on 200 PA, just to see what will happen under current system and what could spoil the game. But it seem impossible task to edit the whole database to 200PA. Any suggestions?

I know there are certain third party editors that allows for mass editing, but I'm not sure this is an option.

[Longhorn]

Another interesting test that might shed some light on player development in the game would be to compare the national teams of selected countries and then run the game for say 10 years without any human managers or involvement, and then compare the same national teams.  For example, if I look at the national team for Germany in FM 18, I notice the top 10 players have a CA that matches their PA (max being 189 for the GK).  I don't see the same thing for England, nor for Brazil (although Neymar has a CA of 190 and a PA of 197).  Nonetheless, all these sides have pretty high CAs.  While I can't say at this point what would happen in FM 18, based on my previous experience with prior versions (e.g. FM 17) I'd be willing to bet that the CAs for these teams would be noticeably lower after they became dominated by newgens. Either way it would be interesting to see how the AI handles development and how closely the results match what we see from real life players.  If the results match what we see in real life then kudos to FM

[Cam_Warw]

One such limitation I see on this method of progression is promotions.

If I read the suggestion properly, Team A with brilliant tactics gain promotion from the Conference south to the Conference premier. The whole team gains around 5/10 CA boost with this promotion over the net season. 

The team makes no transfers in, but with the same (*Gamebreakingly good) tactics, they get promoted again. The whole team gains another 5/10 CA. 

Promoted again to league 2,1, championship and premiership, this team gain ability each time. All in all the players have improved in ability significantly. They are all now at, a for example, championship level. The same team of players has grown into championship players where they were once conference south quality, beyond what should have been their limitations, purely because of a higher league. 

Or a more realistic example, a sub keeper stays with the club that get promoted again while buying better players etc. Despite only ever warming a bench and playing under 23 football, his growth still far exceeds the current limitations. 

Again top league players would keep growing if they are natural talent of 20. Players like Neymar with natural talent of 20, would get better and better until every stat is a 20? Without a limit someone of his quality at such a young age would still have a great deal of improvement in your method, breaking the current PA limit of 200? 

This may be badly worded, but the gist is that a combination of the two, speed of development with an upper limit of ability, would in my opinion be the best option. 

[faber83]

Damn, some guys here I see them getting a bit "hysterical" in their conservatism...

So, to give a solid base to Raport Longe's proposal, let's put it in a simple spot that NOBODY CAN DENY in terms of LACK OF REALISM in this freaking game (if you deny that, then you're speaking in a bad faith):

actually, EVER, in Football Manager YOU CAN NEVER SEE A 2nd or 3rd DIVISION PLAYER BECOMING A DECENT MID-HIGH 1st DIVISION PLAYER IN YOUR SAVE, IN A FEW YEARS! An that's because of the PA and/or the growth system and the weighted values allowed! That player has got to wait for six months or one year 'till the following research, for his real values to be put in place (?)! Why???

An example, for god's sake!? LORENZO INSIGNE!!! I watched every match he played for Foggia in 3rd division: in that edition of FM he had ridiculous CA-PA-VALUES, so why couldn't I at least assign him his great and quick growth potential, that was already so evident then???

That said, there are two different scenarios:

either WE CHANGE THE RULES OF RESEARCH, BY SOFTENING THE LIMITS IN CA-PA-VALUES IN LOWER CLUBS AND LOWER LEAGUES, or allowing room for exceptions to the rules........ or WE CHANGE THE PA/GROWTH SYSTEM.

You cannot escape this question.

Period (sorry for shouting with capitals).

[pdjacks]

9 hours ago, Maaka said:

I don't recall exactly how it works, but IMO it should be something like an average PA for a nation, linked to the nations reputation and other factors (meaning that if the rep. rises, the avg. PA would rise as well, in the future), and that a random amount of players would occasionally exceed (by far) the "national" PA. Thus, the number of players with higher PA would rise in the future if the nation gets better and better.

That makes a lot of sense.

[pdjacks]

Maybe a good solution here could be a system that combines the one we have at present with the system being suggested by the OP:

Allow PA to dictate the the limit of the ability of any given player, I think it must, but also allow PA to fluctuate based on a second background factor. That second factor could be a combination of things such as hidden talent, coaching facilities, how well that player's personality fits with his manger's, his coaches, his team mates, how well the playing system suits him (Vardy plays well at Leicester because the system suits him, in FM his PA and therefore his CA could be greatly raised by that, but transfer him to another team that plays differently, and he might not be nearly as effective) quality of opposition (a championship player, to an extent, learns how to play in the premier league by playing against other teams in the premier league). 

I think at present the problems with CA are chiefly:

• That there is a degree of banding within the game, and so it's nigh on impossible for a league 2 player to ever play in the Premier League, but by the same token it also shouldn't be possible for every League 2 player to play in the Premier League, just because there are one off players that can, doesn't mean that the rest of that league can too, and just because some players have improved with their teams as those teams have risen through the divisions, doesn't mean that every player in that League 2 team was able to step up as their team promoted each season, some do reach a ceiling at which point they have to be replaced in order for their club to progress. 
• PA is just too easy to see within the game, once you have good scouts and good coaches, you know with almost 100% accuracy what the potential for any given player in the game can be. I think it needs some kind of hidden factor (that can't be in anyway scouted) in order to have some surprises happen that the player simply can't ever see coming. 
• That progression of a player is linear - A player can have PA of 200 and he either will or won't reach that limit. Another player can have PA of 100 and he also will or won't reach that limit. In real life it's not like that; as stated above, some player come into their potential a lot later than others, in FM it's always a race to develop them as far as possible before their 24, because there's no chance of any improvement after that. By the same token, some players reach a high potential very quickly, but then go off the boil just as quick; Lee Sharpe being a prime example; he had bags of potential and ability up until his mid twenties, but from that point on his career nosedived. In FM that wouldn't happen, he'd reach a ceiling and then stay there. 

So for me progression of a player's ability is too linear at present, where it's based on just CA and PA, it needs something else that will allow it to act like a quadratic equation instead where there can always be a (slight) chance of a late blooming superstar, or a good player who plays for the right system at the right time, or the opposite; a kid who just goes in the wrong direction due to attitude or injury or bad coaching or whatever else. 

[Cougar2010]

1 hour ago, faber83 said:

That said, there are two different scenarios:

either WE CHANGE THE RULES OF RESEARCH, BY SOFTENING THE LIMITS IN CA-PA-VALUES IN LOWER CLUBS AND LOWER LEAGUES, or allowing room for exceptions to the rules........ or WE CHANGE THE PA/GROWTH SYSTEM.

You cannot escape this question.

The main issue seems to be real players.

The PA system works well for newgens created by the game and seems to serve the purpose that you want - high PA players being created at lower level clubs, some go on to have good careers at top clubs, others fail for a number of different reasons including simply not being spotted by bigger clubs.

I do agree that for real players that it is more limiting as real players at smaller clubs aren't assigned big PAs even if they are never going to reach them.

I would say the issue isn't as big as you are making out though for the following reason - Here you have used Insigne as an example while in England Vardy is often used.  However when they were playing at lower league clubs several years ago no one complained that their PA was too low, its only now several years later with the benefit of hindsight that you suddenly see it as a issue.

That doesn't mean that the system couldn't be improved though and its clear the crux of the issue is the PAs given to real players.  SI use the (-) system on younger players to give flexibility and have even narrowed the options in recent versions.  Personally I think trying to narrow the range for something we are asking the researchers to guess at is the wrong way to go about it and I've raised that point several times over the years.  It needs to be more flexible, not less when the save is setup.

That means its not the game or the PA system that needs to change, its the way PA is assigned.  Personally I would be perfectly happy with totally random PA with the condition that its above the assigned CA in the database.  This would add variety to each save and mean different players become stars each time.  Even if you don't want to go with fully random you could add certain conditions so say a random PA above 160 for a young player who is expected to become a top player.  Its also worth remembering that whatever the assigned random PA turned out there is no guarantee that the player would ever reach it in game due to the normal factors.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, faber83 said:

Damn, some guys here I see them getting a bit "hysterical" in their conservatism...

So, to give a solid base to Raport Longe's proposal, let's put it in a simple spot that NOBODY CAN DENY in terms of LACK OF REALISM in this freaking game (if you deny that, then you're speaking in a bad faith):

actually, EVER, in Football Manager YOU CAN NEVER SEE A 2nd or 3rd DIVISION PLAYER BECOMING A DECENT MID-HIGH 1st DIVISION PLAYER IN YOUR SAVE, IN A FEW YEARS! An that's because of the PA and/or the growth system and the weighted values allowed! That player has got to wait for six months or one year 'till the following research, for his real values to be put in place (?)! Why???

Umm... I've signed plenty lot of second and third tier players for top tier teams in FM, and played loads for England U21. Some of them, like Ryan Sessegnon, Andre Dozzell and Will Hughes even have a chance of becoming world class.

What would be unrealistic is if I could sign just any young player from a lower division and expect them to turn into a good top division player just because they were playing at a higher level of football. Because very few third tier players make it to the top tier, and even fewer are considered high level. 

I'm doubt Andy King's potential changed much from when he was a good player for Leicester in the third tier to when he was a perfectly useful squad player for Leicester the Premier League champions. Although if you listen to half the people in this thread, a player with an attitude and starting abilities as good as him should have improved a lot when surrounded by better players. He didn't, in FM or real life.

[kevbk6222]

When talking to people in the past I would make the suggestion to increasing PA for every player significantly, but making reaching that PA incredibly difficult. Ofcourse players have an upper limit on their ability, but i would argue that limit is too low in FM and leads to a very linear pattern of development. You know from the first time you see a player how good they could possibly be, regardless of what actually happens in game. you dont have players moving up the ranks in the middle or towards the end of their careers. players develop into the players they can be based on their PA, they peak, then decline. how many footballers in the real world have 100% fulfilled their potential? i would argue the vast majority of them never have. it is far too easy to do so in game, and the PA system doesnt have the flexibility to allow for players to exceed expectations outside of the basic development pattern players go through in game. 

[fmnatic]

Based on all i have read in this thread, as well as previously on PA/CA.

The limitations of the current system are:

*PA is a guess, so potentially , the values are wrong. (for 1 player in thousands or tens of thousands)

*Fails to account for players who move to higher leagues and improve significantly. (usually via promotion  sometimes via transfer)

I propose:

1. To me the current system could be improved by boosting the PA when moving to higher leagues. This boost would happen using a probability distribution, and would significantly impact only a small percentage of players. (This could be weighted on other factors mentioned in the thread superior physical ability, determination, personality types,CA v/s AVG CA for the league they came from. etc.)

2. Further allow these small percentage of players, a development spurt of a year or so, even if they are older . (i.e. make them late bloomers.)

IMO this would give players achieving a double promotion a (small) chance to significantly improve, and also give the human manager the (small) chance to recruit someone from a lower leagues, and see them improve dramatically.

I believe this change would allow a tiny percentage of players to escape the limitations of the current system and keep the vast majority of the CA/PA behavior the game and its researchers get right currently.

 

To further elaborate SI should be able to tell by comparing historical fm player databases what percentage of players , the game got the PA/CA wrong for, and just compensate for that error factor in game. This also allows for a few new gameplay additions such as academies (such as Vardy's) for non league players (ties in with scouting and agents) , feel good stories of players from the lower leagues making it the big leagues. (I would love to see this in my FM inbox.)

[O4epegb]

Wow, so many people can't grasp such basic idea, i am impressed!

 

Very nice proposal, thought about something similar many times. But SI won't implement that ever, because they might lose lots of conservative players.

[SophJay182]

YES YES YES!

 

I've been saying this for years. PA made alot of sense as a shortcut in the days of lower processing power. But computer's are much more powerful than the days of Championship Manager. It makes perfect sense to do away with hard PA caps

[CFuller]

10 hours ago, enigmatic said:

Umm... I've signed plenty lot of second and third tier players for top tier teams in FM, and played loads for England U21. Some of them, like Ryan Sessegnon, Andre Dozzell and Will Hughes even have a chance of becoming world class.

What would be unrealistic is if I could sign just any young player from a lower division and expect them to turn into a good top division player just because they were playing at a higher level of football. Because very few third tier players make it to the top tier, and even fewer are considered high level. 

I'm doubt Andy King's potential changed much from when he was a good player for Leicester in the third tier to when he was a perfectly useful squad player for Leicester the Premier League champions. Although if you listen to half the people in this thread, a player with an attitude and starting abilities as good as him should have improved a lot when surrounded by better players. He didn't, in FM or real life.

Exactly. Your Andy King example shows why increasing a player's CA (let alone their PA) significantly just because their team won promotion is simply not realistic.

Let me bring up another player for a different example - Jon Stead. He was banging in loads of goals as a 20-year-old for Huddersfield in League Two (or Division 3, as it then was), so Blackburn signed him off the back of that. Stead started well enough, but then it turned out that he simply wasn't consistent enough to be a Premier League striker.

It was as if Stead had hit the wall of his 'Potential Ability'. He was no better than a decent Championship striker, as his subsequent career statistics bear out.

If PA was replaced by Natural Talent, who was to say that the CM/FM Stead wouldn't have kept on growing and growing at Blackburn until he was getting them into the Champions League and starting regularly for England? That wouldn't have been very realistic, would it?

4 minutes ago, SophJay182 said:

YES YES YES!

I've been saying this for years. PA made alot of sense as a shortcut in the days of lower processing power. But computer's are much more powerful than the days of Championship Manager. It makes perfect sense to do away with hard PA caps

Believe me, PA has absolutely nothing to do with processing power. I seem to remember some lower-spec old-school football management games in the 90s/early 00s where 'maximum potential' wasn't really a thing, and any player could grow exponentially until they were like Ronaldo (the original one) or Zidane.

[Cougar2010]

1 hour ago, O4epegb said:

Wow, so many people can't grasp such basic idea, i am impressed!

 

Very nice proposal, thought about something similar many times. But SI won't implement that ever, because they might lose lots of conservative players.

 

Its not the case at all, Raptor is basically wanting to remove PA and replace it with something that does the same job so the overall difference in systems have a very similar end result.

Whilst Raptor's system would perhaps feel more natural it would also probably make it easier for human users to game the system by identifying the players with higher natural talent and gain a further advantage over the AI managers.

The question is then what benefit do we gain from this system as users if the end result is similar and if the end result is similar why would SI invest time & money into changing something that currently works.

 

EDIT

As I said in my previous post the main issue seems to be with real players and their assigned PA,  thats where the discussion should be focussed on.

[Raptor Longe]

I have read the various posts, I have been able to appreciate the various interventions, which are positive or negative. Having an idea does not mean it is fixed or can not be improved. And I understand the thought that impels not to implement it.

But the point I want it to be understood is that the current system, in which "I am human can not only establish the ability Current, not only mental parameters, chance of injury, but also in addition to the player  maximum of ability can achieve in the future", seems a little overwhelming. 

And what I'm talking about, I caught 4 years ago Dybala and Belotti. In the game they became both strong (my idea was to give -9 to both and I got a bit clashed with the other ratings, and I had to give it less). For me they were very strong, one with an absurd talent, the other one with a crazy Hardwork and a discreet talent. 

If instead of a restrict PA, I had another way of inserting this "Natural Talent", giving Dybala 18/19/20 in NT, and 15 in Professionalism, and Belotti a 13/14 in NT and 18/19/20 in Professionalism, then it would be possible to see a Dybala that exceeds 170 CA during the years (maybe not so fast as it is now) and a Belotti arriving nearly 160 CAs.
While in the game Dybala stopped at 153 and Belotti at 148... For charity, they did well both though (fortunately), but I was always dissatisfied with seeing their parameters at best, because for me they were too few. Because for me, for what I had seen in both field and training, their chances were bigger. I literally cried, as a Palermo fan, when they left.

For me, the current method is a limit. And playing, we all see why, we are all forced to abandon players who play with us well, because they play well, they do not grow up and then become inadequate when the competition gets higher. So much the best players we take the same, but there are players that in fact one brings back for performance, and it happens in reality.

 

I'm sure there are better solutions to use, that they can be studied. I have said what my thinking is, and what could be one of the substitute methods.
- Eliminate PA.
- Introducing new mental parameters (example Natural Talent), and calibrate other growth parameters.
- Decrease growth to 160 CA, decrease it further to 180 CA.

I hope that this proposal will be studied and discussed, and I hope that FM2019 can already see the best methods.
 

[Raptor Longe]

16 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

 

Its not the case at all, Raptor is basically wanting to remove PA and replace it with something that does the same job so the overall difference in systems have a very similar end result.

Whilst Raptor's system would perhaps feel more natural it would also probably make it easier for human users to game the system by identifying the players with higher natural talent and gain a further advantage over the AI managers.

The question is then what benefit do we gain from this system as users if the end result is similar and if the end result is similar why would SI invest time & money into changing something that currently works.

 

EDIT

As I said in my previous post the main issue seems to be with real players and their assigned PA,  thats where the discussion should be focussed on.

Sorry, but it's not the same thing at all.
The PA we give is a limit, in fact it is not always reached.
Natural Talent would be a growth parameter.

[Cougar2010]

8 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

Sorry, but it's not the same thing at all.
The PA we give is a limit, in fact it is not always reached.
Natural Talent would be a growth parameter.

But its still setting a limit.

You are controlling growth rather than setting a hard ceiling but the overall end result is the same. 

The hard ceiling is a by product of controlling the growth.

[legend_killer82]

31 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

 

Its not the case at all, Raptor is basically wanting to remove PA and replace it with something that does the same job so the overall difference in systems have a very similar end result.

Whilst Raptor's system would perhaps feel more natural it would also probably make it easier for human users to game the system by identifying the players with higher natural talent and gain a further advantage over the AI managers.

The question is then what benefit do we gain from this system as users if the end result is similar and if the end result is similar why would SI invest time & money into changing something that currently works.

 

EDIT

As I said in my previous post the main issue seems to be with real players and their assigned PA,  thats where the discussion should be focussed on.

Disagree. the 2 things are not even similar.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Disagree. the 2 things are not even similar.

You should be capable of understanding that they are and to not acknowledge that is ridiculous.

[O4epegb]

7 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

but the overall end result is the same. 

Not even close. Don't seem you understand the idea.

[legend_killer82]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

You should be capable of understanding that they are and to not acknowledge that is ridiculous.

You have your opinion, i have mine. And i guess implying(You should be capable of understanding) that i'm dumb doesn't prove me wrong.

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, O4epegb said:

Not even close. Don't seem you understand the idea.

 

2 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

You have your opinion, i have mine. And i guess implying(You should be capable of understanding) that i'm dumb doesn't prove me wrong.

 

I'll try to explain it for you.

Lets take a random player in Raptor's system and give him the ideal conditions to improve.

With 20 in this new natural talent hidden attribute the player would reach say 200CA during his career.

However with 10 in natural talent he would only reach say 160CA under ideal conditions because his growth year on year is lower.

Moving on to 5 in natural talent he may only reach 120CA because his growth has been restricted futher.

 

Although you haven't set a direct hard ceiling the indirect result of controlling growth is a ceiling has still been created.

[legend_killer82]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

 

 

I'll try to explain it for you.

Lets take a random player in Raptor's system and give him the ideal conditions to improve.

With 20 in this new natural talent hidden attribute the player would reach say 200CA during his career.

However with 10 in natural talent he would only reach say 160CA under ideal conditions because his growth year on year is lower.

Moving on to 5 in natural talent he may only reach 120CA because his growth has been restricted futher.

 

Although you haven't set a direct hard ceiling the indirect result of controlling growth is a ceiling has still been created.

Do you understand that his proposal is variable whle PA is fixed? How can they be similar? One is the same, always, for everyone and at any save game, the other one is dynamic, variable. I would even say they are opposite ideas actually.

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Do you understand that his proposal is variable whle PA is fixed? How can they be similar? One is the same, always, for everyone and at any save game, the other one is dynamic, variable. I would even say they are opposite ideas actually.

Its not variable, he is proposing a hard fixed number for natural talent that doesn't change.

I'm seriously concerned that an assistant researcher can't understand this

 

EDIT

If you are proposing that the natural talent figure is random and can change from save to save but not once the save is created thats a different discussion and one I could fully get behind.  In that case the outcome is similar to having random PA each save.

[Raptor Longe]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

 

 

I'll try to explain it for you.

Lets take a random player in Raptor's system and give him the ideal conditions to improve.

With 20 in this new natural talent hidden attribute the player would reach say 200CA during his career.

However with 10 in natural talent he would only reach say 160CA under ideal conditions because his growth year on year is lower.

Moving on to 5 in natural talent he may only reach 120CA because his growth has been restricted futher.

 

Although you haven't set a direct hard ceiling the indirect result of controlling growth is a ceiling has still been created.

But that is not so.
20 in NT does not mean 200 PA, it is a value of GROWTH SPEED.

You want to call it Growth Speed instead of Natural Talent. I have proposed a more evocative name because in football we talk about talent, normally. But I also call it Growth Speed. But it is not the PA, which is a LIMIT OF GROWTH.

[legend_killer82]

4 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Its not variable, he is proposing a hard fixed number for natural talent that doesn't change.

I'm seriously concerned that an assistant researcher can't understand this

 

EDIT

If you are proposing that the natural talent figure is random and can change from save to save but not once the save is created thats a different discussion and one I could fully get behind.  In that case the outcome is similar to having random PA each save.

We are in 4 to tell you that it's not the same, including 2 assistant researchers. Is it possible that we are all stupid and you are the only smart one? Cause that's what you are assuming with your posts.

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, Raptor Longe said:

But that is not so.
20 in NT does not mean 200 PA, it is a value of GROWTH SPEED.

You want to call it Growth Speed instead of Natural Talent. I have proposed a more evocative name because in football we talk about talent, normally. But I also call it Growth Speed. But it is not the PA, which is a LIMIT OF GROWTH.

But its still controlling growth.

Whenever you control growth you indirectly set a maximum limit.

Take a car and put it on a straight one mile track.  PA is like putting a speed limiter on the vehicle setting a maximum speed that he can't go over.  Your idea is like controlling the rate at which the car accelerates.  A car which accelerates faster will reach a higher maximum speed along that straight than a one which accelerates slower.

[Raptor Longe]

A player already has a growth factor, professionalism, but that is a parameter that indicates the ability to improve with the workout engagement.

We introduce a parameter that instead is a NATURAL GROWTH inherent in each player, Lionel Messi has a growth, a natural talent greater than an Insigne or Vardy, or a Belotti, or Kane. We give this value, the opportunity for players with little professionalism (Balotelli type), to grow up to a point (obviously supported by the structures, playing high-level competitions and few injuries) you need a combination of both values, combined with other parameters, combined with luck, which can make it possible for a player to achieve excellence.

Then if you do not understand it, the others come to us. Ask yourself why.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

A player already has a growth factor, professionalism, but that is a parameter that indicates the ability to improve with the workout engagement.

We introduce a parameter that instead is a NATURAL GROWTH inherent in each player, Lionel Messi has a growth, a natural talent greater than an Insigne or Vardy, or a Belotti, or Kane. We give this value, the opportunity for players with little professionalism (Balotelli type), to grow up to a point (obviously supported by the structures, playing high-level competitions and few injuries) you need a combination of both values, combined with other parameters, combined with luck, which can make it possible for a player to achieve excellence.

Then if you do not understand it, the others come to us. Ask yourself why.

Yes professionalism is already a growth parameter, you are fully correct with that.

Your proposal adds another one into the mix - natural talent.

The combination of all the growth parameters in FM give a player a maximum CA he can reach during his career.

By setting a hidden growth parameter you are therefore setting an upper limit on the maximum CA a player can reach which is basically very similar to what PA does.

[santy001]

So now we're supposed to predict a players natural growth? 

"So why did you only give Jamie Vardy a low natural growth 5 years ago when at age 25 his career wasn't amounting to much?"

Ultimately, it just doesn't work. You're trying to say we can't accurately predict these players potential, yet you're saying we can predict the rate at which they're going to grow. 

It's going down a more convoluted and twisted path, trying to defend your idea more than figuring one that works for a game.

- - -

Further to this, what you're saying is actually redundant. If you want your natural growth, just make up whatever average of professionalism, determination, ambition etc that you want. 

The current development model is far more nuanced and organic than the solution you want to replace it.

[Cougar2010]

@Raptor Longe

If you were starting from scratch and designing a game like FM your idea is a good one but the issue here is that SI already has something in place which basically does the same job.

Its then a question of whats the extra benefit to the user to make it worthwhile investing time & money in changing the system.

[Cougar2010]

14 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

We are in 4 to tell you that it's not the same, including 2 assistant researchers. Is it possible that we are all stupid and you are the only smart one? Cause that's what you are assuming with your posts.

Thankfully I'm not someone that takes things on blind faith.

I look at it, evaluate it myself and form my own conclusions which may or may not agree with other peoples conclusions.

However whatever conclusions I form I can usually understand other peoples POV even if I disagree with them.  In this instance there is an inherent flaw in the group thinking and unfortunately none of you can see it atm.  I'm pretty sure there is a psychological term for that but I can't remember what it is

Its also not just me thats telling you this, there are several others who have posted in the thread included a SI staff member.

[O4epegb]

10 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

@Raptor Longe

If you were starting from scratch and designing a game like FM your idea is a good one but the issue here is that SI already has something in place which basically does the same job.

Its then a question of whats the extra benefit to the user to make it worthwhile investing time & money in changing the system.

It is not the same.

 

14 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Yes professionalism is already a growth parameter, you are fully correct with that.

Your proposal adds another one into the mix - natural talent.

The combination of all the growth parameters in FM give a player a maximum CA he can reach during his career.

By setting a hidden growth parameter you are therefore setting an upper limit on the maximum CA a player can reach which is basically very similar to what PA does.

There is no limit. Limit is only time until player starts declining. And player in current system with 95/98 CA/PA could grow to, for example, 110 with new system and good conditions. So systems are not the same. Old system - player not growing. New system - player may grow or may not.