Revaluation of the CA - PA system

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, O4epegb said:

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.

You've contradicted yourself there and identified the problem.

You are saying there is no limit as in you don't directly set one.

Then you are saying time is a limit because the player will start to decline, this is how the proposal sets an indirect limit.

[O4epegb]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

You've contradicted yourself there and identified the problem.

You are saying there is no limit as in you don't directly set one.

Then you are saying time is a limit because the player will start to decline, this is how the proposal sets an indirect limit.

Nope, no contradiction.

I am saying that there is no limit set by human. But yes, there is basically random inderect limit (time), which is set by game, different every time, because player might get injured, might retire, might go to club where he wont play and etc.

[Raptor Longe]

No, do not you understand that?

The Mix from a possible growth, but which will be interwoven by other factors.
1 - Starting CA. The main factor, if a player from 50 or 100 of CA to 17, completely changes.
2 - Training facilities. They are important in giving greater capacity to increase capacity. If you are worse off, you risk getting worse. If you use Manchester UTD facilities, you will grow better.
3 - Injuries. The injury stops growth, or makes a player worse.
4 - Adaptability. A little adaptable player, will occasionally want to go home, will be unconcerned, and with his absence will not improve.
5 - Level of play. Another major factor, if you play with and against lesser players, how can you improve yourself? There is also the risk of a worsening. While playing with and against stronger players, you will have to improve to do well.
6 - Games played. If you do not play, but just look at the bench, how can you improve?
7 - Professionalism. If you do not train well, it is not better if you train more than others, better.
8 - Natural Talent or Natural Growth. The natural predisposition to improve, due to the talent of a player (or the greater ability to learn, that wanting could be a separate value "Tactical Learning" type).
9 - Age. From 15 to 21 years it improves in a certain way, from 21 to 24 more slowly, from 24 to 28/29/30 it improves even more slowly, from 30 to 50 it improves little, does not improve or worsen.

 

Here we already have 8 nonlinear growth values, to which we would add my own or others. Why make limits to it?
I do not know if the concept is clear, now a 60 CA of 16 years old can not get to 200 CA unless it has 20 in professionalism, already an 80 CA of 23 years old will hardly exceed 120 CA.

Why limit this growth, when should we put other factors into the calculation?

[Maaka]

But the point that has been put forward several times is that this change isn't a revolution, it's just about swapping some parameters with some new ones, and in the end the overall results would be pretty much the same, just that it might influence different players than today.

This means that it would be a major change to implement, but without significantly better output, thus why I oppose this.

Again, I do not insist that the current system is perfect, but if it were to be changed, it would have to be to a superior system, which the current proposal fails to be, in my opinion (and, by the looks of it, others - including SI - as well).

 

Btw, could you elaborate on that point, Raptor? I'm not completely sure about what you're saying there:

8 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

1 - Starting CA. The main factor, if a player from 50 or 100 of CA to 17, completely changes.

[Cint]

1 - Starting CA. The main factor, if a player from 50 or 100 of CA to 17, completely changes.

 

I think what he meant was If a player starts with 50CA then when we consider a time a limit of growth, he has worse chance to be a superstar than a player who starts with 100 CA at the same age given the same other parameters like professionalism, natural talent, etc.

 

After deeper thinking into the topic i think it is worth considering. Let the time be a limit of growth and other attirbutes control the tempo. I would also add that there could be different types of Natural Talents, since some players develop physically but are not so good technically. Some players could develop faster their technical attributes but struggle to improve their strenght or pace, Some players could be gifted physically and technially but are just dumb and struggle to understand movement on pitch so they will not develop their vision, positioning or off the ball as fast and other are inteligent so they learn tactics fast but could be not so physically or technically gifted, etc. Different sets of attributes could have their own "Natural Talents" which will multiply the scenarios of growth. So we would have "Natural Talent" for technical attributes, "Intelligence" for mental and "Natural Fitness" for physical. All 3 could be hiden.

 

 

[Brentford Alan]

45 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

No, do not you understand that?

The Mix from a possible growth, but which will be interwoven by other factors.
1 - Starting CA. The main factor, if a player from 50 or 100 of CA to 17, completely changes.
2 - Training facilities. They are important in giving greater capacity to increase capacity. If you are worse off, you risk getting worse. If you use Manchester UTD facilities, you will grow better.
3 - Injuries. The injury stops growth, or makes a player worse.
4 - Adaptability. A little adaptable player, will occasionally want to go home, will be unconcerned, and with his absence will not improve.
5 - Level of play. Another major factor, if you play with and against lesser players, how can you improve yourself? There is also the risk of a worsening. While playing with and against stronger players, you will have to improve to do well.
6 - Games played. If you do not play, but just look at the bench, how can you improve?
7 - Professionalism. If you do not train well, it is not better if you train more than others, better.
8 - Natural Talent or Natural Growth. The natural predisposition to improve, due to the talent of a player (or the greater ability to learn, that wanting could be a separate value "Tactical Learning" type).
9 - Age. From 15 to 21 years it improves in a certain way, from 21 to 24 more slowly, from 24 to 28/29/30 it improves even more slowly, from 30 to 50 it improves little, does not improve or worsen.

 

Here we already have 8 nonlinear growth values, to which we would add my own or others. Why make limits to it?
I do not know if the concept is clear, now a 60 CA of 16 years old can not get to 200 CA unless it has 20 in professionalism, already an 80 CA of 23 years old will hardly exceed 120 CA.

Why limit this growth, when should we put other factors into the calculation?

 

But by setting a natural talent/growth attribute on a 1-20 scale you'd still be limiting the maximum PA (to use the 'current' term) in blocks of 10 (ie 20 natural talent = max 200, 19 = 190, 15 = 150 and so on) - with other factors only serving to decrease the maximum CA a player could reach. And there has to be an upper limit to CA, the game will calculate an upper ceiling based on the numbers put in to the attributes mentioned above, whether you can physically see or set that number (as you can now with PA) or not, it's one of the fundamental elements of the staff database.

Unless you are saying someone with a 10 growth rating could still exceed a CA of, say, 140, just by staying injury free and playing regularly at the top level? In which case if I start a game as Man Utd, buy 11 or so League 1/2 random youngsters aged 16 with high professionalism (who in the current FM would have been assigned a low PA if the researchers do not consider them likely to play at high levels) and low injury proneness, train them with top class coaches and facilities and be guaranteed to have at least 8 of them become world class players if I start feeding them into the first team regularly aged 18 or 19, which just isn't realistic in the slightest.

 

 

 

[Arc4nine]

How can you guys, researchers even, not get it?

No Alan. You are completely wrong on the first paragraph about the limit! This is not what he suggests. And on the second paragraph, where you say it is not realistic in the slightest... what??
If you were to do that in real life, let me tell you what would happen :
1) Those 11 players, due to better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, playing against top talent etc would reach HIGHER ability in a year, than spending that year in League 2.
2) You would be relegated, because their CURRENT level would be too low for Premier (this is why teams don't do it tbh, otherwise it is quite cheaper)
3) Even if somehow you are Sir Alex Ferguson and kept the team afloat, ONLY the players that actually had a natural talent of 18-20, good starting CA and a bit of luck, would be able to be world class.

How many top talent, top professional, top ambition etc do you expect to find in League 1/2?

so is that not realistic? You have a 16 yo League2 player with top natural talent, top professionalism, not prone to injuries, good ambition etc and you put him in PL games and the best facilities in the world. You wouldn't realistically expect him to reach levels much higher that his now allocated PA?

Do you know what is not realistic in the slightest? A 18yo with 90CA and 95PA. FFS give him a subscription to a gym and a protein powder and his physical growth would be enough to justify more that 5 points of improvement:P

Anyway, although in a perfect world this suggestion would go through to add realism and variability to the game, given that it would take a big change in the codebase (with all the bugs that would bring) for changes most of the players will not even notice, I don't see it having lots of luck @Raptor Longe. But I really like it:D

[santy001]

6 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

How can you guys, researchers even, not get it?

No Alan. You are completely wrong on the first paragraph about the limit! This is not what he suggests. And on the second paragraph, where you say it is not realistic in the slightest... what??
If you were to do that in real life, let me tell you what would happen :
1) Those 11 players, due to better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, playing against top talent etc would reach HIGHER ability in a year, than spending that year in League 2.
2) You would be relegated, because their CURRENT level would be too low for Premier (this is why teams don't do it tbh, otherwise it is quite cheaper)
3) Even if somehow you are Sir Alex Ferguson and kept the team afloat, ONLY the players that actually had a natural talent of 18-20, good starting CA and a bit of luck, would be able to be world class.

How many top talent, top professional, top ambition etc do you expect to find in League 1/2?

so is that not realistic? You have a 16 yo League2 player with top natural talent, top professionalism, not prone to injuries, good ambition etc and you put him in PL games and the best facilities in the world. You wouldn't realistically expect him to reach levels much higher that his now allocated PA?

Do you know what is not realistic in the slightest? A 18yo with 90CA and 95PA. FFS give him a subscription to a gym and a protein powder and his physical growth would be enough to justify more that 5 points of improvement:P

Anyway, although in a perfect world this suggestion would go through to add realism and variability to the game, given that it would take a big change in the codebase (with all the bugs that would bring) for changes most of the players will not even notice, I don't see it having lots of luck @Raptor Longe. But I really like it:D

So Jamie Vardy is still never possible in FM and you'd arguably be wanting the developers to commit to spending a long time developing it to end up in the same, or a worse position.

- - -

The ultimate problem is, without pulling any punches, its just a shockingly bad idea that a few of us have tried to explain how the game either does it already (the game just doesn't give you the answer of how it does things) or it leads to runaway trains becoming super players. People haven't grasped the concept of what PA represents, so the discussion is flawed. It's easy to argue for this if you don't understand PA because you're applying your own definition to PA.

[Cougar2010]

I'll try to explain it one last time before I give up.

It boils down to one question:

"Can a player with natural talent 5 reach 200CA"

If the answer is yes then its a bad idea because human users could easily game to system to create superstars.

If the answer is no then its because a limit has been indirectly set - This is what PA already does.

[HemHat]

26 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

3) Even if somehow you are Sir Alex Ferguson and kept the team afloat, ONLY the players that actually had a natural talent of 18-20, good starting CA and a bit of luck, would be able to be world class.

 

So the natural talent still a limit, and is basically PA with another name then, as everyone is trying to tell you?

[legend_killer82]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I'll try to explain it one last time before I give up.

It boils down to one question:

"Can a player with natural talent 5 reach 200CA"

If the answer is yes then its a bad idea because human users could easily game to system to create superstars.

If the answer is no then its because a limit has been indirectly set - This is what PA already does.

Let's say we have "Johnny Bobby" in the DB with 100 CA and 120 PA.
He will always have the same PA, in my game, in yur game, in anyone game. And he will NEVER EVER overcome that 120 as a CA, no matter what. Doesn't mean that he should become 200.

With raptor proposal, in my game, in your game, in anyone game he will NEVER have a defined limit. There would be always different situations. With the right factors maybe sometimes Johnny Bobby could reach 140 CA due to the fact that he wouldn't be LIMITED to 120 no matter what. Some other times 135, 130, 125, 120, in bad cases he could get less than that and in worst scenario he will stay the same or even get worse. So at any game he would be different. Not Messi, Not CR7, but at least not ALWAYS and FOREVER limited to 120 maximum.

I don't know how you see that, but for me there's a huge difference and it would be great to see such an addition to the game. As i told you, it could even be kept with the actual system without big revolutions, simply PA could become flexible or dynamic or whatever else, but still a great idea IMO.

[Brentford Alan]

2 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

How can you guys, researchers even, not get it? I do get it, I'm telling you, to the best of my knowledge, why it simply will not work in this particular game.

No Alan. You are completely wrong on the first paragraph about the limit! This is not what he suggests. And on the second paragraph, where you say it is not realistic in the slightest... what??

The game would create a limit, you can not escape that. Whether it's expressed as PA or 'hidden' the game would take the values put in by the researchers and set an absolute limit that each player could not go beyond, unless we left the fields for the computer to randomise for each player which would lead to complete confusion and lack any realism.

If you were to do that in real life, let me tell you what would happen :

1) Those 11 players, due to better trainers, nutritionists, doctors, playing against top talent etc would reach HIGHER ability in a year, than spending that year in League 2. Of course they would improve, but are Man Utd, in real life, picking up Joe Nobody from Brentford and turning him into even a decent Prem player every year? We know they are not.
2) You would be relegated, because their CURRENT level would be too low for Premier (this is why teams don't do it tbh, otherwise it is quite cheaper) My suggestion was to feed the players in gradually but regularly, replacing the older players who you sell or they retire. Putting 11 Joe Nobody's in the team would be silly of course and was not what I was suggesting. 
3) Even if somehow you are Sir Alex Ferguson and kept the team afloat, ONLY the players that actually had a natural talent of 18-20 and a bit of luck, would be able to be world class. And there is your limit, which you said earlier in the post I was 'completely wrong' about. You have limited the growth with the natural talent attribute, in exactly the same way as PA does it now!

How many top talent, top professional, top ambition etc do you expect to find in League 1/2? Having spent many years watching that level of football, very few top talents as the Prem clubs snap them up before they reach 18. Plenty of top professionals in the sense they try their best and act accordingly off of the pitch, and if they weren't ambitious they'd end up with the likes of Montelle Moore, formally of Brentford, who pissed his talent up the wall. But by opening the parameters up as stated above you are creating an unrealistic environment where any of them picked up aged 16 could end up being a world class player or at least a Prem level player when the truth is 80% of youngsters at those clubs won't make it above Conference level.

so is that not realistic? You have a 16 yo League2 player with top natural talent, top professionalism, not prone to injuries, good ambition etc and you put him in PL games and the best facilities in the world. You wouldn't realistically expect him to reach levels much higher that his now allocated PA? If such a player existed he would be given a PA that reflects this, whether its a high minus figure or a set figure such as 190. The game is already open to this possibility so I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you confusing PA and CA?

Do you know what is not realistic in the slightest? A 18yo with 90CA and 95PA. FFS give him a subscription to a gym and a protein powder and his physical growth would be enough to justify more that 5 points of improvement:P If you find players like this in the database you probably need to report them in the database errors forum, I'd have thought, with a reasonable argument as to why it's incorrect. It's not impossible to peak very early in a career however, as above many many players look like they may have something about them, very few actually really MAKE it as professional footballers. As I read the proposed changes, any of these players (and more importantly any amount of them), if given the right 'treatment' could end up playing at the top level.

Anyway, although in a perfect world this suggestion would go through to add realism and variability to the game, given that it would take a big change in the codebase (with all the bugs that would bring) for changes most of the players will not even notice, I don't see it having lots of luck @Raptor Longe. But I really like it:D

 

My reply is in bold.

[Maaka]

But, even within today's system, a player with a CA of 120 could perform well in top leagues, given he has the right distribution of attributes, and a tactic and team that suits him well, so he could perform even better than a player with a CA of 130, or 140.

[Dorin]

This is an interesting idea... I'll give you an example of how I understand it and see it working:
Let's take an example of players from Iceland, where my current team is now playing... when the next generation of youth players come in they usually have a low PA rating because the country overall has a low youth rating and they're not in the best environment to develop as footballers. Let's say the PA is set to 120 on average (random guess)... they will never be able to go past this limit.
However, if a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid would decide for whatever reason to sign a player from my team who is 16-17... the player should then have the possibility to become better than the potential maximum limit of 120 that was set initially when he was based at a small team, in Iceland. If he trains with the best, with the best facilities around and starts to play in a good league vs good opponents he could be able to reach a higher ability later on ... maybe 140-155... even if he's not as talented as some of the best world players.
I agree PA can be perceived as a limit in this case and I don't like when they can be too limiting
Maybe I want to take control of a big club and start looking to sign and develop youngsters from a particular area in the world that's underrated, just for fun..  

 

[Arc4nine]

I do understand PA @santy001. The fact that you have to limit a players potential based only on his CURRENT status bothered me. Even if I don't get it as good as you, please don't use this as an argument to call the idea shockingly bad. Prove the idea itself wrong.

Jamie Vardy would be possible. As much as today I would argue. Not only CA and PA is a rating of how useful a player could be and you know that. An attacker with let's say 20 in finishing, off-the-ball, pace and acceleration and mediocre stats otherwise could be more useful of a player with the same CA but more evenly distributed (like spending CA on having a decent positioning, which attackers don't need).
 

What I am saying is that with that idea of a player having 90CA and 95PA as a teenager is laughable. It might very well develop like this, but saying that NO MATTER WHAT, 95 is the best this guy can be, is plainly wrong.

@Cougar2010, no, some stats (like some physical attributes) we have genetically capped and should not evolve endlessly! BUT, given ENDLESS time everything else could be maxed. Time and aging is the realistic limit in our lives. A player with natural talent 5 and CA 100 would never reach 200CA not because of a dead hard limit like PA, but because he does not have the TIME in the process of a career to do so.

Natural talent makes the process faster. If me and Neymar started today to become perfect at hitting the crossbar from the penalty spot, he would probably do it in 2 hours and I in 2 months!

@HemHat I hope the above answers your question. If you still don't get the difference of a limit imposed by a value and a limit imposed by time and environmental conditions, I cannot help.

@Brentford Alan same, as to cougar. Don't confuse the limit that would be set to a player by time and environmental factors, to the limit you set as PA. You do escape the game creating a hardcoded limit like this. So no to the last point, about the "right" treatment leading to everyone being a world class player.
 

[Maaka]

1 minute ago, Dorin said:

This is an interesting idea... I'll give you an example of how I understand it and see it working:
Let's take an example of players from Iceland, where my current team is now playing... when the next generation of youth players come in they usually have a low PA rating because the country overall has a low youth rating and they're not in the best environment to develop as footballers. Let's say the PA is set to 120 on average (random guess)... they will never be able to go past this limit.
However, if a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid would decide for whatever reason to sign a player from my team who is 16-17... the player should then have the possibility to become better than the potential maximum limit of 120 that was set initially when he was based at a small tema in Iceland. If he trains with the best, with the best facilities around and starts to play in a good league vs good opponents he could be able to reach a higher ability later on ... maybe 140-155... even if he's not as talented as some of the best world players.
I agree PA can be perceived as a limit in this case and I don't like when they can be too limiting
Maybe I want to take control of a big club and start looking to sign and develop youngsters from a particular area in the world that's underrated, just for fun..  

 

But why should his PA increase just because he moves to MU or RM? His POTENTIAL would still be the same, it would just be easier to reach said potential.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

21 hours ago, Raptor Longe said:

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.

 

Considering this discussion is about real players instead of regens, if you felt like 'John Smith' could reach a CA of 125-135 then why aren't you entering this as his PA instead of 110 in the database?

Isn't your system just renaming PA to NT?

In your example of John Smith the researcher has set a 110PA so surely they'd be setting a NT value that would also give a max CA of 110 as if they felt he could become a 135 player they would have set that as their PA instead.

Also with the game going further down roles route the CA/PA isn't as important as in the past, as you can have a player with a lower CA/PA do better than a higher rated player if they have a better balance of attributes for the role they are used in. So in your case John Smith could improve to his 110 PA ceiling with those 20 points going into Attributes for a Poacher making him a better Poacher than his CA would suggest meaning a team who used him correctly would feel like they had a 125-135 CA Striker.

[Cougar2010]

7 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Let's say we have "Johnny Bobby" in the DB with 100 CA and 120 PA.
He will always have the same PA, in my game, in yur game, in anyone game. And he will NEVER EVER overcome that 120 as a CA, no matter what. Doesn't mean that he should become 200.

No thats correct he will never be better than 120 CA.

But in different saves he could reach different PAs dependant on the situation.  So in one save he might reach 118, another 105, another 112 etc etc.

 

7 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

With raptor proposal, in my game, in your game, in anyone game he will NEVER have a defined limit. There would be always different situations. With the right factors maybe sometimes Johnny Bobby could reach 140 CA due to the fact that he wouldn't be LIMITED to 120 no matter what. Some other times 135, 130, 125, 120, in bad cases he could get less than that and in worst scenario he will stay the same or even get worse. So at any game he would be different. Not Messi, Not CR7, but at least not ALWAYS and FOREVER limited to 120 maximum.

He will never have a defined limit but as a result of controlling the rate of growth there will be a max upper limit he could reach in ideal circumstances.

The only difference between your two examples here is that in the first example Johnny Bobby should have a PA of 140 NOT 120.

If you gave him a PA of 140 above then in some saves he could reach 135, 130, 125, 120 etc etc.

In both cases he would never reach 160+ CA therefore Raptor's proposal is producing very similar results to what PA does now.

 

7 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

I don't know how you see that, but for me there's a huge difference and it would be great to see such an addition to the game. As i told you, it could even be kept with the actual system without big revolutions, simply PA could become flexible or dynamic or whatever else, but still a great idea IMO.

Yes I'm all for PA being more flexible pre game but not once a save has been started and that could be done with the current system or with Raptor's proposal.  Both are capable of achieveing that.

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Considering this discussion is about real players instead of regens, if you felt like 'John Smith' could reach a CA of 125-135 then why aren't you entering this as his PA instead of 110 in the database?

I don't know, maybe Santy/Alan/one of the other researcher can advise but I get the impression that SI are limiting the researchers on the PAs they can set based on the RL factors such as the league the player is in.

[legend_killer82]

8 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Considering this discussion is about real players instead of regens, if you felt like 'John Smith' could reach a CA of 125-135 then why aren't you entering this as his PA instead of 110 in the database?

MAybe for the reason we tried to explain above, that no one is Nostradamus? Maybe cause there are limits? Maybe cause we tend to stay always lower than higher on PA's?

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, Dorin said:

This is an interesting idea... I'll give you an example of how I understand it and see it working:
Let's take an example of players from Iceland, where my current team is now playing... when the next generation of youth players come in they usually have a low PA rating because the country overall has a low youth rating and they're not in the best environment to develop as footballers. Let's say the PA is set to 120 on average (random guess)... they will never be able to go past this limit.
However, if a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid would decide for whatever reason to sign a player from my team who is 16-17... the player should then have the possibility to become better than the potential maximum limit of 120 that was set initially when he was based at a small team, in Iceland. If he trains with the best, with the best facilities around and starts to play in a good league vs good opponents he could be able to reach a higher ability later on ... maybe 140-155... even if he's not as talented as some of the best world players.
I agree PA can be perceived as a limit in this case and I don't like when they can be too limiting
Maybe I want to take control of a big club and start looking to sign and develop youngsters from a particular area in the world that's underrated, just for fun..

This isn't what Raptor is proposing.

He is proposing setting a fixed growth rate on every RL player rather than a PA.  This would not change from save to save and not change as the player moved clubs.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

I don't know, maybe Santy/Alan/one of the other researcher can advise but I get the impression that SI are limiting the researchers on the PAs they can set based on the RL factors such as the league the player is in.

If it's a limit put in by SI then surely that's the problem instead of the PA system, and any new system would have the same limits meaning it wouldn't even solve the problem...

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

If it's a limit put in by SI then surely that's the problem instead of the PA system, and any new system would have the same limits meaning it wouldn't even solve the problem...

If thats the case then I agree.

What our Italian contingent seem to want is more flexibility pre save in the PA of real players to give more variety from save to save.

Thats something I do agree with although SI don't seem to agree given past threads where its been discussed.

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

MAybe for the reason we tried to explain above, that no one is Nostradamus? Maybe cause there are limits? Maybe cause we tend to stay always lower than higher on PA's?

I agree with the Nostradamus comment but Raptor's proposal doesn't solve the problem.

If we take Vardy or Insigne the current argument is "His PA was wrong in FM12/13/14 etc"

If Raptor's proposal had been used in game those players would have been given a fairly low natural talent and people would now be saying "His natural talent was wrong in FM12/13/14 etc"

 

[Dorin]

24 minutes ago, Maaka said:

But why should his PA increase just because he moves to MU or RM? His POTENTIAL would still be the same, it would just be easier to reach said potential.

What i am saying is that if all the right factors are suggesting that the player should develop more than the 120 PA limit ...at some point in his career, why stop it at 120 just because it was set like that at his youth intake date? it doesn't mean it HAS TO increase... but it should at least be a possibility... don't hardcode failure into regen's DNA  

PS: I am also talking about regen players here that aren't in the database at game start time. 

[santy001]

33 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I don't know, maybe Santy/Alan/one of the other researcher can advise but I get the impression that SI are limiting the researchers on the PAs they can set based on the RL factors such as the league the player is in.

Would just like to clarify, this is not at all a thing.

We have ballpark figures, for current ability only, of what you'd kind of expect for a team in a certain kind of situation. 

Potential ability is entirely at the behest of a researcher and what the researcher believes. I've set Shawcross, Butland and Begovic to have PA's at various points in their career to be capable of playing for top 4 sides. Not once has it ever been pulled up "Michael if they were at Man Utd/Arsenal/Chelsea that would be fine... but not at Stoke" 

I am completely free to set up both CA and PA however I want, providing I can make a convincing enough argument or (tongue in cheek) send my HR enough bon bons in the post to SI HQ.

- - -

This isn't to say there's "well the researcher said his potential is high, it must be high" there is plenty of discussion, anyone from SI can ask a question about anyone else data. So for example, I've had a Danish researcher raise a query over Arnautovic in the recent past, it led to a discussion between myself, the HR, the Danish researcher & a German researcher. Miles has offered up thoughts on Bojan in the past. 

- - -

I say this regularly, if ever I wanted to create great youngsters coming through in the game. PA would be almost the last thing I touch. There's so many better ways to make a world beating player in FM than just raw CA/PA. 

- - -

As an aside, for the longest time I have had 3 versions of Marko Arnautovic that I felt were viable once in the mid 130's that had a few very high technicals with amazing consistency to deploy them and not much else (his mentals, and others like finishing were really low) and another that came in at just above 170CA with widespread good attributes, but really weak consistency and some hidden attributes holding him back.

The 170CA I talked about loosely a couple of times, but it felt like it would be too hard to explain to anyone besides the head researcher. It was very much my favourite model though and most captured the intermittent nature of what Marko Arnautovic is. 

[Dorin]

17 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

This isn't what Raptor is proposing.

He is proposing setting a fixed growth rate on every RL player rather than a PA.  This would not change from save to save and not change as the player moved clubs.

I guess I took out of that the part that seemed most interesting to me, even if it was just in my mind maybe...  as you can see in my other comment.

[Arc4nine]

4 minutes ago, Dorin said:

I guess I took out of that the part that seemed most interesting to me, even if it was just in my mind maybe...  as you can see in my other comment.

I think you got it much better than Cougar. He absolutely DOES NOT suggest a fixed growth rate. He suggests one more attribute on top of the ones existing today that affect the growth rate, that is personal based and reflects the researchers opinion of the player's growth potential, but without capping it with a hard limit.

[Cougar2010]

30 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

What I am saying is that with that idea of a player having 90CA and 95PA as a teenager is laughable. It might very well develop like this, but saying that NO MATTER WHAT, 95 is the best this guy can be, is plainly wrong.

Why is it anymore wrong than giving him 120PA? 150PA? 200PA?

Its either an estimate by the researcher or for newgens its given to him by the game which acts as God in their case.

 

30 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

@Cougar2010, no, some stats (like some physical attributes) we have genetically capped and should not evolve endlessly! BUT, given ENDLESS time everything else could be maxed. Time and aging is the realistic limit in our lives. A player with natural talent 5 and CA 100 would never reach 200CA not because of a dead hard limit like PA, but because he does not have the TIME in the process of a career to do so.

There was a user who argued the same for several years but he has given up posting.  That given the right conditions every player should be able be able to improve endlessly, some agreed with him, some disagreed.

Anyway you've identified that time and aging would set the limit which is what we are all saying.  Instead of a hard limit the natural talent vs time would set the limit.

A different process but achieving the same end result - a limit on the CA that a player can reach.

 

[gandrasch]

Just to throw in my 2 cent, what I really dislike in the current system is the assumption players don't get better after the age of 24/25. Look at players like Koscielny, Andre Hahn, Drogba, Ian Wright or Klose. They all started to grow after the age of 24. And this is completely eliminated by the current PA system. 

Also there are far too much real life players at the age of 21 to 23 with a fixed PA close to their CA with limited of none room for improvements. You can't really predict how much someone like Holding will improve in the future and I would drop the limitation for the sake of gameplay. 

[Cougar2010]

10 minutes ago, Arc4nine said:

I think you got it much better than Cougar. He absolutely DOES NOT suggest a fixed growth rate. He suggests one more attribute on top of the ones existing today that affect the growth rate, that is personal based and reflects the researchers opinion of the player's growth potential, but without capping it with a hard limit.

He absolutely is and he has been fairly clear about it.

I suggest you read his posts again.

[Raptor Longe]

Now, a thing is that you disagree, I can even understand it.
But at the very least, you have to understand what I'm saying to you, because I do not think it's yet clear for everyone.

Arc4nine, Dorin and legend_killer82 understood it fortunately.

I'm telling you that PA is a limit.
Because it seems to me to be fairly clear. This is a value that determines the maximum reachable CA. A value given by a researcher, which determines the maximum that one can aspire to a player, even if he is only 16 years old and has seen very little of this player (sometimes nothing).
Until we all agree? Because this is not my opinion, but that's what the PA does in the game.

 

Instead of setting a fixed limit. Since the game already has a player growth system that works regardless of PA. And this is not my opinion, but what is happening right now in the video game.

We include one or more other talent-determining systems in the form of parameters. And not an unsurpassed fixed limit. Okay, till then did we all understand it? 

Arriving here for you is clear that this is not a fixed limit like the PA? Because I'm doubtful that I'm writing in Arabic and not in a non-perfect English (I'm learning with my Norwegian girlfriend). XD

 

Obviously we will have to test, calibrate, fix Alfa and Beta any errors.

But it is not about allowing all football players to get to 200 CA, but not having a fixed and predetermined limit of growth or a better range than growth.  Of course the most talented and talented will have parameters that will enable him to become champions or champion (if you buy Mbappe, take him because you already know that everything has to become strong), but at the same time in a game it will happen that, a middle-talented player, can still be a good player, if in the game there are all the best conditions that can allow him, and without a useless limit, for me, who would stop him before.

[Arc4nine]

Ok, @Cougar2010, I will give it one more go and then stop posting as well:D As I said on my first post, I do not think this idea will go forward because it does not offer enough Return of Investment for SI, but I think it is a much better system. I hope the following scenario will justify this :

Let's say you have a player in the Swedish 3rd Division, aged 20 yo and with CA 100. Now we have the following situations :
1) Conte takes him in Chelsea, plays every game, trains with the best etc. When he is 30, he reaches CA = X.
2) He stays his whole career in the same team in the same division. Eats clean and works out sometimes. When he is 30, he reaches CA = Y with Y <  X

I think we agree that is realistic, although not an absolute truth maybe.

Now you have some possibilities :
His PA > X : Works fine.
His PA < X : Broken. The guy will be capped by the fixed limit.

So the current system has a fail scenario. If you set PA to all players to 200 to counter this fail scenario, then you break the whole system.
Now with the proposed solution, he might or might NOT reach X. But if he does not reach it, it will be due to a wealth of factors and NOT a fixed limit.

Again I do not think it will affect the games so MUCH that it would justify SI spending resources on this, but IT IS a better and more realistic approach.

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

Now, a talk is that you disagree, I can even understand it.
But at the very least, you have to understand what I'm saying to you, because I do not think it's yet clear for everyone.

Arc4nine, Dorin and legend_killer82 understood it fortunately.

See this is the issue because Arc4nine, Dorin and legend_killer are actually describing different things.

legend_killer's posts seem to be in line with yours but the other two aren't.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

I'm telling you that PA is a limit.
Because it seems to me to be fairly clear. This is a value that determines the maximum reachable CA. A value given by a researcher, which determines the maximum that one can aspire to a player, even if he is only 16 years old and has seen very little of this player (sometimes nothing).
Until we all agree? Because this is not my opinion, but that's what the PA does in the game.

I'm pretty sure most of us understand what PA is but you've described it slightly differently here.

PA is a ceiling that CA cannot go beyond but its NOT the maximum reachable CA.

The maximum reachable CA in game is affected by a number of factors (as you listed earlier) and then capped if needed by PA.  So a player could technically have a maximum reachable CA of 190 but be limited by a PA of 170.  On the other side of the coin a player might have a maximum reachable CA of 150 and a PA of 170 which he would never get close to.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

Instead of setting a fixed limit. Since the game already has a player growth system that works regardless of PA. And this is not my opinion, but what is happening right now in the video game.

We include one or more other talent-determining systems in the form of parameters. And not an unsurpassed fixed limit. Okay, till then did we all understand it? 

Arriving here for you is clear that this is not a fixed limit like the PA? Because I'm doubtful that I'm writing in Arabic and not in a non-perfect English (I'm learning with my Norwegian girlfriend). XD

Once again you are not setting a direct fixed limit like PA but the effect of controlling growth is that the player will have a maximum CA limit he can reach in his career.

What people are saying is that the maximum CA limit a player can reach under your system is basically the same result as using PA.

 

I'll try an example again:

Lets take Johnny from earlier and give him 80CA at 18yo.  Under your system (presuming all other factors are equal):

A) With natural talent of 20 he "grows" at say 10CA per year reaching 200CA at 30yo before decline starts.

B) With natural talent of 10 he "grows" at say 5CA per year reaching a max CA of 140 at 30yo before decline starts.

C) With natural talent of 5 he "grows" at say 2CA per year reaching a max CA of 104 at 30yo before decline starts.

 

Under the PA system the above can already be achieved by giving him a PA of 200 in example A, 140 in example B & 104 in example C.

Obviously the rate of improvement isn't that linear but the concept is the same.

 

[gandrasch]

16 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I'm pretty sure most of us understand what PA is but you've described it slightly differently here.

PA is a ceiling that CA cannot go beyond but its NOT the maximum reachable CA.

 

So a player with 150 PA can become as good as somebody with 170 CA (same position, same stats)? I don't think so.

[Brentford Alan]

3 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

Now, a talk is that you disagree, I can even understand it.
But at the very least, you have to understand what I'm saying to you, because I do not think it's yet clear for everyone.

Arc4nine, Dorin and legend_killer82 understood it fortunately.

I'm telling you that PA is a limit.
Because it seems to me to be fairly clear. This is a value that determines the maximum reachable CA. A value given by a researcher, which determines the maximum that one can aspire to a player, even if he is only 16 years old and has seen very little of this player (sometimes nothing).
Until we all agree? Because this is not my opinion, but that's what the PA does in the game.

 

Instead of setting a fixed limit. Since the game already has a player growth system that works regardless of PA. And this is not my opinion, but what is happening right now in the video game.

We include one or more other talent-determining systems in the form of parameters. And not an unsurpassed fixed limit. Okay, till then did we all understand it? 

Arriving here for you is clear that this is not a fixed limit like the PA? Because I'm doubtful that I'm writing in Arabic and not in a non-perfect English (I'm learning with my Norwegian girlfriend). XD

 

 

We get what you are trying to say. What you still fail to appreciate is putting in figures for attributes that affect a players growth will still create a hard limit whether it's set as PA or whether it's calculated by the game. It's simply how the game runs, for example 2 players rated;

Player A

Growth/Talent 14

Professionalism 15

Adaptability 15

 

Player B

Growth/Talent 10

Professionalism 10

Adaptability 11

 

Player B would still never achieve a peak CA the same as Player A could achieve because his/her attributes will limit how much they can possibly grow. That's not to say Player B would be without use of course, just he could never hit the same level as Player A assuming both were utilised correctly and given the same opportunities to progress. So you are, whether you like it or not, creating a hard limit that each player cannot progress above when entering the attributes, perhaps with a slightly larger range of possibilities compared to now.

 

Unless of course you are suggesting leaving all the various attributes determining player growth to be randomised by the game each time a save is started? But even then a CA limit would still be created for each player when the game assigns them attribute ratings! 

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, gandrasch said:

So a player with 150 PA can become as good as somebody with 170 CA (same position, same stats)? I don't think so.

No I'm saying that for some players their maximum reachable CA could be above their PA but the game restricts them to the PA number assigned.

[fmnatic]

With a software  development background,  i find i agree with the opinions here that say adding more variables to the player development isn't going to solve the problem.

Ignore the variables that impact player development  , because there seem to be a high enough number of variables impacting development, adding more isn't going to necessarily improve the player development behavior.  Yes some of us may want to call the variable something else aka natural talent, growth potential but mathematically it does not matter.(i.e. you could change the way the engine handles PA/CA and achieve the same effect, while retaining the benefits of the current system)

The core complaint is the current system does not accurately model the real world. While FM does get most things right , the modelling fails at the tail of the bell curve, i.e the half dozen players that make it from lower league to major leagues, as well as late bloomers. This could be as simple a change as FM engine selects 0.001% of the players (with an 8000 player database that's 8 players) and gives them a PA ability boost and doesn't limit their development based on age.

[perpetua]

 

On 11/16/2017 at 18:34, Raptor Longe said:

Now, a thing is that you disagree, I can even understand it.
But at the very least, you have to understand what I'm saying to you, because I do not think it's yet clear for everyone.

Arc4nine, Dorin and legend_killer82 understood it fortunately.

I'm telling you that PA is a limit.
Because it seems to me to be fairly clear. This is a value that determines the maximum reachable CA. A value given by a researcher, which determines the maximum that one can aspire to a player, even if he is only 16 years old and has seen very little of this player (sometimes nothing).
Until we all agree? Because this is not my opinion, but that's what the PA does in the game.

 

Instead of setting a fixed limit. Since the game already has a player growth system that works regardless of PA. And this is not my opinion, but what is happening right now in the video game.

We include one or more other talent-determining systems in the form of parameters. And not an unsurpassed fixed limit. Okay, till then did we all understand it? 

Arriving here for you is clear that this is not a fixed limit like the PA? Because I'm doubtful that I'm writing in Arabic and not in a non-perfect English (I'm learning with my Norwegian girlfriend). XD

 

Obviously we will have to test, calibrate, fix Alfa and Beta any errors.

But it is not about allowing all football players to get to 200 CA, but not having a fixed and predetermined limit of growth or a better range than growth.  Of course the most talented and talented will have parameters that will enable him to become champions or champion (if you buy Mbappe, take him because you already know that everything has to become strong), but at the same time in a game it will happen that, a middle-talented player, can still be a good player, if in the game there are all the best conditions that can allow him, and without a useless limit, for me, who would stop him before.

I don't believe a separate attribute for growth rate is needed because the rate of a player's growth really depends on the ease or difficulty with which attributes can improve.

So for example it's very difficult for a 16 or 17 year old player who is slow to train and get faster.  A player who is 1.70m tall will also never have 20 for jumping reach.  But he can improve his strength to a point. So stamina and strength are really the only attributes that could improve drastically.

He could improve his technical attributes but this is a slow process since poor habits first have to be unlearned and then re-learned.  I would guess nobody works on free kicks as much as Ronaldo, even Pirlo.  But even as a 50 year old, I would argue that Pirlo will probably still take free kicks better than Ronaldo ever has in his career.  Technical attributes aren't supposed to change drastically, they are supposed to take many hours of repetition and building muscle memory.  So the starting point of a player matters a lot here.  If a player naturally has the required technical skills or he has developed it in his youth, then he has a better start than someone who hasn't got it.  So what matters here is the starting point rather than growth rate.

Where a player grows is in mental attributes. 
Some mental attributes are more attitude related, so a player may become very hard working as his career progresses which is more of a change in style of play rather than learning.
Others, like anticipation, positioning, movement are learned by training and by playing more matches.  In a sense, these represent a player's experience.  These are the attributes which are likely to improve drastically if a player has the potential to improve.  So in order for a player to improve, he has to have the mental capacity to improve, which makes the PA in the game a measure of how good a student of the game the player is.

Going back to your Luca Toni example.

• He didn't have speed but he was tall and had the physical frame to be very strong.  This takes time so he needed time to develop to a level that he was very strong and his strength could make up for his lack of speed and lack of technical ability on the football pitch.
• He had decent technical skills but nothing great.  He improved slightly in this regard but you could never classify him as a player with great technical skill.
• Where he improved greatly was in his reading of the game.  Again, this took time because he needed more experience to be elite enough in his mental attributes to be able to compensate for his decent but not great technical skills and his lack of speed.

So in a sense, it's not surprising or due to some imaginary growth factor that Luca Toni developed late.  It's because he was the type of player who needed to develop skills that can be developed with time.

Michael Owen, on the other hand, broke out as a 17 year old with blazing speed and good technical skills.  He peaked by the time he was 20, suffered many injuries and was essentially done with football by age 30.  Mainly because he never needed to develop mentally like Luca Toni did, so he never developed that aspect of his game (or maybe he didn't have the capacity to develop mentally or he was poorly coached to rely too much on his speed, that part is unknown).  As a result, as he declined physically, the mental attributes he needed to prolong his career weren't there and he was done, making room for the next 16 year old with speed and enthusiasm.

The game should and already does to my knowledge takes these into account.

Where the game typically fails is when the research process mis-classifies Owen as having potential because he is so effective when they he was young or when the research process mis-classifies Toni as having limited potential because he's not effective as a young player.  What researchers should have looked at, in both of these instances when determining PA, is the player's capacity to improve mentally and in terms of stamina/strength.

So we don't need an external attribute that magically determines the speed of development of a player.  What we need is to rate potential as accurately as possible and let the game determine the speed with which a player improves based on the natural development speed of different types of attributes that need to be developed.  If development is looking un-natural, in my opinion, it's because the AI tends to develop a player in his best role rather than developing him to be the best player he can be, which is not necessarily in the role or position that his starting attributes dictate as a 16 year old.

[Undy]

I understand what Raptor is getting at here, and largely agree. For what it's worth, the old FIFA Manager games about 10 years ago had a system whereby if a young player was training and developing well, had a good attitude and stable environment, then his PA (or whatever their equivalent was) could increase. Likewise with poor development and PA decrease. It was good because it meant a young prospect developing well wasn't suddenly stopped by a hard limiting factor. I'd love to see something in Football Manager that allowed this too, because it's pretty disappointing when you have a good young player in your low-to-mid-level team who performs and develops well, but by age 21 can never improve further even when with good development attributes (professionalism etc), playing well, against better opposition, training with better coaches in better training facilities. You wouldn't expect him to turn into a world beater just because his team's improved greatly, but you wouldn't be surprised if he held his own as a solid squad player even when at 16/17 he never seemed destined for much.

[Raptor Longe]

6 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

I'm pretty sure most of us understand what PA is but you've described it slightly differently here.

PA is a ceiling that CA cannot go beyond but its NOT the maximum reachable CA.

The maximum reachable CA in game is affected by a number of factors (as you listed earlier) and then capped if needed by PA.  So a player could technically have a maximum reachable CA of 190 but be limited by a PA of 170.  On the other side of the coin a player might have a maximum reachable CA of 150 and a PA of 170 which he would never get close to.

Once again you are not setting a direct fixed limit like PA but the effect of controlling growth is that the player will have a maximum CA limit he can reach in his career.

What people are saying is that the maximum CA limit a player can reach under your system is basically the same result as using PA.

I'll try an example again:

Lets take Johnny from earlier and give him 80CA at 18yo.  Under your system (presuming all other factors are equal):

A) With natural talent of 20 he "grows" at say 10CA per year reaching 200CA at 30yo before decline starts.

B) With natural talent of 10 he "grows" at say 5CA per year reaching a max CA of 140 at 30yo before decline starts.

C) With natural talent of 5 he "grows" at say 2CA per year reaching a max CA of 104 at 30yo before decline starts.

 

Under the PA system the above can already be achieved by giving him a PA of 200 in example A, 140 in example B & 104 in example C.

Obviously the rate of improvement isn't that linear but the concept is the same.

 

I do not understand if you're kidding me.
Each player's PA is a limit that can not be exceeded by the same player. Even in the best possible conditions, this limit can not be exceeded.
There is, in fact, no discussion of whether a player will ever reach the PA value he has been assigned to CA, because this is already happening in the video game.
Here I am saying that in the game the PA assigned to the player can not be overcome.

So I propose removing this limit, and assigning one or more values that can contribute to the growth of this player.
For example halving growth by professionalism, and giving this half to the other parameter. Maybe you do not even need to create this parameter, and it already works well.

 

The problem is that the game is full of young players, with CA close to PA, or at least very low, despite all that we can not overcome.
For an example, there is Kanté at 26, whose CA of 164 is identical to PA. And so this player will never be able to improve in any case, despite being far from its development peak. For example in the lower series, there are many players whose CA is X and their PA is X or X+1 or X+2 or X+3 or X+4, even though they are under 25 or even under 21.

Me and, of course, other people, we are convinced that this limit is wrong, and that we should concentrate only on growth and not on limits that are wrong, whether in positive or negative terms.

So the question is. Do you agree or not?
No? Is that right for you? Perfect. You have already explained your motivations, and I will keep it in mind.
But the proposal I would like to have was also discussed by other users, and I would like to know their idea about it, and their proposals.

Thank you.

 

[Cougar2010]

10 minutes ago, Raptor Longe said:

The problem is that the game is full of young players, with CA close to PA, or at least very low, despite all that we can not overcome.

For an example, there is Kanté at 26, whose CA of 164 is identical to PA. And so this player will never be able to improve in any case, despite being far from its development peak. For example in the lower series, there are many players whose CA is X and their PA is X or X+1 or X+2 or X+3 or X+4, even though they are under 25 or even under 21.

I haven't looked at the database numbers so don't know how true that is.

If there are a number of real players whose PA matches their CA to within a few points then I would agree that would be wrong.

However I do know one of the times PA was discussed in detail that SI claimed that 90% of players never reached their PA in testing.

 

EDIT

Its also worth mentioning though here that from what Santy said earlier that the PAs on real players are set by researchers such as yourself.  If what you claim above is true then why are the researchers setting PA at those levels?

 

[faber83]

@fmnatic and others are bringing some very good stuff in this discussion.

Me too, I can't understand how and why the "conservatives" don't understand Raptor Longe's proposal, even prior to be able to commenting it...

Another example in the past editions was Edinson Cavani, at his first season in Palermo... in my save I could purchase him for my Foggia, he was improving not so much, becoming, at his best, barely a decent mid-low Serie A player...  while in the real world he became a super super super top player from Napoli to PSG, and he was not so young.

I think that Raptor's proposal is also to make this game more "democratic". The "conservatives" are afraid that this could led to lots and lots of explosive lowers or youngsters, but we cannot say this! This needs to be implemented by the programmers and tested in a big numbers scale and in a simulated environment. You are afraid to see lots and lots, while with this PA system we don't see one player making a real climb to success, apart from just a few exceptions for some young boomers already well equipped and well described by some researcher.

So, let's ask S.I. at least to test this new idea in their laboratories!

We are trying, this is progress, guys: intuitions for improvements, to be tested with trials and errors. This is like discovering a new cure for a disease in medical science! For example: try to think for a moment of a FM world where PA does not exist, so the growth is completely random without a limit. Then we can say if we like Raport's proposal, or we can formulate another one. But don't come and tell "Even if it's an unfair world, it's the best possible one". Please guys, put your eye in Galileo's telescope! 

... Or maybe some of you who are researchers who are afraid to go through a "retraining" of your researching skills, by introducing new values and criteria??? Are you afraid to lose control upon those numbers you love so much??? Are you scared of losing the linearity of the game and the research, going through a "who knows land"??? Here Raport Longe is like Cristoforo Colombo discovering that the planet is not flat, but it's a sphere, and explaining this to you guys!

And please don't make it an "Italian claim": we are not even an homogeneous group, we fight a lot during our work! For instance, it's quite strange that me and @legend_killer82 agree on something!! So maybe we are close to the truth as f**k!

[Brentford Alan]

5 minutes ago, faber83 said:

@fmnatic and others are bringing some very good stuff in this discussion.

Me too, I can't understand how and why the "conservatives" don't understand Raptor Longe's proposal, even prior to be able to commenting it...

Another example in the past editions was Edinson Cavani, at his first season in Palermo... in my save I could purchase him for my Foggia, he was improving not so much, becoming, at his best, barely a decent mid-low Serie A player...  while in the real world he became a super super super top player from Napoli to PSG, and he was not so young.  This is all with the benefit of hindsight, could anyone have accurately predicted Cavani's rise to stardom? Dozens of players every year have 'wonderkid' status in the game, how many of them actually make it it to the big time? Freddie Adu being the most obvious example that comes to mind.

I think that Raptor's proposal is also to make this game more "democratic". The "conservatives" are afraid that this could led to lots and lots of explosive lowers or youngsters, but we cannot say this! This needs to be implemented by the programmers and tested in a big numbers scale and in a simulated environment. You are afraid to see lots and lots, while with this PA system we don't see one player making a real climb to success, apart from just a few exceptions for some young boomers already well equipped and well described by some researcher. Of course players come through with the current system, you wouldn't have much of a game to play in ten seasons time if there wasn't players coming through capable of playing at the top level.

So, let's ask S.I. at least to test this new idea in their laboratories!

We are trying, this is progress, guys: intuitions for improvements, to be tested with trials and errors. This is like discovering a new cure for a disease in medical science! For example: try to think for a moment of a FM world were PA does not exist, so the growth is completely random without a limit. Then we can say if we like Raport's proposal, or we can formulate another one. But don't come and tell "Even if it's an unfair world, it's the best possible one". Please guys, put your eye in Galileo's telescope!  How do you know SI haven't tested and rejected an idea similar to the OP's?

... Or maybe some of you who are researchers are afraid to go through a "retraining" of your researching skills, by introducing new values and criteria??? Are you afraid to lose control upon those numbers you love so much??? Are you scared of losing the linearity of the game and the research, going through a "who knows land"??? Here Raport Longe is like Cristoforo Colombo discovering that the planet is not flat, but it's a sphere, and explaining this to you guys!

Now you're just being offensive. Every single year researchers adapt to the new and ever increasing attributes we need to consider when evaluating players, managers, coaches, clubs. Ideas are put forward to make the game more realistic as well. We do the job (for free) out of love for the FM game as well as our teams, we want the best game possible for ourselves as well as SI's customer base. Once again, and for the last time, the game would still calculate an upper limit to every single player's CA the moment attributes are assigned to affect growth. The way the game works means there is simply no way to have an 'unlimited' growth potential, the way attributes feed into each other will not allow it. It's not refusal to accept new ideas or being 'conservative' it's the realities of where the game is. If we lost our 'beloved numbers' we wouldn't have much to research either, saves us all a bit of time so I doubt we'd be too upset about it

And please don't make it an "Italian claim": we are not even an homogeneous group, we fight a lot during our work! For instance, it's quite strange that me and @legend_killer82 agree on something!! So maybe we are close to the truth as f**k! I have no idea what 'truth' you think you are close to.

My, final on this subject, reply in bold.

[faber83]

Hey mate, I am an official researcher too, VIP researcher ... So I'm speaking from the inside of the job...

So you are free to put down your grave stone on the question and not wanting to discuss any alternative idea, nor trying to understand this proposal (that you still don't seem to understand)... It's all about attitude... sad thing.

This game has improved so much from the first edition so far, so it's crazy to say that it cannot improve any further!

Again, we are trying, maybe it's not the best proposal possible. But only those who try can make mistakes, while the others watch and don't give any contribution...

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, faber83 said:

Hey mate, I am an official researcher too, VIP researcher ... So I'm speaking from the inside of the job...

So you are free to put down your grave stone on the question and not wanting to discuss any alternative idea, nor trying to understand this proposal (that you still don't seem to understand)... It's all about attitude... sad thing.

This game has improved so much from the first edition so far, so it's crazy to say that it cannot improve any further!

Again, we are trying, maybe it's not the best proposal possible. But only those who try can make mistakes, while the others watch and don't give any contribution...

See this is what annoys me.

Because we don't agree you are rude, disrespectful and accuse people of not understanding and not wanting to improve the game.

There are many people in this thread who understand the proposal and have pointed out exactly why it won't achieve what Raptor wants it to achieve.  I'm really stumped why you and others can't understand that when its clearly been explained to you in detail.

Even amongst yourselves you can't agree on the actual issue(s) and what you want the end result to look like with several of you contradicting each other.  Some of you want something that is different to Raptor's proposal.

 

IF you were designing a game like FM from scratch and wanted a system Raptor's proposal would be an alternative and possibly a slightly better way than using PA. 

However given we already have the PA system Raptor's proposal offers no significant improvement on what we already have.

 

Finally I have given a contribution as I've suggested many times that the PA of players should be more random & vary more from save to save.  The PA system we have now should be capable of doing that although it would perhaps need a little tweaking.

[faber83]

So you can say that I/we don't understand.

While I/we cannot say that you and other don't understand.

Funny!

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, Dorin said:

This is an interesting idea... I'll give you an example of how I understand it and see it working:
Let's take an example of players from Iceland, where my current team is now playing... when the next generation of youth players come in they usually have a low PA rating because the country overall has a low youth rating and they're not in the best environment to develop as footballers. Let's say the PA is set to 120 on average (random guess)... they will never be able to go past this limit.
However, if a club like Manchester United or Real Madrid would decide for whatever reason to sign a player from my team who is 16-17... the player should then have the possibility to become better than the potential maximum limit of 120 that was set initially when he was based at a small team, in Iceland. If he trains with the best, with the best facilities around and starts to play in a good league vs good opponents he could be able to reach a higher ability later on ... maybe 140-155... even if he's not as talented as some of the best world players.
I agree PA can be perceived as a limit in this case and I don't like when they can be too limiting
Maybe I want to take control of a big club and start looking to sign and develop youngsters from a particular area in the world that's underrated, just for fun..  

 

Manchester United look at an enormous number of young footballers and are constantly running trials and paying real money to find the most exciting youngsters, and of the 30 or so they actually take on in each age group you can count the numbers who end up with a CA of over 120 on one hand. Many of the youth intakes don't produce any players with potential in the 140+ range. More fail to become professional footballers than fall into that range 

So even if you're a 16 year old that Man Utd has actively sought out because their scouts think you have unusual footballing talent, your chances of actually being a high end Premier League  player are in the region of <5% and your chances of failing to get a professional contract anywhere is higher even with one of the world's best coaching setups.

So why on earth would any self-respecting game developer give random footballers that big European clubs and researchers alike don't think have unusual footballing talent a good chance of becoming a high end Premier League player simply because the person playing the save signed them for Man Utd?

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, faber83 said:

So you can say that I/we don't understand.

While I/we cannot say that you and other don't understand.

Funny!

No, it isn't funny.

I find it sad and extremely worrying that several researchers don't seem to understand how a proposal doesn't improve what we have or that it doesn't solve the issue(s) they have with the game they contribute to.

[faber83]

Keep going, man... So FM is over, evolution is not possible.
"Extremely worrying that several researchers don't understand"... here comes the daddy...