Revaluation of the CA - PA system

[fmnatic]

5 hours ago, Brentford Alan said:

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. 

@Brentford Alan Agree with you Brentford , there is no way the researchers and SI can accurately predict the future , and know in which cases a player will beat the odds. I think the aim here is NOT  to try to build a FM where Kante,Vardy,Cavani all rise to the top. Rather build a game where there there will be a few players (i.e Joe Nobody) that rise to the top despite being the underdog, this is different in everyone's playthrough. This breaks the wonderkid domination monopoly , allows for Vardy type stories, perhaps even allow a club to play moneyball and win the league with no wonderkids. All of which add variety and realism to a quite unbelievable game.

I'm not saying this is a major change , as i said earlier the game just needs to allow 0.001% of players to bloom unexpectedly and significantly.  Ideally this wouldn't be random and hopefully SI can look at the tons of historical data, and figure out some indicators, for eg i suspect some of these players had a physical edge or a mental edge over their lower league peers. (I doubt they would have a technical edge.). Another indicator could be starting in the youth system of division 1 or 2 club and being released at an early age.(perhaps problematic to implement since players in FM start at 16yrs old.)

[HUNT3R]

Cut out the bickering, please. It isn't necessary.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

6 hours ago, fmnatic said:

@Brentford Alan Agree with you Brentford , there is no way the researchers and SI can accurately predict the future , and know in which cases a player will beat the odds. I think the aim here is NOT  to try to build a FM where Kante,Vardy,Cavani all rise to the top. Rather build a game where there there will be a few players (i.e Joe Nobody) that rise to the top despite being the underdog, this is different in everyone's playthrough. This breaks the wonderkid domination monopoly , allows for Vardy type stories, perhaps even allow a club to play moneyball and win the league with no wonderkids. All of which add variety and realism to a quite unbelievable game.

I'm not saying this is a major change , as i said earlier the game just needs to allow 0.001% of players to bloom unexpectedly and significantly.  Ideally this wouldn't be random and hopefully SI can look at the tons of historical data, and figure out some indicators, for eg i suspect some of these players had a physical edge or a mental edge over their lower league peers. (I doubt they would have a technical edge.). Another indicator could be starting in the youth system of division 1 or 2 club and being released at an early age.(perhaps problematic to implement since players in FM start at 16yrs old.)

Researchers can already do this by using the negative potentials so the player will be different in each game. You can also do a Leicester in game fairly easily by buying players based on their attributes instead of their CA/PA whilst the player won't be as good on paper or as well rounded as a wonderkid if he has the correct attribute spread he can be better in a certain role than a wonderkid.

The Vardy stories can also happen in game - in FM17 I had a fullback who was released by Bournemouth and signed him in the Conference and he was with me all the way to the Premier League and even though my staff always said his ability was a level below us he continued to perform through the leagues. Should also be some posts around by I think @Seb Wassell (or another internal tester) that confirms that late bloomers can happen in game with the progression system being improved in FM17.

Also the wonderkid tag isn't all that important in recent FM's as it's largely reputation based so you can get a fair number of 'failed' wonderkids if you are a bigger team whilst better players at smaller teams might never get the tag, though if you mean people using wonderkid lists on the internet to sign players then their isn't much that can be done about that as no matter what system is used someone will always make a list of the wonderkids.

The main issue here seems to be for whatever reason the Italian Researchers are setting young players PA to the same level as their CA.

[fmnatic]

 

2 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Should also be some posts around by I think @Seb Wassell (or another internal tester) that confirms that late bloomers can happen in game with the progression system being improved in FM17.

@michaeltmurrayuk Can you direct me to those posts about the progression system wrt late bloomers, would love to have a look. Being playing since fm15, but not seen a late bloomer. Have had a couple of player over the years that seem to beat the PA/CA system , and still find success at the higher leagues. This was both playmakers with poor physicals whose other attributes compensated for the level they were playing at.

[Seb Wassell]

4 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

The Vardy stories can also happen in game - in FM17 I had a fullback who was released by Bournemouth and signed him in the Conference and he was with me all the way to the Premier League and even though my staff always said his ability was a level below us he continued to perform through the leagues. Should also be some posts around by I think @Seb Wassell (or another internal tester) that confirms that late bloomers can happen in game with the progression system being improved in FM17.

Yes this is indeed the case. As of FM17 late bloomers, early risers, etc. were improved upon. A Jamie Vardy should certainly be possible, as should the opposite, although of course rare. I will not claim that this system perfectly reflect reality just yet, but considering that Vardy is the exception and, as evidenced by him always being the one example used, so very rare I think we have made good progress in this area.

8 minutes ago, michaeltmurrayuk said:

Also the wonderkid tag isn't all that important in recent FM's as it's largely reputation based so you can get a fair number of 'failed' wonderkids if you are a bigger team whilst better players at smaller teams might never get the tag, though if you mean people using wonderkid lists on the internet to sign players then their isn't much that can be done about that as no matter what system is used someone will always make a list of the wonderkids.

The "Wonderkid" description is literally a player with a massive CA for his age and nothing more. It has no relation to PA other than the obvious link of a player with high CA at a young age is likely to have a high PA, but this is certainly not guaranteed and I quite like seeing those examples of players that look like world beaters at 18 but then never improve again.

[fmnatic]

6 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

Yes this is indeed the case. As of FM17 late bloomers, early risers, etc. were improved upon. A Jamie Vardy should certainly be possible, as should the opposite, although of course rare. I will not claim that this system perfectly reflect reality just yet, but considering that Vardy is the exception and, as evidenced by him always being the one example used, so very rare I think we have made good progress in this area.

 @Seb Wassell Great to know. Does this mean there are cases of lower league players , making it to the top ? I'm going to keep an eye on my league stats , and check if players who played in lower leagues in the previous three or four years show up there, especially players in their late twenties.

Could I expect over the course of a 5-6 season game to see a couple of such players ?

[Maaka]

45 minutes ago, fmnatic said:

 @Seb Wassell Great to know. Does this mean there are cases of lower league players , making it to the top ? I'm going to keep an eye on my league stats , and check if players who played in lower leagues in the previous three or four years show up there, especially players in their late twenties.

Could I expect over the course of a 5-6 season game to see a couple of such players ?

Over the course of 5-6 seasons IRL (or say 10), how many (real life) examples are there?
The numbers in FM should more or less reflect this number (with some variety for each save game, so you'd need several save games to make a fair conclusion about the correspondancy of those numbers).

[Dorin]

15 hours ago, enigmatic said:

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?

I admit you have a good point, and I agree with a big part of it. It is realistic that many of these players shouldn't become great players even after moving to a big club as in my example, and I don't argue with that at all.
But why would a game developer give random footballers that, as in my example would get signed by big clubs (at an early age at least), an absolute zero chance of developing into a good enough footballer? 
In my opinion, there's a big difference between statistically not having a good chance and having a zero chance from the start.

From a database selection logic, If you are looking to build a team of great players the logic would in this case be the following:
1. Select players with talent (PA) over 140 let's say   (as a result this narrows down reach by many times... and usually they are in huge amount just from the countries with a higher youth rating I think)
2. Out of those selected look at all the other factors that decide player development (facilities, coaching level, match experience, opponents value, etc)
Then you get a list of potential good players to look at but from the start you leave out maybe over 95% of the players in the game. Are all the rest of these players having a zero chance of becoming a good footballer given a major circumstance change? And why would this be such a certain fact from the beginning even if the circumstance of some of them would drastically change and step 2 above would be pointing at a better development chance than the PA limit set?


 

[Seb Wassell]

As was pointed out previously, whilst discussion is good this should be kept on topic of the feature request in the OP in order to avoid muddying the waters.

Further discussion can be taken to, and is most welcomed in, our GD forum

[santy001]

Some more thoughts to throw into the mix is that this is very much a human player perceived problem. Bear in mind the AI will buy players who are performing well in lower leagues and try them higher up.

Now the big problem is still the AI's squad building nous at this point. They will, as I said, sign players from lower leagues who have the appearance of being better (whether this is through sustained good form, or actual ability is neither here nor there). The problem is once they get them they will often misuse them, or not even give them much of a chance. To me it suggests something isn't quite right with what targets players for a team to buy, and then what selects players for a team to use. 

Anecdotal, but Jack Redshaw who's in the game and you can all look up. He's had 2 substantial injuries, missing 17 games each in 2 separate seasons. FM18 was probably a little too late for him making his journey up the leagues, but he's having a Jamie Vardy style ascension. He's stepping up and performing at each subsequent level. He's risen through 4 leagues and is still performing strongly. 

He doesn't need a big PA, he hasn't had to have a potential higher than whatever its set at by default to make the step up - he's just needed a chance. This is one of the areas FM goes severely unnoticed in, because the majority of human players wouldn't look twice at him. The AI would (and has) try to sign him, but the AI most likely wouldn't utilise him as well and get as much from him and he'd quickly drop back down again.

- - -

I really can't tell you what his CA/PA are, I've not checked and while I could use the main FM editor to check his PA, there's no way in FMT of checking his current CA versus PA. Although considering this is a network game, I'd have no interest in doing so anyway. 

Why does Jack Redshaw need a system in the game that will keep dialling up his attributes as he steps up each level, when he can perform with his current attributes just fine? 

[faber83]

OMG guys, did I really read that the problem is just "the Italian research don't check their too low PAs" and "it is just a human player perceived problem"?...

Are you serious? Dealing here with a deeply structured proposal and a wide reasoned discussion, that was offered by some long time expert researchers (not me, but at least two of them here, with many others stay-behind in our Italian group)?

Here you can see other not Italian people supporting this proposal, so please, again, don't make it a local thing.

For those who don't agree, ok.

For those who agree, I think we should (and have the right to) structure this proposal, spread the word in this forum, other forums and on Facebook, and present it to S.I.

When will S.I. understand that they cannot count for ever and ever on the fame built in the past and on the lack of competition for this game (that's not a "game", but it's a community)?

[Raptor Longe]

Hi, my name is Joel Senior, playing in FC United, Conference English Team.
I'm a right-back, apparently, despite being only 19 and having at least 16/17 years of career, apparently I will never grew much.

Not even if I'm starting to play in my club now and I'm fine. Not even if an emissary, perhaps drunk at Manchester United, decided to buy me after my performance, and send me to the reserve team, training me with the best training facilities in the world. Not even if I was training the best coaches in the world and I could face the best players. I from CA 38, I will never exceed 50 CA, I will never be able to reach even the 80 CA points.

 

Ps. Zac Corbett, 50 CA, 55 PA. 21 Years Old. 

 

[santy001]

He can never surpass 50CA and that's fine if that's what his researcher has judged him at. 

He also can most likely never, no matter how much studying he did, cure cancer. He can never, no matter how much training he did be the worlds strongest man. No matter how much he wills it, he isn't growing a second set of arms. That 50PA represents his genetic limitation!

Like honestly, its seriously concerning as a researcher, and everything I've been advised by those at SI I've spoken to that you equate playing for a big club = boost in attributes. It is something we have spent years explaining its not the case, and that we do not aim to think that way about players. The limits of a player are nothing to do with his club, the limits of a player are to do with the player himself.

I'm going to credit the language gap to why you've explained your point so poorly, but if you as a researcher, are seriously suggesting that playing for a bigger club should instantly equal higher stats, you really need to re-check how you ought to be researching players. Furthermore, the fact you're now trying to trash other researchers efforts for players you've likely never seen play or at best only seen a handful of times is really not on. You know nothing about these players, but are trying to claim they're wrong. 

[Raptor Longe]

No, you do not understand.

I'm not suggesting this. I am saying that this method of judgment is profoundly wrong. Because we are not magicians who foresee the future, but we act as such.
We should judge what the player is currently doing, and let the game decide whether that player with poor talent may reach 50 CAs, 70 CAs or 90 CAs. I'm not saying to give him the opportunity to become a 200 CA.
I'm saying that you could improve the game this way. Or at least for me it is.

 

[legend_killer82]

So we rate PA's as genetic limits, and they are getting compared to cancer. Very interesting. I thought we were fans, researchers and football manager lovers, not Gods.

Totally disagree with this view and i proudly dissociate from it. When i rate my players's PA's i don't set them as a genetic limit, i don't feel like a God to do that. It's very arrogant indeed to assume we can know players genetic limits IMO

[santy001]

On 18/10/2016 at 15:11, Gripper said:

In fact, if it is in the database for your club, we want your help to keep it updated! We would expect you to consider yourself THE authority on your club, rather than being a passive observer of them.

 

It's literally in the job description.

[faber83]

@santy001  No comment, really...

You think you're speaking to teenage newbies... You lack of respect to expert colleagues.... You make this conversation completely useless...

If I would follow your line, I could dare to say that this discussion shows how the British cannot think "out of the box"... that's genetic!

(P.S.: I live in the UK)

[santy001]

11 minutes ago, faber83 said:

@santy001  No comment, really...

You think you're speaking to teenage newbies... You lack of respect to expert colleagues.... You make this conversation completely useless...

If I would follow your line, I could dare to say that this discussion shows how the British cannot think "out of the box"... that's genetic!

When you've got something useful to add, please do. 

I mean, I can't say for certain but its pretty much very likely this isn't going to be adopted going forward, because it is just rebranding PA as something some feel more comfortable having a label for (instead of predicting potential, we have to predict a players natural talent) so I'm just trying to help you & others understand its failings to help refine a better potential idea next time around.

It seems I'm also trying to explain what our remit as researcher is as well. Because there's so many ideas being put on display that are completely against the spirit and guidance SI provide for the research of player data.

[faber83]

So you still don't understand the proposal, again and again and again...

And your taking the duties of a researchers into this discussion makes it even more annoying... Everything can change, so the duties change. This game has changed in time.

If I would follow your line, I could dare to say that this discussion shows how the British cannot think "out of the guidelines"... that's genetic!

(P.S.: I live in the UK)

[santy001]

There seems to be more long-standing, long time involved in the community researchers, and even SI staff pointing out that the development you think this 'natural talent' attribute would provide already exist in the game. It's just more subtle, nuanced and discreet than a glaringly obvious 'natural talent' attribute would be. In addition to this, they also have acknowledged there is a weakness to PA, that relies on researchers not getting it accurate. 

I mean we're not all "VIP" researchers admittedly, and we're not "real" experts of PA (although strangely enough we do get to discuss it with the people who implement it in the code, and iterate on it from year to year). Not to mention we get things like this: 

There is already a degree of randomness in the journey towards achieving potential, and circumstances are taken into account. 

PA already does everything you'd want of natural talent, if PA was encrypted you'd never know what the player was set to and it would be this 'natural talent' was in effect. 

But it seems like you don't really want discussion anyway @faber83 pretty much all your posts boil down to just trying to patronise anyone who doesn't agree with your view. Referencing obscure things like the fact you live in the UK as though it has some meaning. I set you up with a brilliant post for how you could enlighten me, explain to me why Jack Redshaw needed to magically get better by moving up the leagues to play in those leagues, when he was still managing to play and score despite 2 bad injuries.

(P.S I bought a loaf of bread for £1 on the way home tonight)

[enigmatic]

7 hours ago, Dorin said:

I admit you have a good point, and I agree with a big part of it. It is realistic that many of these players shouldn't become great players even after moving to a big club as in my example, and I don't argue with that at all.
But why would a game developer give random footballers that, as in my example would get signed by big clubs (at an early age at least), an absolute zero chance of developing into a good enough footballer? 
In my opinion, there's a big difference between statistically not having a good chance and having a zero chance from the start.

From a database selection logic, If you are looking to build a team of great players the logic would in this case be the following:
1. Select players with talent (PA) over 140 let's say   (as a result this narrows down reach by many times... and usually they are in huge amount just from the countries with a higher youth rating I think)
2. Out of those selected look at all the other factors that decide player development (facilities, coaching level, match experience, opponents value, etc)
Then you get a list of potential good players to look at but from the start you leave out maybe over 95% of the players in the game. Are all the rest of these players having a zero chance of becoming a good footballer given a major circumstance change? And why would this be such a certain fact from the beginning even if the circumstance of some of them would drastically change and step 2 above would be pointing at a better development chance than the PA limit set?

It's not really worth overcomplicating a research process and/or making lots of players randomly become very good for the sake of a few players the researchers have underestimated in the past. You could probably make the PA figures slightly looser, but I haven't seen a great deal of evidence that researchers are consistently underestimating players and if you make PAs generally higher and harder to reach, it's just going to make the AI do an even worse job of developing players.

The reality is most players do have absolutely zero chance of developing into a good footballer (where good = PA>140). That's why clubs spend millions of pounds on hot prospects rather than spraying it around on useful 19 year olds from the third tier who might come good. And most of the players who go unnoticed for most of the career in the lower divisions but end up doing fine in the top division are of below average all-round ability for the top division even when they make it there (typically balanced out by consistency and attitude and being well specialised for certain roles) . There's certainly nothing in the game stopping you from taking players who've maxed out their potential at CA125 into the top division and winning titles with them.

17 minutes ago, faber83 said:

So you still don't understand the proposal, again and again and again...

And your taking the duties of a researchers into this discussion makes it even more annoying... Everything can change, so the duties change. This game has changed in time.

If I would follow your line, I could dare to say that this discussion shows how the British cannot think "out of the guidelines"... that's genetic!

(P.S.: I live in the UK)

People who disagree with the proposal understand it perfectly well. We just think it sucks.

Frankly it makes far more sense for researchers to impose artificial ceilings on player development by setting PA = 130 than by setting some opaque combination of professionalism, ambition, determination, "natural talent", CA and age which has the equivalent effect of ensuring the player can't improve past PA130 in the scope of their career (and probably won't reach 120).

At least when it's PA 130 or PA 170 people can easily express an opinion on whether it's far too harsh or far too generous

Natural talent 10, Determination 13, Professionalism 12, Ambition 11, CA 100, Striker 20, Age 20 years 6 months, Game version FM19.3.1 not so much. 

 

[faber83]

@santy001 it was just a kind of "disclaimer" to prevent my humor to be read as "racist", me being in Italian who lives in the UK.

So you don't even understand humor, how can you even understand a complex proposal like Raptor's one!?... it's genetic!

It's funny that we are talking about a change in the game, but you quote obvious things about what the game is at the moment... Have you ever heard that, for instance, in the western world the parliaments change the laws, updating them to the changes of times?

[faber83]

@enigmatic "People who disagree with the proposal understand it perfectly well" LOL!! Either you live in a perfect world, or you overestimate the average skills of common people to really understand the meaning of a written text

To me, your description of the possible effects in adding more complexity in research and in game, makes "our" proposal even more interesting and fancy... boomerang effect! 

So is that really a fear of complexity that's hiding under that conservatism???

PA is brutal and arbitrary. Try to think out of the box.

[santy001]

5 minutes ago, faber83 said:

@santy001 it was just a kind of "disclaimer" to prevent my humor to be read as "racist", me being in Italian who lives in the UK.

So you don't even understand humor, how can you even understand a complex proposal like Raptor's one!?... it's genetic!

It's funny that we are talking about a change in the game, but you quote obvious things about what the game is at the moment... Have you ever heard that, for instance, in the western world the parliaments change the laws, updating them to the changes of times?

Please, I beg you, can you actually add something of value to a discussion. I could get involved in the patronising and tit for tat, but honestly pal, I just can't be bothered. 

There's nothing complex about this, its the same thing having been suggested on and off for the last 5-6 years at least, its just got a different headline title. 

It doesn't make Luca Toni, Jamie Vardy or anyone else more likely. Perpetua made a fantastic post on this, and Seb has already covered how development is already more sophisticated than what has been suggested. 

If you're wishing to get the researcher guidelines and remits changed, this is hardly the place considering there is an NDA in place on what we do and therefore certain elements may not be permitted to be discussed publicly. The parts I've mentioned thus far are a) a public post from Gripper for the attention of all would be researchers on what the role entails and b) the 2018 researcher guidelines that I did ask permission for to post the definitions of attributes for on the forums to help posters better discuss attributes in question.

[faber83]

Ok, you've persuaded me. It's just impossible.

So, please leave space to others to discuss and add something of value, thank you.

You think you have something of value to add, but I don't see that.

[Cougar2010]

2 hours ago, Raptor Longe said:

Hi, my name is Joel Senior, playing in FC United, Conference English Team.
I'm a right-back, apparently, despite being only 19 and having at least 16/17 years of career, apparently I will never grew much.

Not even if I'm starting to play in my club now and I'm fine. Not even if an emissary, perhaps drunk at Manchester United, decided to buy me after my performance, and send me to the reserve team, training me with the best training facilities in the world. Not even if I was training the best coaches in the world and I could face the best players. I from CA 38, I will never exceed 50 CA, I will never be able to reach even the 80 CA points.

 

Ps. Zac Corbett, 50 CA, 55 PA. 21 Years Old. 

 

So what happens under your proposal if you give him a "natural talent" of:

A) 1

B) 5

C) 10

D) 20

What sort of growth would you want/expect/estimate to see in each of those cases?

[Maaka]

2 hours ago, legend_killer82 said:

So we rate PA's as genetic limits, and they are getting compared to cancer. Very interesting. I thought we were fans, researchers and football manager lovers, not Gods.

Totally disagree with this view and i proudly dissociate from it. When i rate my players's PA's i don't set them as a genetic limit, i don't feel like a God to do that. It's very arrogant indeed to assume we can know players genetic limits IMO

So, what kind of a limit do you consider the PA as then, if not a limit on all the factors of the players, both physical ("genetic"), mental and technical? When you rate a player by giving him a well thought through rating, you are actually, in essence, playing "god" for a moment.

[herne79]

On ‎17‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 04:45, HUNT3R said:

Cut out the bickering, please. It isn't necessary.

And yet it continues.  Lots of passionate people here talking passionately about the subject but some are walking close to the edge of rudeness born out of frustration.  It's not only rude but distracts and detracts from the actual discussion.

We're already removing offensive posts, please don't make us remove people from the discussion as well.  It's a very interesting subject, especially to see so many researchers involved, so lets keep the personal digs out of it.

That's two requests now to stop bickering.  Any more and we'll have no other option but to hand out infractions.

[Undy]

Can I come in as a non-expert, non-researcher again?

Young players get their talent overestimated. It happens. Young players get their talent underestimated. It happens. All I would like to see in the game, perhaps a watering down of the original proposal, is an acknowledgement of this. I thought it got introduced a couple of years back when my coaches started saying a player's potential had increased, but really all that was happening was their perception changed, nothing to do with the actual coded hard-limiting PA value. If a young player is developing at a good rate, it would be nice to see their PA shifting up a little - maybe up to a max 10% increase on their original PA. The game (by my understanding anyway) uses PA for scouting & coaching staff to determine a player's potential, so a PA of, say, 110 might result in a "decent Ladbrokes Premiership" potential. Maybe best illustrated in an example at this point.

Joe Striker comes through in my youth intake. He has a CA of 90 and a PA of 110. My coaches report him as having the potential to become a "leading Ladbrokes Championship player"

A couple of years into his career, he has been training well, banged in 20 goals on loan at a good Championship club. His CA is up at, say, 105, just 5 off his PA yet he's only 20 years old.

At the end of season training summary, the coaches say "Joe Striker has shown remarkable progress recently and is now judged to potentially become a good Ladbrokes Premiership player" - the game reassess his PA and shifts it up to, say 120. 

 

As I said before, FIFA Manager had a similar system a decade ago and it was a better game for it (one of the better features in the car crash that ended that franchise). It gives the player greater incentive to invest in those youth players who may only seem like potential squad filler and also allows managers to bring up players to a higher standard with them. Look at the players who rose through the football league with Swansea City. They didn't become star players in the Premiership, but they were solid squad players. I just don't think I've ever seen this in Football Manager.

[santy001]

52 minutes ago, Undy said:

Can I come in as a non-expert, non-researcher again?

Young players get their talent overestimated. It happens. Young players get their talent underestimated. It happens. All I would like to see in the game, perhaps a watering down of the original proposal, is an acknowledgement of this. I thought it got introduced a couple of years back when my coaches started saying a player's potential had increased, but really all that was happening was their perception changed, nothing to do with the actual coded hard-limiting PA value. If a young player is developing at a good rate, it would be nice to see their PA shifting up a little - maybe up to a max 10% increase on their original PA. The game (by my understanding anyway) uses PA for scouting & coaching staff to determine a player's potential, so a PA of, say, 110 might result in a "decent Ladbrokes Premiership" potential. Maybe best illustrated in an example at this point.

Joe Striker comes through in my youth intake. He has a CA of 90 and a PA of 110. My coaches report him as having the potential to become a "leading Ladbrokes Championship player"

A couple of years into his career, he has been training well, banged in 20 goals on loan at a good Championship club. His CA is up at, say, 105, just 5 off his PA yet he's only 20 years old.

At the end of season training summary, the coaches say "Joe Striker has shown remarkable progress recently and is now judged to potentially become a good Ladbrokes Premiership player" - the game reassess his PA and shifts it up to, say 120. 

 

As I said before, FIFA Manager had a similar system a decade ago and it was a better game for it (one of the better features in the car crash that ended that franchise). It gives the player greater incentive to invest in those youth players who may only seem like potential squad filler and also allows managers to bring up players to a higher standard with them. Look at the players who rose through the football league with Swansea City. They didn't become star players in the Premiership, but they were solid squad players. I just don't think I've ever seen this in Football Manager.

In regards to your first paragraph, you're right in the sense that perception of a players potential can and does change over time. I don't know what relationship the game has with the direct PA value, from my understanding the NPC staff never know it, they merely have a guess based on their own attributes. 

In regards to this hypothetical Joe Striker, this is where it starts to get a bit difficult to explain in the best terms that will make sense.

That 110 PA he has is meant to represent his limit, not his limit based on where he trains, or his limit on what league he's playing in, its just his limit. Having a good year doesn't increase his potential, just like having a bad year doesn't decrease it. 

He might peak early and almost hit his potential at age 20, I would go as far to say in real life Arsenal have had a fair few of these players in recent times (Francis Jeffers, Seb Larsson, David Bentley their careers had varying levels, but they were young players who looked like based on good starts should've had more to give and just didn't). Players who have peaked early and never really pushed on, not due to a lack of facilities and not due to a lack of training because Wenger has developed other players quite well. 

Your last part about Swansea brings me back to my point about it often being a human player perceived issue. As a human player you're more likely to replace weak players as you go up the leagues, but I've shown on FM18 with Jack Redshaw moving from the Vanarama North to League 1 thus far that players can step up and here's a screenshot from my championship promotion season on FM17 with Crewe:

Ben Garratt, Oliver Turton, George Ray & Daniel Udoh were all original Crewe players in League 2. 

Skip forward another 4 years:

Oliver Turton is still there, he's making a lot less appearances and by this point (2022/23) he's 31/32 but still playing in a premier league team that finished 5th in the premier league. This shows its already perfectly possible for a player to make the transition, given the right environment. I would also wager some of these players who were performing in the championship, and made appearances for me in the premier league didn't even break the 100CA barrier. 

On FM its very easy for a human player to find upgrades on these players, and they're very likely to do so. There were free agents who would've been an upgrade on Turton, instead I kept Turton as my 2nd choice right back through to his retirement a few years later meaning he even got Europa League appearances to his name. He was with me at least until 2027 because when he retired it unlocked the achievement on FMT that meant I could have a regen son which I think is 10 years of continuous play at your club before retiring there.

[Cougar2010]

@Undy

PAs should never change during the course of a save, especially upwards for a couple of reasons.

A) Potential never changes IRL, its always set at birth.  Perceptions change but the actually potential doesn't.

B) Changing the PA in game creates a spiral effect where players either continually improve or continually get worse with no way of breaking the spiral.  As a knock effect it would then make it easier for human users to game the system, identify the players with good upwards spirals and maximise the spiral to easily create super teams.

 

6 minutes ago, faber83 said:

Well said, especially your last two paragraphs, that's really close to one improvement that Raport's proposal could bring in the game.

But I'm afraid that, even if a watering down of the proposal, someone here wouldn't like it anyway on principle as an innovation, no matter what, how or why...

This shows you don't fully understand Raptor's proposal.

At no point has he claimed that natural talent would change in game, it would be fixed at the start of the save by either the researcher or randomly set when the save is created.  So the "improvement" you claim his proposal would bring wouldn't happen under his proposal.

[faber83]

I meant that a change in the whole PA and weighted values system could, in one way or another, bring more dynamic to the growth of the players. Now it's a need of many fans of FM.

You don't understand Raport's proposal, because it would mainly affect the speed of the growth.

[Cougar2010]

9 minutes ago, faber83 said:

I meant that a change in the whole PA and weighted values system could, in one way or another, bring more dynamic to the growth of the players. Now it's a need of many fans of FM.

Yes many of us want to see more variety in how a player's CA grows & declines during the course of his career and also from save to save.

 

9 minutes ago, faber83 said:

You don't understand Raport's proposal, because it would mainly affect the speed of the growth.

Here I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall.

Raptor's proposal would introduce a fixed speed of growth which wouldn't change during the course of a player's career.  In that respect its actually worse than the current PA system because under the current system the rate of growth changes depending on how far away a player is from his PA.  The further away from his PA a player is the more his CA can improve given the right conditions.

[faber83]

So the PA system that we have at the moment - with a fixed top and a fixed age when a player can really improve (which also brings many errors in prediction, and many errors in the compilation of youngsters and lowers, such as CA50 PA55...) - is considered even more dynamic than a dynamic growth proposal like Raptor's, without any fixed top, but with just some new parameters regarding the speed of the growth in some given conditions???

I'm realizing now that such replies are just pure obstructionism, no real interest shown in the discussion. This is something that the moderators should take in account.

[santy001]

11 minutes ago, faber83 said:

 a fixed age

This has not been the case for quite a while.

As I mentioned before, @Seb Wassell made a post in this thread about player development bell curves and how there is variance, things that allow players to sit on a relatively low CA for their early parts of their careers and have a period of development in the latter stages of their career. Things that allow for early burners, players who accelerate towards their potential fast and look like the next big thing, but are really just the next Freddy Adu etc.

Seb has also made several posts over the last couple of years on this topic, it certainly helped to enlighten me on some concerns/queries I had with the development of players at times. 

Also Faber, I've offered up players from both FM18 and more recently FM17 making the transition up the leagues in a system that doesn't have an unrestricted PA and doesn't need them to get giant leaps in CA/PA for them to keep performing. One of the big ideas behind this post seems to be that in FM right now this should be impossible, but its not. 

[Cougar2010]

4 minutes ago, faber83 said:

So the PA system that we have at the moment - with a fixed top and a fixed age when a player can really improve (which also brings many errors in prediction, and many errors in the compilation of youngsters and lowers, such as CA50 PA55...) - is considered even more dynamic than a dynamic growth proposal like Raptor's, without any fixed top, but with just some new parameters regarding the speed of the growth in some given conditions???

The growth within the PA system is more dynamic.

Raptors proposal introduces another FIXED rate which alongside the other factors would affect the growth of a player.  While the mixture of factors would ensure that the growth is dynamic it doesn't take away from the fact that you are introducing a FIXED factor while also removing the main reason the growth is dynamic.  That basically makes the overall system less dynamic than it was previously.

 

4 minutes ago, faber83 said:

I'm realizing now that such replies are just pure obstructionism, no real interest shown in the discussion. This is something that the moderators should take in account.

Unbelieveable tbh.  I've clearly shown an interest and explained both systems in detail as well as discussing the pros & cons of each system.

You on the other hand have shown no interest in understanding either system as well as being rude & disrespectful to users who disagree with you.

[faber83]

Ok, so what do you and others propose to improve the system?

So, if you don't have anything to propose, and you think this system is the best we can have and the best we will have for ever and ever, so why do you keep posting in this thread? You've said you don't like this proposal in all the possible ways, ok, we understand, by the way of "something of value to add"...

I think this thread should now be left to the people that are interested in this proposal or anything that can change the system.

Otherwise, you and others are monopolizing this discussion.

This is one thing that the moderators should take in account.

[legend_killer82]

I agree that there are 2 people kinda monopolizing this thread. I stopped posting cause of them actually, i felt bullied to say least. It would be nice if other people could express their opinions too, as these 2 guys position is VERY clear.

[santy001]

At this point I'm putting my effort into demonstrating the what you want to be able to happen already exists in the game (players transitioning from lower leagues to higher) and that you need to better understand the elements of the game you're providing criticism of. 

You're saying change needs to happen because of the age limit on improvement, but there is no age restriction on when players can stop improving. 

You say it needed to change because there's no late bloomers, no Jamie Vardy, no Luca Toni, we're explaining that since FM17 this has been in the game for players to be able to rise from lower levels late in their career.

When your criticisms are based on flawed logic, then the discussion should first be to get the right foundation of knowledge. Then it can move forward. Maybe Raptor already knows this stuff, but you're posting reasons about why it needs to change based on very much outdated knowledge of the FM games. Criticisms we all levied years ago and SI has responded to and implemented solutions for.

[faber83]

Ok, me too I'm done... when the monopolizers will finish their job, I will come back to this "flawed" discussion.

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, faber83 said:

So, if you don't have anything to propose, and you think this system is the best we can have and the best we will have for ever and ever, so why do you keep posting in this thread? You've said you don't like this proposal in all the possible ways, ok, we understand, by the way of "something of value to add"...

Thats just not true and shows you haven't fully read my posts, just like you've glossed over Raptor's posts and not fully understood his proposal.

I've clearly stated more than once that if you were starting from scratch there is nothing wrong with Raptor's proposal and it would be a viable system with pros & cons.  However IMO and others it doesn't improve on the current enough to be worth changing what we have now.  There are a couple of areas where it is a slight improvement on the current PA system and at least one area where it is slightly worse.

11 minutes ago, faber83 said:

Ok, so what do you and others propose to improve the system?

I've already stated both in this thread and in other threads what I feel would be an improvement.

That is random PAs that change from save to save for every player or at the very least wider/more flexibilty in the PA given to the players at game start.  This would also be possible with Raptor's system by using random natural talent figure that changed from save to save.

The benefits of that are:

A) More variety from save to save.

B) No need for researchers to guesstimate PA or natural talent.

C) Its already been tested in another similar game and proven to work for several years.

D) It would be another barrier to cheating and encourage users to play the game the right way because they couldn't rely on the same players every save.

 

 

I would also love @Raptor Longe to clarify some points of his proposal so we know what we are discussing, namely:

A) Would the natural talent be set by researchers or randomly at save setup.

B) Can the natural talent change during the course of a player's career.

C) Answer my question from last night which I'll quote below:

12 hours ago, Cougar2010 said:

So what happens under your proposal if you give him a "natural talent" of:

A) 1

B) 5

C) 10

D) 20

What sort of growth would you want/expect/estimate to see in each of those cases?

For the question above we were talking about a player who was 19yo with a CA of 38.

[-Jef-]

I was always for more 'dynamic' potential. Was never a fan of the fixed potential. So let me tell you a story.

It is FM17. As always I play as my go-to team NK Osijek from First Croatian League. Nothing special. Average league with average players. Fast forward 9 years and the league is above average (2 CL spots, 3 EL spots...or something like that - 5 of 10 teams playing in Europe), great facilities, top of the line coaches (3.5+ stars for every category, both youth and senior team)...you know the classic thing.

 

And I get a scouting report from Portugal. Interesting 15 year old named Joao Lima appears. Solid technical attributes, good mental and physical attributes. Proffesional, ambitious etc. You know, perfect young prospect. Since I still did not have Eden Hazards, Modric' in my team relative CA/PA was still kinda low. So he had 4* gold with 5* black PA. I'm like YES! THAT IS MY FUTURE PLAYMAKER!

Since I am dominating domestic competitions I put him every game at least 20 minutes and plenty of starts.

 

Fast forward 3 years. He is 18 years old. Even better mental attributes, still solid physical attributes. His passing, dribling and every playmaker attribute is around 15-16 which is what I wanted for my team. Kinda like worse Modrić. He was assisting, scoring goals in CL finals...everything. THE DREAM!

But, I notice that through taht season that he is not progressing anymore. Download FM-GENIE and I see that his CA is 2-3 points away from his CA.

 

Why should my Joao Lima be limited by the game itself (not even researchers!) to a PA when he is obviously bound to be a superstar in the next FIFTEEN years when he has high determination, ambition, professionalism, good facilites, playing all the time vs best teams and players and coached by top of the line coaches. WHY should he NOT develop to let's say 185CA with all of his other attributes when he is HALTED abruptly by one attribute that should obviously not be fixed!

 

So let's say that OP's option of NATURAL TALENT is in the game instead of Joao's PA. Let's say it is in line with his professionalism at 15. This would mean that WITH STRICT non-linear algorithm he could end up being higher because he is still proffesional and still ambitious at 18 and SHOULD be improving. Maybe his passing, dribling, vision does not improve past 16. Maybe he learns to defend and intercept passes and be better at positioning or improves his set-pieces. I am saying that I was DENIED next Xavi, Modric, Iniesta, Pirlo because the game decided that my Joao Lima will NOT grow anymore when he is 18. What the frick is that?

 

Why would you limit a 18 year old from improving whilst playing vs best defenders and midfielders every other game?

 

If he had low professionalism but high natural talent he would be no better than Tom Cleverley...for example.

 

Give me good enough reason why SI should not implement something LIKE THIS to avoid as many badly set PAs as possible?

 

Why should high-profesional, highly driven, highly ambitious 18 year old with top30 in the world surroundings (facilites, coaches, competition) be stopped from improving?

[santy001]

Playing the victim doesn't really help the discussion. 

@rosque what the game is representing with the player you have bought is that you basically bought a 2007 version of Freddy Adu. A bright star at a young age, but he just doesn't have any more to give. This is what FM is supposed to do, its also supposed to mean that the guy knocking around in the lower leagues you haven't even looked at twice at might be substantially better, he just hasn't had the opportunity to showcase it.

There are so many players who are like this, I mentioned 3 before but Michael Owen is another. He was much better at 18/19 than he was at 28/29. Wayne Rooney is another who burned bright early in his career, compared to say Cristiano Ronaldo who burned bright and still continued to get even stronger. Michael Ricketts, Charles N'Zogbia, Cherno Samba, Eric Djemba Djemba, Nani, Anderson, Seth Johnson, Kleberson (Man Utd have made this an art form tbh), Andy Carroll and god knows how many others. All looked good, young players. All should've been destined for the top, yet none of them made it. Nani is the only one who sort of then went on to have a bit of a late career renaissance. 

Not everyone who starts well in football continues to do so, and that is what things like this represent. From a players perspective its a bit crap that you ended up buying the dud prospect, but at the same time, if you had been in the lower leagues and you got your hands on the Jamie Vardy equivalent you'd be delighted. 

It's meant to remove the certainty from the game that used to exist, several years ago you'd never be misled about this youngster, your scouts would see he was good now but wouldn't get much better and you'd ignore him. Now, because of other improvements to the game your scouts believe he's the next big thing, but he isn't. 

Edited in addendum:

Bear in mind as well @rosque you aren't supposed to know these values. You're supposed to be judging him off how he is performing and behaving in the game. If he's performing well, if he's assisting and scoring in the CL finals, what more is there to bring to the table? You've already got a fantastic player on your hands no matter what his CA/PA are. If you've got someone scoring 30 goals a season upfront at the top level of the game does it matter if his CA/PA are both at 50 or 150? 

[CFuller]

@rosque It is not completely unheard of for excellent footballers to peak very early in their careers. I was going to mention Freddy Adu before santy came in. One could argue Alan Smith (ex-Leeds/Man Utd/Newcastle) was another who was very good very young but didn't get any better.

Also, just because a player has reached their PA does not mean they cannot be improved with suitable training regimes. In that case, he'd likely just improve key attributes at the expense of less useful ones, unless I'm mistaken.

[-Jef-]

Yeah, but Freddy Adu did not have professionalism needed to advance his career past htat of being a mediocre player for Greek 1st league mid-tier club. Nor ambition. He even akcnowledged himself that he started professional football because he wanted to provide for his family and THAT IS IT. He never trained as hard as Championship players. So he stagnated.  ALSO who is to say that he was properly trained, that he trained properly and that he led professional life? He also admitted that he made many wrong choices regarding his football life.

Quote

“Everything that I’ve been through and everything that hurt my career, I brought it on myself because I didn’t dedicate enough time to it,” Adu said.

Quote

“I’ve looked back on these past few years and I’ve wasted a lot of time, wasted years of my career, just not dedicating the time I should have to the sport,” Adu said.

Quote

“I did take it for granted. At that point I had a four-year deal with MLS, and it was guaranteed and everything was fine. I let myself relax, and it was just immaturity,”

So he DID NOT HAVE PROFESSIONALISM, DRIVE to be the best. While my Joao Lima HAD THAT!

 

So why should he bet halted when he lived and breathed football?

 

Alan Smith and Owen did not improve because of injuries! My Lima DID NOT SUFFER ANY INJURY! except 1-2 days ones which are common when playing vs Barca at 17 yrs old.

[santy001]

It's hard to explain, because there is clearly a passionate argument on your side that it shouldn't be and I fully understand the reasoning behind it @rosque but its meant to just reflect that its all he's got. The barrier is his own body, his own footballing mind, his own physical limitations. 

You're looking at the things you as a player are never meant to know, because they can impact upon your enjoyment and they are impacting upon your enjoyment. Jon Walters has been one of the hardest working footballers I've ever come across, more determined to make the most of it, he even left Stoke at the age of 34 to get more game time to and to make sure he got all that he wanted out of his career. But he still has a limit on what he can achieve, and no amount of professionalism, no amount of hard work is going to overcome that.

The only difference is that instead of your Joao Lima having to nearly lose it all in his professional career and then build up from there to get that, he's had that hunger right away and instead of peaking at 28-32/33 he's peaked at 18 and now your job is to keep him performing at that peak for the next 15 years. You seem to be unhappy with a player who is by all accounts, doing absolutely fantastic in your team, the kind of player you can build a team around and will go with you all the way because of his PA being lower than you thought.

[-Jef-]

You just do not get it. Let me explain it in researcher terms.

 

TOP 15 club in the world buys a kid for 1.5 million euros at 15 years old. You put his PA at 150. He plays few cup games and 10-15 games in first season as 15-16 year old. You put his PA at 160 for new iteration of FM. He plays 20-25 games in the league and performs remarkably well. Even stars in Europe in same season as 16-17 year old. You put his PA at 170 for new iteration of FM as designated club researcher. As 18 year old he is the driving force in that team's road to the champions of the Europe and triple title! You put him at 180 for his PA and even more maybe.

 

So my question is...if you WOULD do that why are you so opposed to having another variable like professionalism that just says 'HEY, this player kicks the ball differently or thinks differently than others his age' which would allow for natural progression of player in same iteration of FM like he would in real life?

 

If my Joao Lima had bad professionalism he would not improve. I have great potential, great physical attributes player but he is just not improving...because he likes to party more than he likes to train. THAT is Adu. Not my Lima.

[santy001]

32 minutes ago, rosque said:

You just do not get it. Let me explain it in researcher terms.

 

TOP 15 club in the world buys a kid for 1.5 million euros at 15 years old. You put his PA at 150. He plays few cup games and 10-15 games in first season as 15-16 year old. You put his PA at 160 for new iteration of FM. He plays 20-25 games in the league and performs remarkably well. Even stars in Europe in same season as 16-17 year old. You put his PA at 170 for new iteration of FM as designated club researcher. As 18 year old he is the driving force in that team's road to the champions of the Europe and triple title! You put him at 180 for his PA and even more maybe.

 

So my question is...if you WOULD do that why are you so opposed to having another variable like professionalism that just says 'HEY, this player kicks the ball differently or thinks differently than others his age' which would allow for natural progression of player in same iteration of FM like he would in real life?

 

If my Joao Lima had bad professionalism he would not improve. I have great potential, great physical attributes player but he is just not improving...because he likes to party more than he likes to train. THAT is Adu. Not my Lima.

In your second paragraph, I understand what you're saying but its not how we work. It's just not the case that signing for a big club = improved PA, its not being played in the league at a young age = improved PA. You're comparing judgements made over a period time, with improved knowledge compared to something done at 1 point in time. In your example you're comparing 6-9 research phases vs the equivalent of 1. 

The reason your Joao Lima is so good now is because of his professionalism, because he's been given these chances early. If he had low professionalism, if he hadn't been given the chance he wouldn't be the player you now have & clearly, all of what you're showing is that the spread of attributes and the chance given is far greater the making of a world class player than PA ever is.

I've said before in this thread, I can make a 170+CA version of Marko Arnautovic that would leave you so disappointed for having a 170+CA player on your hands. The distribution of the attributes is far and away the biggest influence of whether or not you have a good player. From what you've posted, you've already got a great, world class player in Joao Lima. How much better could he actually perform if he's already performing so well? How much more is there to get whether his PA is met or whether it goes up to 200? 

If you want, send me a screenshot of him in a PM, send me his PPM's and your tactics. I can tell you how to make him a better player, I can probably tell you how to make him even better then he plays right now, without his CA even having to be increased, and perhaps demonstrate in a way that will show tangible results to you in your game how nuanced it can be.

[herne79]

52 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

i felt bullied to say least.

As a Moderator on these forums, I'd like to apologise for that.  This is a discussion forum and people should feel free to be able to express their opinions in a constructive manner and feel like they are engaged in discussion without animosity.

Clearly there are differences of opinions being expressed here and it's a passionate subject which can lead to passionate answers.  There is also perhaps a language barrier where sometimes meanings or expressions can be misinterpreted.

I'm certain there is nobody in this discussion who has meant to cause harm or upset (if they have meant to they will be dealt with severely).  We're a very diverse community with different people seeing and taking different meaning from things, and what may bounce off one person may be taken to heart by someone else.

So come on guys, lets just take a few deep breaths now.  At the end of the day we're all on the same side because we all want to improve the game.  Is the current PA system the best it can be?  I don't know.  It certainly works in terms of the objectives it's there for, but that doesn't necessarily make it the best.  It may well be, I don't know.  Is raptor's suggestion better?  I don't know either and tbh I have a few questions about it as I don't fully understand it, but that's for a different post.

[CFuller]

Joao Lima could be the archetypal model professional who works on the training ground for an extra two hours every day, and he'd still not improve a great deal. Why? Because he is already the best he can physically and perhaps even technically be. As santy said, it's up to him as the player, and you as his manager, to keep him at the top of his game for the long haul.

Kingsley Coman is 21 years old. He has won five major league titles in three countries. He's won the major domestic cups in Germany and Italy. He's been a European runner-up at club and international level. Coman has already achieved so much in such a short space of time.

Coman is a fabulous forward player, but it's hard to tell whether will become even better than he is now and break into the Messi/Ronaldo/Neymar 'elite' bracket, or if he'll just drop off and become a bit more like Ricardo Quaresma. For all we know, though, he could simply remain at his current high level for 10-15 years and still have a pretty bloomin' impressive career.