Revaluation of the CA - PA system

[Maaka]

1 hour ago, Dorin said:

If Darren Fletcher would have started at a league 2 club I believe his initial potential would have been set lower because of the club ratings. 

3 minutes ago, ham_aka_stam said:

I'm not a researcher, but that's certainly not the way I would expect them to be working.

But that's got nothing to do with the PA system, just how the researchers have judged him (or would have), like Stam said.

[Cap'nRad]

4 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

Researchers have to adjust everything each game.  Each game is a snapshot of the data at that point in time.  The issue here is in researchers being human, not in the way PA works.

I'm not "focusing" on anything.  It is possible for A Jamie Vardy in FM13 to become an FM17 Vardy, but not THE Vardy, because the researcher gave him a low PA.  You could argue this is the researcher's fault for not spotting the potential that the player had.  But you're effectively asking them, or the game, to read the future and allow that to happen in FM. I expect you also want that Leicester team to win the PL too?  And for all the transfers to happen the same?

Please do stop repeating yourself.

A player, cannot, out-perform, their potential.  That is a logical impossibility.  I cannot become better than the best I could possibly be. Does that make sense?  Your issue is not with PA, it is with researchers rating PA too low for players who have potential, but are unlikely to reach it.  I am not blaming any researcher for this because it is impossible to know.  However I expect the best solution here is for SI to continue to develop the player progression paths such that players can be given higher PAs with less and less chance of players with certain poor attributes reaching them.

Yes they are. Read the thread.

The issues are highlighted throughout this thread. Read the thread.

Yeah this is the problem I'm talking about with the current system, that due to researcher's low perception of player's potential they may end up forced to stop growing even if they have the right conditions. Jamie Vardy and Leicester might be extreme examples, but then there are people like Charlie Austin who also came from the lower leagues to the highest level. My problem with P.A is it makes this type of progression completely impossible. If there was a more flexible growth regulator, then we could see these kind of events as well as normal growth.

[Maaka]

1 minute ago, Cap'nRad said:

My problem with P.A is it makes this type of progression completely impossible. If there was a more flexible growth regulator, then we could see these kind of events as well as normal growth.

That has been rebutted several times in this thread. It's not "completely impossible" in the current system, it's actually fully possible. The reason we don't see it so often is because we don't see it very often IRL either.

[ham_aka_stam]

4 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

Yeah this is the problem I'm talking about with the current system, that due to researcher's low perception of player's potential they may end up forced to stop growing even if they have the right conditions. Jamie Vardy and Leicester might be extreme examples, but then there are people like Charlie Austin who also came from the lower leagues to the highest level. My problem with P.A is it makes this type of progression completely impossible. If there was a more flexible growth regulator, then we could see these kind of events as well as normal growth.

re: bold bit, no it doesn't.

Researchers under-rating PA of players is the issue.

[Cap'nRad]

1 minute ago, ham_aka_stam said:

re: bold bit, no it doesn't.

Researchers under-rating PA of players is the issue.

It would be harsh to blame such unforseen events on researchers, as fm has always had that sort of progression model where after a certain age players don't improve that much and thus their P.A is rated close to their C.A.

 

7 minutes ago, Maaka said:

That has been rebutted several times in this thread. It's not "completely impossible" in the current system, it's actually fully possible. The reason we don't see it so often is because we don't see it very often IRL either.

 

5 minutes ago, ham_aka_stam said:

re: bold bit, no it doesn't.

I've read in this thread and others that more dynamic growth has been introduced to fm18, but I've never heard of being able to overcome P.A limitations. I assume the late progressions that have been introduced are for players who still have high potential, but it would be hard for the researchers to predict such growth from an already developed footballer.

[Maaka]

4 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

I've read in this thread and others that more dynamic growth has been introduced to fm18, but I've never heard of being able to overcome P.A limitations. I assume the late progressions that have been introduced are for players who still have high potential, but it would be hard for the researchers to predict such growth from an already developed footballer.

No, they're not able to overcome their PA, but as has been pointed out, by having the right distribution of attributes, regardless of CA, and a tactical system that fits, a player with a lower CA can be better than one with a higher CA (and PA), and thus be perceived as having "outgrown" the PA.

[herne79]

All this discussion about the hidden value that is "Potential Ability" is kind of glossing over something.  It's hidden.  We're not supposed to see it in game, in fact we can't see it in game - even the star ratings labelled "Potential" are based off current ability, not the hidden Potential Ability value.  It's called Perceived Potential Ability (PPA) and is essentially the game looking at a player's actual ability and thinking "this kid looks good for his age, he must have decent potential".  Sometimes the game's right and he does, sometimes the game's wrong and he doesn't develop much further - and so his PPA changes accordingly.

To my mind (and I hope I don't do anyone a disservice here) that's kind of what I think Researchers do when trying to predict the future.  Sometimes they'll get it right, sometimes they won't, which is 100% fine.  I don't really care if Vardy's PA was different in FM10 to FM18, or if Messi was always spot on, we can only go by what we see today and make predictions from there.  If it turns out that in 3 years time some of those predictions are wrong then that's life.  We don't have crystal balls or have an almanac of sports results from 1950-2000.  As soon as we press Continue in game for the first time, reality stops anyway.

PA is nothing more than an assigned value to stop players exponentially developing and maintain a balance throughout the database to ensure all levels of clubs maintain relevant squads.  Sometimes hidden gems will appear in unlikely places which is fine as it's up to us to find them.  I found a 38 year old goalie once in the 4th division, where he had been his entire career at the same club, no long injury lay offs, featured in loads of matches each season, had a CA of c.100 yet had a PA of 195.  Completely missed by everyone.

The fact that PA is used and abused by some in the community to identify the actual high potential players is merely a by-product of the values being visible in editors.

So I'm completely fine with how things work today.  PA exists to stop players exponentially developing and to maintain balance in the force.  How we then choose to develop our players is down to us and our own training programs.  And if a player doesn't develop how I want?  I show him the door and buy someone who does fit the bill.

And +1 internet if you spot both movie references .

[ham_aka_stam]

Force ref and almanac. Boom.

@herne79 is absolutely correct and it's what I stated quite early on in my involvement in this seesaw game.

36 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

It would be harsh to blame such unforseen events on researchers, as fm has always had that sort of progression model where after a certain age players don't improve that much and thus their P.A is rated close to their C.A.

I've read in this thread and others that more dynamic growth has been introduced to fm18, but I've never heard of being able to overcome P.A limitations. I assume the late progressions that have been introduced are for players who still have high potential, but it would be hard for the researchers to predict such growth from an already developed footballer.

I'm not blaming them, it's just the fact of the matter.  Some players they'll over-rate, some they'll under-rate.  That's life.

I'd probably prefer they erred on the side of high PA for players though, and then SI factored this in and further increased the number of stars that have to align for a player to reach their PA.  This would mean there could be players at Brentford, for example, with 180 PA quite comfortably, because unless they have a stormer of a season, get spotted and moved up the leagues, the likelihood of them reaching their PA is minimal.

[Maaka]

37 minutes ago, herne79 said:

We don't have crystal balls or have an almanac of sports results from 1950-2000.  

(...)

And +1 internet if you spot both movie references .

I actually thought of "Back to the Future" before I read the last paragraph 

And if I'd had that DeLorean, I'd place a truckload of $$$ on Leicester winning the PL before I'd used it to correct PA values in FM 

[Cap'nRad]

2 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

I'd probably prefer they erred on the side of high PA for players though, and then SI factored this in and further increased the number of stars that have to align for a player to reach their PA.  This would mean there could be players at Brentford, for example, with 180 PA quite comfortably, because unless they have a stormer of a season, get spotted and moved up the leagues, the likelihood of them reaching their PA is minimal.

Quite like this suggestion, if P.A can't be removed this would be a nice compromise.

[YKW]

Great discussion this! 

[Raptor Longe]

I miss a couple of days and there are two new pages. Unfortunately I see that the discussion has lost some of the original direction and is still talking about Vardy's growth. 

I still try to clarify what I would like to get with PA removal and the introduction of one or more other growth parameters. 

And I will do it with Vardy. One of you wrote: "It does not change anything because Vardy the researcher would have given all the low values." 

Although Vardy had a bad lifestyle, he was a player who, at the age of 20, in the first professional season of the season, scored in the Stocksbridge 18 goals in 35 games. I imagine that in order to cast him the holder, the coach must have seen something in him, despite the lack of professionalism. This is the "natural talent", despite being trained badly, despite its disgusting lifestyle, the player is so capable of being stronger than players who maybe train twice as much. What I would do, researcher, knowing that this player has a lenient lifestyle but is a talent, with the CA-PA system I would have given him a CA value by a good Conference Player. And PA would have been more of a calculation on CA's present value, and on my prediction of Vardy's talent. We do 110 PA? That value will never be overcome.

Okay, let's use my method.
Vardy has a low value in professionalism (2), an CA value from a good conference player, and a natural talent of 15 (due to the reasons I have before). His human trainer in the game decides to give him confidence, and to give him (with age) a tutor with good professionalism, and to use it despite being trained badly, given the performance. Despite the lack of professionalism, he will continue to make and improve like other players because he has more natural talent. He stays in the conference for 4 full seasons, improving just the least, but improving his professionalism with tutors, bringing the value from 2 to 10. 
The next year, he goes to a higher category, and being already at the (or stronger) level of the class, plays, does well and improves because he has a natural talent of 15 and a professionality of 10. That year he scored 31 goals in 36 games played. And the performance is noticed by a top class team, who decides to try to bet on him.
That year because his CA is not high enough, he does not do much, but since he plays in a better league, he has better facilities, and has a greater talent and he has enough professionalism. He is able to improve again, better than so many players, so that he scores 16 goals and his team is promoted to the Premier League.
We arrived at his first season in the Premier League, Vardy is 27 years old, is still arriving at the time of his final maturation. In the Premier League he plays, of course his CA does not allow him to be one of the best, but his natural talent of 15, and his professionality that up to the year before was 10, had a two-point increase (for l 'approach the age of maturation) and is now 12 point. The combination of these two values, of better training structures, combined with the fact that he plays in a competitive championship, makes him the final step. And the following year, Vardy scored 24 goals in 36 games, even to win the championship, and reached at 29 years old the maximum of CA: 154.

I have given you a step by step example of how an absence of PA and a value that works together with professionalism can lead to the appearance of a Vardy, which at 20 does not show more than 110 of the maximum CA achievable, but that with the growth of his professionality, and the confidence of coaches (also thanks to his performance), and the gradual improvement of training facilities, playing in more competitive championships and the absence of serious injuries, has managed to arrive to CA 154, compared to the 110 he promised.

And if the question you ask is, "How does your researcher give him a great natural talent?"
I tell you, "How does your researcher assign him a PA?"
The method is the same, only that PA is impossible to overcome; natural talent instead combines with all the other values (including the professionalism which can improve), which are all important, and it will be the game to establish the maximum ability.

"Yes, but so all players of the game become strong", no, all players have their CA value, their value of professionalism, of natural talent, of chance of injury. And without the right structures, and without playing, they will never improve everyone the same way. Even the type of training could determine the growth of CAs. For example, learning a new role could slow growth. Having a bad tutor could slow down growth, while a good tutor could improve its growth.

We in the video game have a lot of variables, we have the ability to put others in it, we just have to determine players' abilities and leave the rest to the video game.

 

 

[Cougar2010]

@Raptor Longe

Why would a researcher who gave Vardy 110PA give him 15 natural talent under your system?

[Mikado911]

@Raptor Longe:

As already stated before, giving him a high natural talent would have been equivalent to giving him a high PA. He would then need good conditions as you described to reach it and improve. Your system change does not bring any improvement. 

The real complaint is that the assigned PA was too low. For the same reasons he received a low PA from the researchers, he would have received a low natural talent. 

[enigmatic]

And of course he wouldn't have got a "natural talent" of 15 as someone who'd been looked at and rejected by second and third tier teams and ended up playing for petrol money in the eighth tier. He'd have been more likely to get a natural talent of less than 5.

If anything, lower division researchers would expect to be more conservative about setting parameters designed to affect players' typical growth speed than setting the a maximum potential ability a player is usually not expected to reach. 

[ham_aka_stam]

The solo answer here is for SI to give the researchers the confidence to set high PA for highly rated lower-league players who could become good.

I say confidence, the confidence is more the fact that these guys are going to be in their mid-20s and highly unlikely to make their PA, but given the right conditions they might.

This however, would only work if Human players couldn't just do a search for these high PA players, buy them for peanuts and make them all come good.  i.e. if PA was encrypted.

Also this doesn't mean the actual Vardy of 2013 will become the Vardy of 2017, that's crystal ball stuff, but what it does mean is that some players from the lower leagues will do this.

So forget the actual Vardy, and instead look for the ageing lower league players who do have good PA and do move through the leagues.  This already happens (no idea if it happens enough), it's just not necessarily the same players who make it in real life, and it's never going to be.

[santy001]

There is some room for it already within the game @ham_aka_stam I mentioned earlier in the thread, at Stoke there is Thibaud Verlinden, Tyrese Campbell, Harry Souttar, Julien Ngoy and Oliver Shenton all with PA's high enough to be top half premier league players. Verlinden has a PA to be a top 4 player. 

I've deliberately left some attributes, that are untested on a professional level, as 0's. 

This creates that variance from game to game with higher PA, while its not my ideal solution if I had to follow it strictly by the letter of the land, lads who are not yet 18, and cannot drink or really do anything stupid on any kind of public platform would always score highly on professionalism (arguably almost every player is going to be at the peak of his professionalism when mum/dad are still setting his bed time) so I prefer to see them out in the wild a bit first.

It does mean that no one ever really latches onto these players from game to game on the forums or from shortlists, every now and then someone does get that fantastic player, but in my game Julien Ngoy is in the German 2nd tier, Verlinden has joined a midtable Belgian side, Souttar & Campbell are in the Championship and Shenton is a free agent (nearly signed him myself in League 1 but he wanted too much money). 4 players with -7 & -8 PA's and great futures if it all goes right, but it requires a lot to go right.

It's not the best solution we could have, but I feel it works brilliantly in the big picture, because they are untested as adult professional players, and it creates that variation, that uncertainty that means players have to judge it for themselves from game to game. Rather than relying on a headline figure and a more predictable outcome.

Given the alterations to development now in place, some of these are players who could drop down the leagues a bit, and then make a come-back later on in their career with a late bloom. 

[ham_aka_stam]

Little sneak into the mind of a researcher there, makes perfect sense and another reason why PA works pretty much exactly the way it should in real life.

Thanks santy.

BTW I wasn't saying it doesn't happen, but it sounds like there may still be room for improvement in code and in advice given to researchers.

[Cougar2010]

What I'm finding immensely frustrating about this thread is the total lack of response from Raptor, legend or others when people have asked questions or raised a query about the proposal.

I've asked several questions (Also repeated some) & asked for some points to be clarified as have others and none of these have been addressed or even acknowledged.

 

[ham_aka_stam]

27 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

What I'm finding immensely frustrating about this thread is the total lack of response from Raptor, legend or others when people have asked questions or raised a query about the proposal.

I've asked several questions (Also repeated some) & asked for some points to be clarified as have others and none of these have been addressed or even acknowledged.

 

It's clear he just doesn't understand how PA works.  Or is just doggedly attached to his suggestion and is wilfully ignoring any explanation as to why PA is better.

[legend_killer82]

1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

What I'm finding immensely frustrating about this thread is the total lack of response from Raptor, legend or others when people have asked questions or raised a query about the proposal.

I've asked several questions (Also repeated some) & asked for some points to be clarified as have others and none of these have been addressed or even acknowledged.

 

First, As i said, i felt bullied from one of you and even got apologies from Moderator so i guess i wasn't that wrong with it.
Second, i see just obstructionism and no wish at all to understand Raptor's idea, cause believe me you still didn't get it, as many of you keep on comparing "natural talent" with PA, which is NO way what he proposed and NO way how that it would suppose to work if introducted.
Third, in the last pages the post went totally to another direction, as Raptor also said.

Considering all this, unfortunately i gave up on people and i think probably Raptor did the same.

[Brentford Alan]

10 hours ago, Raptor Longe said:

 

"Yes, but so all players of the game become strong", no, all players have their CA value, their value of professionalism, of natural talent, of chance of injury. And without the right structures, and without playing, they will never improve everyone the same way. Even the type of training could determine the growth of CAs. For example, learning a new role could slow growth. Having a bad tutor could slow down growth, while a good tutor could improve its growth.

 

 

 

Sorry, I don't think you've really explained in your proposal how the game would stop an unrealistic amount of players becoming world class, unless a high percentage of youngsters receive career limiting injuries at some point. And there simply has to be something limiting player growth across the board to stop the game being ridiculously easy, whether it's one attribute such as PA or several 'growth' attributes combining to create a CA limit. 

If the parameters such as professionalism, determination, ambition etc that could be used to limit CA growth have no limit themselves as per your Vardy example, surely it's only a matter of farming high natural talent players and working out the best mix of training/game time/tutoring to exploit the open ended nature of the system and thus flooding the game (or at least the team controlled by the player if the AI managers are somehow prevented from doing the same) with too many world class players? I think trying to allow for one 16 year old 'Vardy' to happen from the lower reaches of the football pyramid per season (for example) by removing PA you are risking making it far too easy for the vast number of young players above where he was at the time in terms of ability and mentality to also make it to the level he's now at, so long as they avoid injury.

 

If those attributes are limited from the start, your Vardy example doesn't happen in game as no researcher worth their salt is giving him the natural talent, or determination, or ambition at the start of his career, based on how he acted in real life at that time, that could possibly foresee his eventual real life rise, as pointed out above. 

 

 

[Cougar2010]

1 minute ago, legend_killer82 said:

First, As i said, i felt bullied from one of you and even got apologies from Moderator so i guess i wasn't that wrong with it.

You weren't bullied in the slightest.

People asked questions, asked for clarification about some points of the proposal and pointed out the flaws.

Instead of addressing those points you chose to play the victim & claim people didn't understand.

 

1 minute ago, legend_killer82 said:

Second, i see just obstructionism and no wish at all to understand Raptor's idea, cause believe me you still didn't get it, as many of you keep on comparing "natural talent" with PA, which is NO way what he proposed and NO way how that it would suppose to work if introducted.

Plenty of people have made an effort to understand the proposal and for the most part seem to understand it well.

If our understanding is wrong its because Raptor & yourself have failed to give the clarification when asked.

Also nothing that Raptor has posted since implies that we have misunderstood as clearly shown by his post above from last night.

The flaws of the proposal have been clearly pointed out on several occasions but for some reason you still fail to understand how Raptor's system is similar to the current system.

I'm really not sure what more we can do at this point to help you understand

 

[legend_killer82]

1 hour ago, ham_aka_stam said:

It's clear he just doesn't understand how PA works.  Or is just doggedly attached to his suggestion and is wilfully ignoring any explanation as to why PA is better.

Sorry but it's quite the opposite. Many people here didn't get his idea at all.
Let's see if i can explain it very easily. First of - he is NOT proposing to remove PA to replace it with natural talent. He is proposing to remove PA. Introduction of natural talent would be just one new factor in the developing of CA's.
Now let's see if we agree at least on this, please just answer yes or not. Do you agree with me that PA is a fixed limit which CAN'T be overcome as a CA in any way and that it's always the same for everyone for any save game?

[legend_killer82]

1 minute ago, Cougar2010 said:

You weren't bullied in the slightest.

People asked questions, asked for clarification about some points of the proposal and pointed out the flaws.

Instead of addressing those points you chose to play the victim & claim people didn't understand.

 

Plenty of people have made an effort to understand the proposal and for the most part seem to understand it well.

If our understanding is wrong its because Raptor & yourself have failed to give the clarification when asked.

Also nothing that Raptor has posted since implies that we have misunderstood as clearly shown by his post above from last night.

The flaws of the proposal have been clearly pointed out on several occasions but for some reason you still fail to understand how Raptor's system is similar to the current system.

I'm really not sure what more we can do at this point to help you understand

 

As i said, sorry but i'm not on here to flame. Just believe me that you didn't get his idea and proposal. You can say you do but since i know what Raptor means, i can tell you 100% that you didn't. He's just tired, like me, of flames, trolls and obstructionism.

[ham_aka_stam]

PA can't be overcome, it's a fixed limit of CA.

Not always the same due to the possibility of minus figures.

The PA of known players will always be the same for all saves, yes.

However the players which actually reach their PA will change.

Where their CA is spent (attributes wise) will change.

How good that attribute spread makes them as a player will change.

Whether they actually perform to that level will change.

[Maradonna]

6 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Sorry but it's quite the opposite. Many people here didn't get his idea at all.
Let's see if i can explain it very easily. First of - he is NOT proposing to remove PA to replace it with natural talent. He is proposing to remove PA. Introduction of natural talent would be just one new factor in the developing of CA's.
Now let's see if we agree at least on this, please just answer yes or not. Do you agree with me that PA is a fixed limit which CAN'T be overcome as a CA in any way and that it's always the same for everyone for any save game?

Well sure, but based on the player development formula you can quite easily calculate a PA value. So the CA that he can reach at max if all things go well for a player. The issue is, that if SI do not want to reveal this formula how does researchers rate a player? Its just easier to limit it off the bat by a value like PA.

btw: Its really weird that people always refer to Vardy. Thats a one in a trillion example. The next one that comes in my mind is Miroslav Klose who played 5th division in Germany at 20.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Sorry but it's quite the opposite. Many people here didn't get his idea at all.
Let's see if i can explain it very easily. First of - he is NOT proposing to remove PA to replace it with natural talent. He is proposing to remove PA. Introduction of natural talent would be just one new factor in the developing of CA's.
Now let's see if we agree at least on this, please just answer yes or not. Do you agree with me that PA is a fixed limit which CAN'T be overcome as a CA in any way and that it's always the same for everyone for any save game?

Ok.

Yes we agree that PA is a fixed limit that can't be overcome and is always the same for a player in every save game (Except for those players who are given a -PA where the game allocates them a fixed PA from a range when setting up a save).

 

Main Proposal - Eliminate PA

Without PA currently players would grow exponentially and cause there to be too many Messi's & Ronaldo's in a save.  So within the current system it wouldn't be a good idea until CA growth is better controlled which has been discussed.  Once CA growth is controlled and players didn't reach their PA then you could consider removing it altogether.  Worth adding here though that there are players that simply don't improve IRL for no obvious reason, this is what PA represents currently.  You would also remove the variable aspect of player growth by removing PA.

 

Secondary Proposal - Natural Talent

The game already has several fixed variables that affect the CA of a player (Professionalism, Ambition, Facilities, Staff etc).  Adding another one into the calculation makes very little difference.  Its another number which would be used, yes you could make a case for it adding to the realism but the overall end result is that it doesn't address the issues caused by removing PA.

 

[santy001]

1 hour ago, Cougar2010 said:

What I'm finding immensely frustrating about this thread is the total lack of response from Raptor, legend or others when people have asked questions or raised a query about the proposal.

I've asked several questions (Also repeated some) & asked for some points to be clarified as have others and none of these have been addressed or even acknowledged.

 

A lot of questions have gone unanswered, I too asked a few, mentioning why do we need a system that keeps dialling up the attributes of players like Oliver Turton who managed to go from League 2 to Europa League & Premier League football with my Crewe team on FM17, and again for Jack Redshaw on FM18 who has gone from Vanarama North to now the Championship on my current game and still playing. With Verliden, Ngoy, Souttar, Campbell and Shenton I've demonstrated how the current PA system isn't limited so that everyone is getting the same outcome from game to game. 

There's been no answer as to why players need to be able to overcome their potential, why they need to be able to get better than they can possibly be just by virtue of playing well. There's been no proof to show me that these players turn out the same from game to game either.

All the natural talent does is replace PA with a more vague system that unlocks more FIFA-esc check-boxes for ability increases. Like "score 10 goals, +1 finishing" with arbitrary criteria from what I can see. 

You can argue the semantics of removing one system, and putting in a new system, that largely fills a similar role in the game is not the same but essentially it is.

Also @legend_killer82 you're still horribly misrepresenting the PA system there. It's true, in any literal sense that 100 (CA) cannot be more than 100 (PA) because 100, is 100 as the day is long, as ice is cold, as fire is hot etc.

PA is a fixed limit that cannot be overcome by design. It's the whole purpose of the system, to be the limit. 

However, and here's the beauty of FM. You could have a hundred thousand players, all with 100CA, all with 100PA and every one of them would be different. 

[KUBI]

I posted that in another thread some times ago. I think an addition of a "hidden talent" of 10% to the PA could help to make the system more realistic.

If you have a PA of 150 and 15 of them are the hidden talent it would mean that this player can reach 135 in the game under normal circumstances. (Less with a lot of injuries, sitting on the bench etc).

To reach anything between 135 and 150 it would need special circumstances. (Career, injuries, playing times, good understanding with a manager, momentum of a club etc.)

So a player could make a jump even if he is already 24.

[Brentford Alan]

5 minutes ago, legend_killer82 said:

Sorry but it's quite the opposite. Many people here didn't get his idea at all.
Let's see if i can explain it very easily. First of - he is NOT proposing to remove PA to replace it with natural talent. He is proposing to remove PA. Introduction of natural talent would be just one new factor in the developing of CA's.
Now let's see if we agree at least on this, please just answer yes or not. Do you agree with me that PA is a fixed limit which CAN'T be overcome as a CA in any way and that it's always the same for everyone for any save game?

Yes, it's simple enough. No PA limit anymore, very straight forward.

So now the limit of a players CA (assuming Raptor and yourself are not suggesting every player has the opportunity to hit a 200 CA, no matter how remote?) is determined by several growth factors which may or may not be flexible in terms of their own growth.

If those growth factors, no matter how many you use, are set by researchers as a hard limit (ie Natural Talent 15, Ambition 10 etc) that cannot be improved as a player ages you have still effectively set a PA that cannot be beaten, whether it's a simple viewable figure like now or one calculated by the game without being shown. 

If those growth factors can be improved (ie Natural Talent can go from 12 to 20, Ambition can go 8 to 20) as a player ages where (other than injuries) does the limitation come from that stops an unrealistic number of players becoming world class once managers have worked out the 'correct' formula of training, game time and tutoring?

[santy001]

7 minutes ago, KUBI said:

I posted that in another thread some times ago. I think an addition of a "hidden talent" of 10% to the PA could help to make the system more realistic.

If you have a PA of 150 and 15 of them are the hidden talent it would mean that this player can reach 135 in the game under normal circumstances. (Less with a lot of injuries, sitting on the bench etc).

To reach anything between 135 and 150 it would need special circumstances. (Career, injuries, playing times, good understanding with a manager, momentum of a club etc.)

So a player could make a jump even if he is already 24.

In principle its pretty reasonable, but it does have a couple of issues I can see.

A major problem then is either CA has to be recalculated behind a maximum of 220. Otherwise, your Ronaldo, Messi etc become a bit redundant as players coming through 20 points behind them are almost their equals. Or, you get a vast middle ground of players that again you end up with a checklist of what you look for.

I very much believe any ring-fenced off accessibility to PA that is somewhat conditional, and not just arbitrary, is a system players will defeat very quickly. 

- - -

I'd still say the development path, the CA acquisition would be a much better area to focus on as it's always going to be more subtle and not as prone to players working out the "insta-win" method. 

[enigmatic]

41 minutes ago, santy001 said:

In principle its pretty reasonable, but it does have a couple of issues I can see.

A major problem then is either CA has to be recalculated behind a maximum of 220. Otherwise, your Ronaldo, Messi etc become a bit redundant as players coming through 20 points behind them are almost their equals. Or, you get a vast middle ground of players that again you end up with a checklist of what you look for.

I very much believe any ring-fenced off accessibility to PA that is somewhat conditional, and not just arbitrary, is a system players will defeat very quickly. 

- - -

I'd still say the development path, the CA acquisition would be a much better area to focus on as it's always going to be more subtle and not as prone to players working out the "insta-win" method. 

You could probably taper off "hidden talent" towards the top end of the scale because by the time a player approaches 150CA their talent isn't exactly "hidden"

In essence it basically is the CA acquisition model changing though, it's just assuming that most players' CA acquisition stops at the value set in the database which is 15 short of their actual PA which is only ever reached in unusual circumstances like Stoke winning the league. The pluses of this is that in the event of having a perfect season Shawcross is so much more assured in his decision making he becomes the sort of player than gets picked regularly for England and Manchester City want to buy (which doesn't quite happen through reputation because the top managers have good enough Judging Ability to realise he isn't better than their existing defenders); the minuses are that if the human manager is already good enough to achieve the league title with Stoke, he doesn't need the assistance of SuperShawcross for the next season...

[ham_aka_stam]

Can someone explain why we should have a hidden part of an attribute that's already meant to be hidden?

What benefit does that serve?

[santy001]

2 minutes ago, ham_aka_stam said:

Can someone explain why we should have a hidden part of an attribute that's already meant to be hidden?

What benefit does that serve?

As I'm understanding it, I'm interpreting it as a ringfenced off portion. 

So a researcher sets a PA of 150, under normal circumstances 135 is achievable. Depending on other criteria up to 15 more can be accessed. 

Anyone peering behind the scenes would see the 150, but normal development would stop at 135. 

- - -

I'm not a big fan of it myself, I feel like the barriers in development should be organic. Happening in the game once its begun. 

[ham_aka_stam]

That should just be covered under normal CA development. And probably already is.

As CA gets nearer to 200 it should take more and more stars to align for a player to reach their PA.

A 20A player should have no issue reaching near their PA as long as they're injury free and playing/training regularly. 

A 100PA player would need to move into a decent league, be training in proper facilities, have physios to look after injuries and be lucky avoid any that requires extensive surgery, will have to have experience of first team football early, and playing regularly in their 20s.

A 200PA player should have top training and facilities throughout their career, should be professional and diligent with their training, should be playing at the top level and performing well, have good luck wrt injuries and/or have good rehab/top surgery when they do occur etc. etc. if they are to get anywhere near their PA.

You get the point, basically the higher up the PA scale you go, the harder it should be for players to reach their peak.  Therefore you can have more players given sky high PA, without worrying that you'll have XI Messi standard players in every national team.  Quite the balancing act though.

[enigmatic]

I guess the other facet would be that it was completely invisible to scouts/coaches, unlike PA which I believe is a (lowly-weighted) constituent part of the Perceived Potential Ability calculation that results in all those stars, recommendations and signings.

Although if every player has it, you'd end up just factoring that into your understanding of scout reports anyway...

[Mikado911]

I have the impression at some point that there is a misunderstanding over what PA should be when rated by researchers.

PA is NOT the level that is expected to be reached by the under the current conditions (current club, current work ethic, etc...).

PA IS the maximum level reachable if everything goes right in the carreer of the player (i.e. good coaches, good teams, good playing time, good work ethic).

I've got the impression that some consider PA to be the first which worried me a bit (I might be wrong).

[Cap'nRad]

My personal reason for the advocacy of the proposal is that I feel the concept of P.A isn't very organic. It doesn't shift, fluctuate with time, anything. It's just there, something to be eventually attained and never overcome. And while some have argued that P.A works that way in real life, I don't think that is a scientific fact and more of a belief, the same way I believe dedicated people can improve on what their potential is perceived to be. However, I understand P.A, or some other sort of limit coming into play as a player gets older and experiences more factors influencing growth which are crucial at younger ages. 

My main issue with P.A arrives when situations occur where a young player (or any player for that matter) who clearly has the right internal and external elements to improve simply cannot do so due to the hard limit. Especially when there are extremely dedicated youngsters who's P.A is very close to their C.A. And since I don't believe in such hard limits in the first place, especially not for such dedicated youngsters, the argument that "The player can't improve simply because they cannot surpass their potential" doesn't satisfy me. 

I believe that regardless of the outcome of the discussion, this is an issue that needs tweaking in some way. Maybe with the ability to improve on P.A as @Dorin suggested or, as suggested by @ham_aka_stam, simply greatly increase P.A values across the board but also increase the difficulty of reaching said potential, by making professionalism, ambition, etc very hard to attain and a very rare quality in youngsters, or as @Raptor Longe suggested, by introducing a growth parameter which influences the rate of development so that even though the P.A values are high, the development rates mean some might not be as good as others (at least not until later).

Lastly, I understand that @Cougar2010, @ham_aka_stam and a few others complain about lack of answers to some queries. I would urge you not to be frustrated as I believe there are quite a few more people questioning than answering and at least on my part, I like to think and deliberate a little first before posting, especially if the question is challenging. On a topic like this, I believe quality of answers are important so if I don't have a good answer at the time, I would prefer not to answer until I do.

[perpetua]

1 hour ago, Cap'nRad said:

My main issue with P.A arrives when situations occur where a young player (or any player for that matter) who clearly has the right internal and external elements to improve simply cannot do so due to the hard limit. Especially when there are extremely dedicated youngsters who's P.A is very close to their C.A. And since I don't believe in such hard limits in the first place, especially not for such dedicated youngsters, the argument that "The player can't improve simply because they cannot surpass their potential" doesn't satisfy me. 

I am not sure what your definition of young is here.

Studies I have seen on footballer performance suggest that they reach their peak level by about age 24 which they retain or get only very slightly better until their late 20s and then start to decline.  The rate of decline for the athlete is correlated with how much the athlete depends on his physical attributes for performance.  Those who rely more on physical ability suffer a much sharper decline while those who rely more on technical and mental aspects of the game decline much slower.

Examining our ratings of CA going several years back, I found that our ratings of match up quite well with these studies above as players only see 2-3 point CA improvements after age 24, on average.  So it's quite clear, at least to me, that there is a point at which players stop improving their CA and it happens relatively early in a player's career.  These are averages and there are of course exceptions where players reach their peak earlier or later.

But this doesn't mean the player stops developing.  As he gains experience, his mental attributes can improve while his physical attributes start to decline.  This turns the player into a more well rounded player who substitutes energy with skill/know how.  Even if CA doesn't increase, it's certainly possible for a player to become better at performing his role on the pitch.

[Maaka]

1 hour ago, Cap'nRad said:

My main issue with P.A arrives when situations occur where a young player (or any player for that matter) who clearly has the right internal and external elements to improve simply cannot do so due to the hard limit. Especially when there are extremely dedicated youngsters who's P.A is very close to their C.A. And since I don't believe in such hard limits in the first place, especially not for such dedicated youngsters, the argument that "The player can't improve simply because they cannot surpass their potential" doesn't satisfy me. 

But then, as it has been argued before, it's not the PA system itself that is the problem, rather that the PA has been set too low. This could easily be rectified by ham_aka_stam's suggestion to just up the PA values while making it even harder to reach that ceiling. Because it is a ceiling, a hard cap. But, as it has been pointed out several times, it's perfectly possible for a player with a CA of 140 to be better than a player with a CA of 150, if the attribute spread is better, and/or he's used in a tactical system that benefits him. So CA/PA is not everything.

[Cap'nRad]

28 minutes ago, perpetua said:

Studies I have seen on footballer performance suggest that they reach their peak level by about age 24 which they retain or get only very slightly better until their late 20s and then start to decline.  The rate of decline for the athlete is correlated with on how much the athlete depends on his physical attributes for performance.  Those who rely more on physical ability suffer a much sharper decline while those who rely more on technical and mental aspects of the game decline much slower.

I'm sure 24 is much too young to be peak level, as mental attributes cannot develop that fast. Peak would be the point at which his mental and physical attributes combine for peak performance, which I usually hear is at 26 or 27 depending on their level of physicality. My definition of young would be any age below that.

 

31 minutes ago, perpetua said:

But this doesn't mean the player stops developing.  As he gains experience, his mental attributes can improve while his physical attributes start to decline.  This turns the player into a more well rounded player who substitutes energy with skill/know how.  Even if CA doesn't increase, it's certainly possible for a player to become better at performing his role on the pitch.

This isn't the type of development I'm talking about, although it is a nice part of fm's development cycle. The one I'm talking about has the potential to restrict growth where growth might otherwise be possible, at young ages.

[perpetua]

1 minute ago, Cap'nRad said:

I'm sure 24 is much too young to be peak level, as mental attributes cannot develop that fast. Peak would be the point at which his mental and physical attributes combine for peak performance, which I usually hear is at 26 or 27 depending on their level of physicality. My definition of young would be any age below that.

 

This isn't the type of development I'm talking about, although it is a nice part of fm's development cycle. The one I'm talking about has the potential to restrict growth where growth might otherwise be possible, at young ages.

You're confusing CA with performance.  CA is not performance.  CA is not much more than a way of quantifying the level of club for which the player is suitable.  It's the player's attributes (including those that are not tied to CA) that define his performance.

[Cap'nRad]

1 hour ago, Maaka said:

But then, as it has been argued before, it's not the PA system itself that is the problem, rather that the PA has been set too low. This could easily be rectified by ham_aka_stam's suggestion to just up the PA values while making it even harder to reach that ceiling. Because it is a ceiling, a hard cap. But, as it has been pointed out several times, it's perfectly possible for a player with a CA of 140 to be better than a player with a CA of 150, if the attribute spread is better, and/or he's used in a tactical system that benefits him. So CA/PA is not everything.

I think this is simply a difference of opinion. I believe the former while you believe the latter, and I don't think debating about it will change anyone's opinion at this point. I am happy that at least the concerns with the limiting behaviour of P.A have been understood and the discussion is moving forwards. The suggestion by @ham_aka_stam is a good starting point since it is quite straightforward and effective, while the others might need further consideration due to their complexity.

[Cap'nRad]

12 minutes ago, perpetua said:

You're confusing CA with performance.  CA is not performance.  CA is not much more than a way of quantifying the level of club for which the player is suitable.  It's the player's attributes (including those that are not tied to CA) that define his performance.

But I would assume, especially with fm's current engine, that physical attributes are quite important, at least as important as mental attributes, so a mental for physical trade off might not result in better performances on the pitch. Which means fm's peak age might be set a few years too low, restricting the development of players in the hopes that his mental attributes' trade off with physicals' make him a better player.

[perpetua]

2 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

But I would assume, especially with fm's current engine, that physical attributes are quite important, at least as important as mental attributes, so a mental for physical trade off might not result in better performances on the pitch. Which means fm's peak age might be set a few years too low, restricting the development of players in the hopes that his mental attributes' trade off with physicals' make him a better player.

I urge you to forget about CA and examine how players with very strong mental attributes perform in the game.  I'm sure you'll see a huge difference.

[Cap'nRad]

12 minutes ago, perpetua said:

I urge you to forget about CA and examine how players with very strong mental attributes perform in the game.  I'm sure you'll see a huge difference.

Having played for a while, I believe the difference in physical attributes can be seen more clearly in the M.E than mentals, due to the somewhat pre-programmed nature of things such as movement, passing options, decisions, etc. Whereas besting your opponent physically through pace, stamina, or strength is more straightforward. However I think that might be a bit off topic. In any case, my main point was that there are situations where players stop developing so early that they have to rely solely on reshuffling of attributes in order to perform at a level even vaguely similar to where they would have been had their growth not been artificially restricted. And this reshuffling doesn't always work out.

[santy001]

9 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

Having played for a while, I believe the difference in physical attributes can be seen more clearly in the M.E than mentals, due to the somewhat pre-programmed nature of things such as movement, passing options, decisions, etc. Whereas besting your opponent physically through pace, stamina, or strength is more straightforward. However I think that might be a bit off topic. In any case, my main point was that there are situations where players stop developing so early that they have to rely solely on reshuffling of attributes in order to perform at a level even vaguely similar to where they would have been had their growth not been artificially restricted. And this reshuffling doesn't always work out.

Absolutely, physical attributes can be seen more easily. You're always going to see raw strength, blistering pace etc far more easily than the reading of play aspects. 

However, mental attributes (and hidden attributes) are far and away where you make a player. For the last several years on FM titles any time you could pick up Stoke and in your central midfield you'd have Whelan, he looks easy to replace. If you base it on CA alone, he is easy to replace. However, he was such an effective player (so long as you put him in a relevant role, to break up play and recycle possession) that you could spend £10m, £20m on players who look better and again, on the basis of CA were better, but feel like you weren't getting that same level of performance. 

This ties in with why PA is a lot less relevant than many believe, because when we get down to the nitty gritty, what really makes a player in FM, like the player he is in real life, its more often than not the unweighted, or lesser weighted attributes that come into play. 

But you're still very much thinking of PA wrong there in that final part with 'artificially restricted' because its not an artificial restriction it's what a researcher believes to be his limit, unless you believe that player has no ceiling on how good they can become, that every player can become a Messi/Ronaldo.

- - -

Being perfectly honest, we could remove PA, not a problem. Every player could go up to 200, but then in order to get a player to only be able to develop to the point we think he can reach we would have to drop his professionalism, his determination etc. You wouldn't ever be able to remove a PA system without installing a new limit. Whether we suppress attributes that play a part in development, or put in some new attribute (natural talent) that does exactly the same, there will always be that imposed limitation.

All removing PA means is that really hard working, model professional, but limited player you have can no longer be a really hard working model professional, because the new development model dictates that since he's not as good as Messi/Ronaldo, obviously he's never worked as hard as them or been as professional as them.

Natural talent then just becomes something like either:
1 = 1-10PA on average
2 = 11-20 on average
3 = 21-30 on average
4 = 31-40 on average
5 = 41-50 on average
6 = 51-60 on average
7 = 61-70 on average
...

OR
Natural Talent + Professionalism + Other attributes you wish to include in revised development model:
Combined total of less than 5 = 1-10PA on average
Combined total of less than 7 = 11-20 on average
Combined total of less than 9 = 21-30 on average
Combined total of less than 11 = 31-40
...

*Note* I've put the word "on average" in, because the system outlined by Raptor in this thread is meant to reduce the chance of going further each time a player progresses outside of a certain band, so there has to be an average on which these players would hit and only a select few would then exceed based on some randomness. 
 

That's why I mostly oppose it, because you never remove the limits of PA. All you do is disguise them and make them more difficult for you to understand yourself. But some day (and given FM players pretty quickly), someone will work out the formula (like with coaching attributes for star ratings) and your new good player and team guide forums list becomes the players we've rated highest in these areas. Let's say they take all these attributes, add them up and it becomes some kind of "potential" now you have a list of players, on that forum with their total "potential" attribute being used to list how likely they are to become good. You end up exactly where we are now, but you have to come back to the forums every time you want to check the formula for yourself. 
 

[ham_aka_stam]

11 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

My personal reason for the advocacy of the proposal is that I feel the concept of P.A isn't very organic. It doesn't shift, fluctuate with time, anything. It's just there, something to be eventually attained and never overcome. And while some have argued that P.A works that way in real life, I don't think that is a scientific fact and more of a belief, the same way I believe dedicated people can improve on what their potential is perceived to be. However, I understand P.A, or some other sort of limit coming into play as a player gets older and experiences more factors influencing growth which are crucial at younger ages. 

My main issue with P.A arrives when situations occur where a young player (or any player for that matter) who clearly has the right internal and external elements to improve simply cannot do so due to the hard limit. Especially when there are extremely dedicated youngsters who's P.A is very close to their C.A. And since I don't believe in such hard limits in the first place, especially not for such dedicated youngsters, the argument that "The player can't improve simply because they cannot surpass their potential" doesn't satisfy me. 

I believe that regardless of the outcome of the discussion, this is an issue that needs tweaking in some way. Maybe with the ability to improve on P.A as @Dorin suggested or, as suggested by @ham_aka_stam, simply greatly increase P.A values across the board but also increase the difficulty of reaching said potential, by making professionalism, ambition, etc very hard to attain and a very rare quality in youngsters, or as @Raptor Longe suggested, by introducing a growth parameter which influences the rate of development so that even though the P.A values are high, the development rates mean some might not be as good as others (at least not until later).

Lastly, I understand that @Cougar2010, @ham_aka_stam and a few others complain about lack of answers to some queries. I would urge you not to be frustrated as I believe there are quite a few more people questioning than answering and at least on my part, I like to think and deliberate a little first before posting, especially if the question is challenging. On a topic like this, I believe quality of answers are important so if I don't have a good answer at the time, I would prefer not to answer until I do.

Re: the bold bits.  You keep forgetting that most players never reach their PA in FM.  It is not a case that everyone's getting to 24 and never improves.  Most players still have potential that they can unlock up until the natural decline on or after 30years old!

Also, PA should never fluctuate.  Because it is that player's natural limit.  Your natural limit will never increase, you'll just get closer and closer to it.

If a player DOES hit his PA it's because he's reached the highest attributes he can reach.  We're not talking about an intelligent person learning some more facts, we're talking about a football player's attributes reaching their sum peak.  This doesn't mean he can't get "better", you / the AI as managers can still improve the spread of those attributes through training. He can still have a stormer of a season, he could still play for a team which makes better use of his attributes and out-perform his previous performances.  But again, we're talking about the absolute minority of players here.  Everyone else still has CA points available to improve their attributes

Basically this whole thread is about people not understanding that CA doesn't equal performance, and that PA is not something that most players reach.

CA development can be improved, PA could be increased if less players got near theirs, but ditching it without adding other limits (thus defeating the point of ditching it) would be fruitless.

[Cap'nRad]

6 hours ago, santy001 said:

Absolutely, physical attributes can be seen more easily. You're always going to see raw strength, blistering pace etc far more easily than the reading of play aspects. 

However, mental attributes (and hidden attributes) are far and away where you make a player. For the last several years on FM titles any time you could pick up Stoke and in your central midfield you'd have Whelan, he looks easy to replace. If you baseAit on CA alone, he is easy to replace. However, he was such an effective player (so long as you put him in a relevant role, to break up play and recycle possession) that you could spend £10m, £20m on players who look better and again, on the basis of CA were better, but feel like you weren't getting that same level of performance. 

This ties in with why PA is a lot less relevant than many believe, because when we get down to the nitty gritty, what really makes a player in FM, like the player he is in real life, its more often than not the unweighted, or lesser weighted attributes that come into play. 

I understand what you're talking about, especially with defensive, central, and attacking mids in my experience. On the wings and at fullback I would usually go for the more physical player, although a lot of the time that is how it is in real life.

 

6 hours ago, santy001 said:

But you're still very much thinking of PA wrong there in that final part with 'artificially restricted' because its not an artificial restriction it's what a researcher believes to be his limit, unless you believe that player has no ceiling on how good they can become, that every player can become a Messi/Ronaldo.

As I've said before, this is a difference of opinion and I don't think my mind will change despite how many people bring it up. Aside from genetic differences, I don't think anyone was born with a better ability than someone else in such areas. I believe such differences arise as a result of aforementioned genetics as well as other external factors. I don't believe messi/ ronaldo had a special gene which allows them to play football, I just think messi and ronaldo were talented physically and mentally, had the best frame of mind, and were put in the right conditions to succeed to that level. The reason we haven't seen a cr7 or messi ever since is because of archaic training methods and playstyles, and as you can see youngsters with more modern training techniques have already started outperforming older professionals. I believe the next generation of players will be more skilled, intelligent and two-footed than the previous one. 

So in my view, players are held back by their genetic ability only to a limited degree, so though many might try to explain a game limit as logical to me, I probably won't change my mind on this issue.

6 hours ago, santy001 said:

All removing PA means is that really hard working, model professional, but limited player you have can no longer be a really hard working model professional, because the new development model dictates that since he's not as good as Messi/Ronaldo, obviously he's never worked as hard as them or been as professional as them.

Exactly. I don't believe other players come close to the hard work and professionalism needed to get to the level of cr7 and messi and the other elite, and even if they do, they don't do it with the same mentality. And even if they do currently portray a similar attitude, I believe they haven't done so to such a consistent level as those two. We all hear how Quaresma was actually the talented one in the Sporting academy, and how Messi's mates never dreamed he'd be the best till it actually started happening. And let's not forget how Ronaldo changed his game at the advice of Meulensteen in order to cement himself at the top. These sort of snippets show that Messi and Ronaldo have been on another level in terms of dedication and professionalism (as well as having the right guidance of course), and I don't think any of the older players in this generation come close. I don't think max professionalism and ambition players should be running all over the world. These types are rare, and you see it in their success. 

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

Natural talent then just becomes something like either:
1 = 1-10PA on average
2 = 11-20 on average
3 = 21-30 on average
4 = 31-40 on average
5 = 41-50 on average
6 = 51-60 on average
7 = 61-70 on average
...

OR
Natural Talent + Professionalism + Other attributes you wish to include in revised development model:
Combined total of less than 5 = 1-10PA on average
Combined total of less than 7 = 11-20 on average
Combined total of less than 9 = 21-30 on average
Combined total of less than 11 = 31-40
...

*Note* I've put the word "on average" in, because the system outlined by Raptor in this thread is meant to reduce the chance of going further each time a player progresses outside of a certain band, so there has to be an average on which these players would hit and only a select few would then exceed based on some randomness. 

I'll have to look at this a bit more, though from what I can see I don't think it will be this linear, seeing as it's supposed to be a rate of growth rather than a simple point distributor.

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

That's why I mostly oppose it, because you never remove the limits of PA. All you do is disguise them and make them more difficult for you to understand yourself. 

Yes, there indeed has to be some sort of limit. Now, the problem was never with the existence of said limit, but with it's nature. We believed that the limiting nature of P.A was too harsh and unrealistic, and included situations such as players reaching P.A at an age where further growth is obviously still possible. Thus having to rely solely on reshuffling of attributes. This highlights its unnatural limiting nature. 

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

But some day (and given FM players pretty quickly), someone will work out the formula (like with coaching attributes for star ratings) and your new good player and team guide forums list becomes the players we've rated highest in these areas. Let's say they take all these attributes, add them up and it becomes some kind of "potential" now you have a list of players, on that forum with their total "potential" attribute being used to list how likely they are to become good. You end up exactly where we are now, but you have to come back to the forums every time you want to check the formula for yourself. 

Maybe, maybe not. Given how till now nobody knows the formulas for other mental attributes like professionalism and determination's effects, I doubt this will be easy to work out. And regardless, I would prefer this issue if it means that the environment can have a more tangible effect on the player's maximum ability.