So whats new ? (nothing)

[FlorianAlbert9]

37 minuti fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

Note on the PA point - PA is your genetic maximum.

You cannot exceed this. No matter how much I train, play or improve I'll never be better than Messi. He simply has a higher ceiling than me, and that is PA.

I disagree, if you at 16 had the same CA of Messi, training in great structures with great coaches and above all, playing constantly matches at high level (Liga and Champions) along great players, have professionalism, determination, you can be worst, same or better. 

In game i don't Remember the CA of Messi in 2006, but said it was 150: we can only change his PA to 150 and even if he has the same mental stats he cannot improve neither his corner kick ability.

[Seb Wassell]

25 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I disagree, if you at 16 had the same CA of Messi, training in great structures with great coaches and above all, playing constantly matches at high level (Liga and Champions) along great players, have professionalism, determination, you can be worst, same or better. 

You've misunderstood how CA and PA work.

If I have the same CA as Cristiano Ronaldo at 17 but I'm 5'7'' I am never going to match his aerial prowess; my Jumping Reach will almost always be lower and therefore, all else being equal, my future maximum CA (ergo PA) will be lower. 

Replace height with innate footballing ability and I'll never be as good as Messi. Lots of players had the same CA as Messi at various points, and many of them had the identical coaching and facilities to work with (La Masia). Not one of them had Messi's biological potential.

25 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

In game i don't Remember the CA of Messi in 2006, but said it was 150: we can only change his PA to 150 and even if he has the same mental stats he cannot improve neither his corner kick ability.

You're confusing a researchers interpretation of someone's PA with actual PA. The researchers offer their educated opinion on a player's PA based on current available information and experience, but they're not omniscient.

There is something called PPA, which is effectively the potential stars you see in game. This is that staff member's interpretation of the player's PA based on their current ability, age, available facilities, etc. This bit is variable and possibly what you are confusing with PA. Potential Ability is not variable, but the chances of achieving that and your current point along that journey are.

I will never be as quick as Usain Bolt, I lack comparable biological structures. Genetically he is simply predisposed to his sport (PA), combined with training, hard work, luck, etc. he raised his CA to that of the best 100m sprinter in the world. To become the best in the world you need both a high ceiling and the opportunity to reach that ceiling. The ceiling is not variable, but how close you get is.

[VinnyChilds]

I think people are far too hung up on PA and spend too much time reading 'wonderkid' lists and using editors. If your player is performing, he's good enough, and PA be damned.

I'd also argue that we already have dynamic PA to an extent. If I have a 100 CA player at a League Two club with mediocre facilities and run-of-the-mill coaches, he'll maybe reach 125 by playing regularly at that level and using those facilities. Then, he'll stagnate for want of bigger challenges and better training. If, however, he's then snapped up by a Championship club with far better facilities and he gets enough game time, he can now improve to 140. Then, who knows, the PL beckons and he's playing against the cream and in Europe, in state-of-the-art facilities, allowing him to reach his maximum potential, at which point he's either excelling or is found out. How he applies himself in those situations will determine his progress until he reaches his genetic peak. You could possibly argue for more fluidity in mental stats with age, but everyone reaches a point at which they're just not going to get better - it's your job as manager to decide if their best is good enough.

[santy001]

30 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I disagree, if you at 16 had the same CA of Messi, training in great structures with great coaches and above all, playing constantly matches at high level (Liga and Champions) along great players, have professionalism, determination, you can be worst, same or better. 

In game i don't Remember the CA of Messi in 2006, but said it was 150: we can only change his PA to 150 and even if he has the same mental stats he cannot improve neither his corner kick ability.

You can disagree that something is a fire, if there's logs burning and flames flickering it's still a fire. 

Ultimately, the discussion struggles to advance when people don't understand the definition of PA. Seb has just explained it, and you're saying you disagree. But you can't disagree, there's no room for interpretation, no room for debate or wriggle room. It's a defined system to those parameters. 

The use of a real life example, but then imposing unrealistic elements on top that were likely never the case does nothing to advance your point. There's no attempts to deceive people on what PA is, or to say you're wrong just to silence any criticisms or constructive feedback you have. It's merely providing the information that ultimately provides a better platform to provide constructive feedback. 

[bar333]

3 hours ago, forameuss said:

There's little point in going through most of the post, as it was a largely self-serving rant with little substance, but...

So what you want is for a small team, with a niche product, to forego any chance of profits for 5-6 years (or so), just because you don't like that they haven't added anything "new" to a genre where they already put in pretty much everything they can realistically?

When you find out how to generate money from nothing, are you going to patent that or help everyone by making the answers public?

EDIT: And one question to leave you with - so you say nothing new has been added.  What, in your opinion, should be added that would be considered new, and would make the game worth buying?

Please god, not this. Not the "small, niche studio" excuse. Of all the excuses for lack of innovation or business practices in the gaming industry, this has been forever the laziest one.

Are you seriously suggesting there is nothing new to add or, more to the point, nothing to improve in FM? How about this - instead of some new, shiny headline feature that will be abandoned next year and recycled in the next game with the same issues and bugs it's always had (like most headline features since idk, 2014? Or whenever it was they got rid of sliders), we actually go about improving what's already there to take the game to the next level?

We finally fix issues that the ME has had for years. We finally make it look better. We finally overhaul press conferences. We finally take a look at PPM's. We finally overhaul player interactions. We finally make the social feed more contextual. We finally take a look at how regens are produced so we stop getting potentially world class CB's in every respect... except they're 1.60m with 3 jumping reach. For the love of god, we finally make regens look like... something, anything that can pass for a human being. 

I can think of a bunch of ideas of stuff to add to the game. But maybe instead of adding, just for one or two years we should stop and polish what's already there. FM at the moment is the definition of 'building wide'. Every year new stuff gets added, stuff that makes people go 'ooh, aah' and buy a copy, stuff that can be plastered all over the trailers and marketing material. It inevitably ships with some flaws... and then the same feature ships with the exact same flaws the following year as the franchise moves on to the next headline feature, and the cycle repeats - FM has been in this cycle for god knows how long now.

So forget adding anything new. Just make the game not suffer from the exact same problems year in year out, for a start. Not that I have much hope of this ever happening - I love FM, but what this is, is the textbook definition of a market monopoly. This is what it looks like, and unless that changes then this cycle will continue.

[FlorianAlbert9]

27 minuti fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

You've misunderstood how CA and PA work.

If I have the same CA as Cristiano Ronaldo at 17 but I'm 5'7'' I am never going to match his aerial prowess; my Jumping Reach will almost always be lower and therefore, all else being equal, my future maximum CA (ergo PA) will be lower. 

Replace height with innate footballing ability and I'll never be as good as Messi. Lots of players had the same CA as Messi at various points, and many of them had the identical coaching and facilities to work with (La Masia). Not one of them had Messi's biological potential.

You're confusing a researchers interpretation of someone's PA with actual PA. The researchers offer their educated opinion on a player's PA based on current available information and experience, but they're not omniscient.

There is something called PPA, which is effectively the potential stars you see in game. This is that staff member's interpretation of the player's PA based on their current ability, age, available facilities, etc. This bit is variable and possibly what you are confusing with PA. Potential Ability is not variable, but the chances of achieving that and your current point along that journey are.

I will never be as quick as Usain Bolt, I lack comparable biological structures. Genetically he is simply predisposed to his sport (PA), combined with training, hard work, luck, etc. he raised his CA to that of the best 100m sprinter in the world. To become the best in the world you need both a high ceiling and the opportunity to reach that ceiling. The ceiling is not variable, but how close you get is.

Seb, wait. I said before that phisical stats are more linked to genetic and very hard to improve. (And also the world classe phenomenal are over the normal limit).

But in your example about height you seems ti give me reason. 

Because that's not PA. That's starting CA. The possibilty of increase are set in your CA (and phisical)

More starting CA you have, more future CA you can reach. 

In game taking 2 players with the same important stats for growing (professionalism determination etc) put in the same competition level, same team, coach all.

Player A with CA 90 and PA 180 is better than Player B with 130 and 130.

 

I don't remember in real life a single example where prof. scout/media think A would be better than B.

 

 

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

17 minuti fa, santy001 ha scritto:

You can disagree that something is a fire, if there's logs burning and flames flickering it's still a fire. 

Ultimately, the discussion struggles to advance when people don't understand the definition of PA. Seb has just explained it, and you're saying you disagree. But you can't disagree, there's no room for interpretation, no room for debate or wriggle room. It's a defined system to those parameters. 

The use of a real life example, but then imposing unrealistic elements on top that were likely never the case does nothing to advance your point. There's no attempts to deceive people on what PA is, or to say you're wrong just to silence any criticisms or constructive feedback you have. It's merely providing the information that ultimately provides a better platform to provide constructive feedback. 

Tell me where professional scout talking IRL about a PA like it is in the game (that is a stats not linked with any other stats). 

Where you find a genetic approach to professional scouting and not a mental ones. 

Where scout rating higher a very weak and not professional boy over a wonderkid very professional 'cause they think the first one a more genetic potential in techinique and mental stats.

If you cannot, your fire is only water.

[alanschu14]

4 hours ago, wrezanini1 said:

Meaning if i get a player that has ability of PA of 120 and i make him score 35 goals in the premiership his PA will not change one bit ! And to me that is unrealistic and flawed it should be that his PA should increase if he scores 35 goals in the premiership !

Nah. Sports have loads of history of players that put up impressive stats because they played with good players but otherwise weren't actually good.

One of my favourites is Rob Brown of the NHL who put up a 100 point season playing beside Mario Lemieux. He was a fringe NHL player 3 years later.

[jcp1417]

1 hour ago, RedHot said:

This is just a football manager game. The only one in the market, sadly because competition is what drives things forward. 

There's actually plenty of football manager games on the market. play them and report back which one is best

[jcp1417]

the reason messi is so good is because he started so good. i'm not sure i like the example that no matter how hard i train, i could never get better than messi and that's why his PA is higher than mine. the real reason is that i could never get better than messi because he's already, CA, lightyears ahead of me. I don't believe that PA, in the context of a video game, is something that should be dynamic but there should be a change as to how it's treated.

Currently if a player has a high PA, he will be discovered and you will know he has a high PA. Big clubs will come calling even if the player has not done anything at all. They will still come if his CA is low also. I think there needs to be significantly more fog of war when it comes to potential. The truth is that no one really knows how to measure potential. So ask yourself, how does one measure potential in a kid? I think the only answer is to look at what the kid can do now and project future growth based mainly on what he can already do. Sometimes he grows, sometimes he doesn't. If PA wasn't so glaringly obvious, then we wouldn't have these conversations on what realistic potential is

[santy001]

54 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Tell me where professional scout talking IRL about a PA like it is in the game (that is a stats not linked with any other stats). 

Where you find a genetic approach to professional scouting and not a mental ones. 

Where scout rating higher a very weak and not professional boy over a wonderkid very professional 'cause they think the first one a more genetic potential in techinique and mental stats.

If you cannot, your fire is only water.

We're not talking in the context of professional scouts and what feedback they provide though are we? It's an absolute strawman you're throwing out there.

It's not a scouting in the sense of a team looking for new players approach, it's an FM is a game, how do we represent an aspect of life in the game approach. 

In FM, 99% of the time if you have 2 players who are the same age, same spread of mental attributes but one is 130CA and the other is 90CA irrespective of their PA's (because scouts don't know players PA's) they will rate the 130CA as a better prospect. You're somehow putting your bias of being able to envisage a fictional situation, with a fictional outcome that you're claiming is factual. 

People from SI have talked about, in depth how the game has for a while now had what in-game is called Perceived Current Ability and Perceived Potential Ability. Mechanisms through which scouts emphasise their belief on how good a player is right now, and how good he could potentially be in the future. It works well, because as a researcher I know the PA's I've set for Stoke players. So when Chelsea come and bid £20m+ for a player I set with a -5 or -6 PA I know the system is working and because of the performances combined with where they are at, at that point in time deceives scouts and clubs into thinking there is significantly more to come.

How are we supposed to have a discussion about it when you're inventing falsehoods and then expecting people to reply. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

I don't understand your reply. 

I talking about one feature of the game that IMHO need a Total revamp to more realistic and you reply that No, 'cause in the game it's different. 

I know how works in game. 

And the perceived PA is, like IRL, the prove that PA should not exist at all, like IRL.

Again, potentially IRL is only how is player's CA plus how easy his weakness can be improved plus his professionalism/determination/etc..

 

 

[CFuller]

1 minute ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

And the perceived PA is, like IRL, the proof that PA should not exist at all, like IRL.

What would you replace PA with, though? And why would it be any better and more realistic than what we have now?

[FlorianAlbert9]

17 minuti fa, CFuller ha scritto:

What would you replace PA with, though? And why would it be any better and more realistic than what we have now?

I will made a post in feature section. 

I will suggest a mixed approach

In few words i will use only 3 zone (lets say as example) 0-160, 0-190 and 190-200 

So, normal player can reach max 160, few players with max professionalism and great starting CA can reach 190. Phenomenal (Pelè, Maradona, Ronaldo9), one every 15 years are the game-changer and can reach 200.

Player need high mental, structures, coaches and above all experience at highest level to reach highest CA. 

So if you are Barca and wanna create the new Messi you can take the strogest young and make him a regular. 

Easy? No. he will struggle playing in first team and you will ruin him, the team cohesion (cause you let a young playing and not a stronger player) and the Liga results.

So It will be hard take a decision.

 

[grff]

Imagine buying a football simulation game and moaning that it's too realistic with not enough fantasy aspects

 

[alanschu14]

5 hours ago, santy001 said:

If a player makes a late career surge - you've seen it on FM

I'm wondering if I have, but could just be smaller sample size of my own experiences and the overwhelming amount of "players tend to grow quickest when they're younger" (as they should) that I have probably missed some.  It does feel like if I don't grab on a player who is under the age of 24, it's very unlikely they'll develop quickly even with good attitudes. (which again, probably DOES make a lot of sense, so it's complicated).

The opposite is really easy to see though. Player with mediocre PA peaks early. Crushes youth competition because he started with comparably high CA and just can't "get over that hump." Easy to draw analogues and I'm sure SI has been wrong plenty of times in the opposite direction where in game players go on to be muuuuch better than they ever are in real life.

One question since you might know it, but is rate of CA growth impacted at all by the difference in CA compared to PA?  Like is a player with 90 CA and 160 PA have a greater chance at growing quickly compared to a player with 90 CA and 100 PA?

[alanschu14]

3 hours ago, jcp1417 said:

Currently if a player has a high PA, he will be discovered and you will know he has a high PA. Big clubs will come calling even if the player has not done anything at all. They will still come if his CA is low also.

My experience (at least this season) is that this is not the case.

I still peek at the IGE (my goal since 2016 is to do it less each season) and picked up some good U18 players that had high PA. I ended up getting one of my kids poached by Bayer 04, but he wasn't actually my top prospect in terms of PA. He did have the best CA at the time though and it showed in his match performances.

Which makes sense because I get in game updates from solid players in leagues too. A lot of my introduction if I stay in game comes from "this player is one of the top players in his division" with the player breakdown. But even in previous season for laughs I've created players that have obscene PA but not very high CA, with amazing mentals and it was only this year I had someone get actively poached (mostly because I couldn't refuse the transfer because I was in the third division).

I'm curious to see what happens in the next transfer window because I have a player that just turned 16 that would literally be my starting right winger if he was eligible to play. He can't play this season but I'm VERY excited to try him out next season. (He current is 113/184 for CA/PA and very ambitious... I was floored to get him on my intake despite being 3. Liga with Kaiserlautern).

[Blue Maniac]

7 hours ago, wrezanini1 said:

Or how about giving players something if you win league you get some sort of point system where u can put that into a new regen that will come out of your own club where you can chose his abilities ?

Have to say, this is the most bizarre sentence I've seen on these forums in literally hours. Are you sure you know what Football Manager even is?

[santy001]

1 hour ago, alanschu14 said:

One question since you might know it, but is rate of CA growth impacted at all by the difference in CA compared to PA?  Like is a player with 90 CA and 160 PA have a greater chance at growing quickly compared to a player with 90 CA and 100 PA?

What and how development is directly isn't public information (and isn't something I need to know as a researcher) so I couldn't say with certainty. Based on what I understand, it's too circumstantial to say. All that is true is that any player will have a greater chance of growing quickly if they have good facilities, are playing regularly at the highest level. The truth is though that there's a great deal of nuance. 

Because your team talks, direct interactions, tutoring etc all have different outcomes for different players, even 2 very similar players could develop very differently under your management even in the space of 6 months. Not to mention how you actually use them in games and so on.

Development isn't a linear, on rails thing basically so I don't think there's anyway of categorically stating yes or no to the question. If all things were absolutely equal, then you'd expect a fairly similar outcome because FM and all games are ultimately maths, you put your variables in and it provides an output. If you put two sets of the exact same variables in, you should get fairly similar out only allowing for "dice roll" effects in situations where these would be used. 

[alanschu14]

Fair enough @santy001 and thank you for the response.

I'm sure it is possible, it's just rare (and for good reason) and I don't envy the challenge it must be being a researcher. I grew up watching more NBA and NHL but I know both of those leagues have had their share of busts. People always talk about how the player "wasted their potential" and I now look back and think "Maybe their PA was just lower than we all thought!?" haha.

I actually think that this contributes a bit. I think when people think a real life player didn't "play to their potential" it's a situation where the game should show like 100/160 PA. But in real life, if we have an 18 year old that is 100/100, they'll seem super promising and we'll still claim "couldn't reach their potential."

[jcp1417]

 

5 minutes ago, alanschu14 said:

Fair enough @santy001 and thank you for the response.

I'm sure it is possible, it's just rare (and for good reason) and I don't envy the challenge it must be being a researcher. I grew up watching more NBA and NHL but I know both of those leagues have had their share of busts. People always talk about how the player "wasted their potential" and I now look back and think "Maybe their PA was just lower than we all thought!?" haha.

I actually think that this contributes a bit. I think when people think a real life player didn't "play to their potential" it's a situation where the game should show like 100/160 PA. But in real life, if we have an 18 year old that is 100/100, they'll seem super promising and we'll still claim "couldn't reach their potential."

PA isn't real. It's the classic nature vs environment argument. real players don't have a magical max potential. they only have what they can do today. any future growth is based completely on their environment

[santy001]

It's a testament to how well SI do a lot of things to be honest. There's pretty big changes in FM every year on the research side that governs how players are rated and how their development/portrayal will subsequently be altered year on year. 

A simple example that's out there now is that determination affects a players development as well. Determination went from an attribute that governed how a player would react when the situation was bad in games to something that also plays a part in development. 

But there are far greater changes that aren't public, but the researcher guide book was 218 pages this year. In total its a 103,000 word document. The research is great, but the biggest appreciation it imparts is just how much goes into the game because what we get to see is only a small slither of the total effort. And of course, it comes with an awful lot more that we don't get to post about. This year, as with pretty much every year, there's big changes. Things that will have a real tangible change on things like player development. 

- - -

@jcp1417 so... back to the dynamic PA then?

[alanschu14]

1 minute ago, jcp1417 said:

PA isn't real.

Yes I know....

My comment is in connection with the game and was mostly just for fun (hence the "haha.").

My second paragraph detailed an inconsistency with how FM players take real world experiences and apply them to the game. In game a youth player is 100/100 is very excellent as a youth player. In real life, we'd think that the sky is the limit for that player but they turn out to be a bust.  Sometimes for attitude and whatnot. But others times not.

I understand why the game has it (if we just left it up to attitude, it'd be too easy to develop players).

[jcp1417]

20 minutes ago, santy001 said:

 

@jcp1417 so... back to the dynamic PA then?

I already said that the in game PA should not be dynamic. I also said that the user shouldn't even know what the PA is anyway, 

[alanschu14]

1 hour ago, jcp1417 said:

I already said that the in game PA should not be dynamic. I also said that the user shouldn't even know what the PA is anyway, 

They don't, unless they cheat.

[gavinski33]

The way I see it is that PA is dynamic in a sense, but the first third of it up to the youth intake is unseen - governed by clubs scouting range, junior coaching, HoYD for example rather than the individual player. The second, say 15 - 18 in the most part, by his own mental attributes, the disparity and growth seen between his CA and PA, and your youth coaches and facilities; the final third being variables like game time, whether he and his position and attributes fits in to how you play or if you let him go, more coaching and training ratings, mentoring, injuries etc. 

While it's very utopian to hope that all newgens are created equally, we don't see them at their 'birth', we see them at 14 and 15 years old - almost half of their entire in-game life - whereby at that point some have been created more equal than others, by virtue of nationality and the above mentioned youth recruitment stats of the club we first meet them.

Ignoring the IGE and any numerical PA value, I don't use either, if there is a slight criticism on this in my view it's that the 'potential' star system in my save seems very accurate and exact - I wouldn't feel particularly cut up about letting anybody under 3 go immediately, regardless of their playing stats, or worry about it coming back to bite me on the arse - I'd prefer to see less 1/2 and 4/5 star ratings and vaguer middle of the road ones with more feedback coming from my u18/u20/reserve managers and coaches and HoYD so it felt more like a difficult decision rather than a cull. 

 

 

 

[themadsheep2001]

Deleted the last few posts because frankly we're tired of the constant jabs at people. If you can't post politely, posts are going to be removed. We've been saying this for a while now and people are not listening so expect action to be taken without warning from now on. 

[santy001]

4 hours ago, gavinski33 said:

I wouldn't feel particularly cut up about letting anybody under 3 go immediately, regardless of their playing stats, or worry about it coming back to bite me on the arse - I'd prefer to see less 1/2 and 4/5 star ratings and vaguer middle of the road ones with more feedback coming from my u18/u20/reserve managers and coaches and HoYD so it felt more like a difficult decision rather than a cull. 

While it can feel that way at times, I can attest to the fact with first hand experience that on FM18 it definitely was worth waiting and seeing with lower star rating players. 

I don't remember exactly when it came into the game, but players can make much more substantial leaps in CA now (not guaranteed, not likely I believe its a chance based on certain factors) this means that even if they start from a position of low ability, they can with the right development quickly move up. 

I had this guy come through last year, and this screenshot is already a year of development down the line.


My staff rated him poorly, and the only reason I gave him a couple of games initially was because he was a regen who was the son of one of my players. By age 20 he was a mainstay in my side, and was honestly one of the most complete midfielders in the game. 

[Scoham]

Didn’t realise players could have regen sons, good to know.

What was his PA rated at when he came through @santy001?

[santy001]

@Scoham initially around 2 & a half stars, there was another midfielder who came through the year or two before at 4 stars (who went on to be his midfield partner) but it really meant he was on the back burner for a while. 

Sadly I didn't take any screenshots of him at his peak, but I loaded up the old game from last year and he was still in the clubs overall best XI (albeit on the bench, because I later shifted my set-up a bit to one that got a lot more goals from midfield) in 2071. 

Also, as an aside, the player there called Jaroslaw Baran - a brilliant example of how injuries have changed over time. As daft as it sounds, despite him scoring 750 for my side, and despite him having a career total of around 940 competitive goals. His career was seriously impacted by knee and ankle ligament issues. Could've easily broken the 1000 goal marker for my side had it not been for those issues.

[herne79]

I think there's a misunderstanding of what PA actually is - or at least it's intended (design) purpose.

PA is just a tool to ensure players don't develop exponentially.  That's it.  It's simply there to stop players getting 20 for each attribute.  There are a variety of PAs within the database because there is a variety of clubs within the database at different levels of the game.  So we can't simply have everyone with a PA of 200 because then everyone at every club would end up like Messi.  So a balance needs to be maintained within the database across all tiers.

It's only enterprising individuals that use an editor who have discovered this hidden number and use it to help them lift the fog of development to determine who may or may not become "good".  That's fine - everyone plays the game in their own way - but asking for changes to the PA system is about more than a bit of dynamism.  A change to the PA system would be 1) beyond it's intended purpose and 2) would affect the entire database which requires a balance to be maintained.  So it's asking for something to be changed which is not being used for it's intended purpose and would impact the entire database.

Don't get me wrong, I can see a case for a more "dynamic" PA in a certain area.  The PA of real players can be (and are) reassessed by researchers on occasion, so how about having a system to reassess newgens on a semi-regular basis?  We could argue that's currently missing from the database and so how newgen PA is treated may not always be reflective of how real players are treated.  I wouldn't really call that "dynamic" PA though, it's more of a PA review process for newgens to follow how researchers review real player PA.

But at the end of the day would that really add anything much to the database?  I don't know how often researchers recommend a change to real player PA but I imagine it's a pretty low number, so any reassessment of newgens would need to be equally low.  And with all the changes in FM19 to the player development model I'm really not sure if any newgen PA review process would anything of value anyway.

[gavinski33]

@santy001I'm into my 7th season now (2 in NI with Queens University - no youth development - 4 in Hong Kong with Pegasus - all newgens are better than actual players for every team, it's like an under 17's league but teams can go from top to bottom on the back of one youth intake - and now back in NI with Linfield). so not really had much to go on with how accurate the development actually becomes this year. I'll keep your laddo in mind though and try and trust my gut a little more rather than autopiloting onto reports>set for release whenever someone hi

[Seb Wassell]

17 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

In game taking 2 players with the same important stats for growing (professionalism determination etc) put in the same competition level, same team, coach all.

Player A with CA 90 and PA 180 is better than Player B with 130 and 130.

 

I don't remember in real life a single example where prof. scout/media think A would be better than B.

I think this is where you are misunderstanding PA. Literally any scout would choose player A if they were identical in every way (most notably age) but CA and PA.

We can't know what someone's potential is, but we can know how good they are now and how much time/opportunity they have to improve. Scouts cannot see the future, they can only take a player's current attributes and make a call on if/how they will improve. This is one of the biggest factors that accounts for every youngster that never made it. Does Martin Odegaard actually have Messi level potential, or was he simply exceptional for his age?

Edit - missed the top of your post, sorry. Height was just an example, possibly not a perfect one but one that cannot be affected by training etc.

[Seb Wassell]

1 hour ago, herne79 said:

Don't get me wrong, I can see a case for a more "dynamic" PA in a certain area.  The PA of real players can be (and are) reassessed by researchers on occasion, so how about having a system to reassess newgens on a semi-regular basis?  We could argue that's currently missing from the database and so how newgen PA is treated may not always be reflective of how real players are treated.  I wouldn't really call that "dynamic" PA though, it's more of a PA review process for newgens to follow how researchers review real player PA.

I have to strongly disagree here.

Researchers aren't omniscient, they cannot know a player's true potential perfectly. They review to improve the accuracy of their initial assessment. The newgen system is omniscient though, it knows perfectly what a player's PA is and has no need for review as it was right the first time. Take it as God if you like, it created the players so it knows them flawlessly. In-game AIs such as staff members however are not omniscient and they judge players in a similar way to reality: current ability + opportunity for improvement = PPA. This of course is variable.

PA is hidden, just like in reality. You're not actually meant to know what it is. PPA is dynamic and is what the game and most Users base decisions on.

[FlorianAlbert9]

59 minuti fa, Seb Wassell ha scritto:

I think this is where you are misunderstanding PA. Literally any scout would choose player A if they were identical in every way (most notably age) but CA and PA.

We can't know what someone's potential is, but we can know how good they are now and how much time/opportunity they have to improve. Scouts cannot see the future, they can only take a player's current attributes and make a call on if/how they will improve. This is one of the biggest factors that accounts for every youngster that never made it. Does Martin Odegaard actually have Messi level potential, or was he simply exceptional for his age?

Edit - missed the top of your post, sorry. Height was just an example, possibly not a perfect one but one that cannot be affected by training etc.

Thanks for the answer. 

I like how scouts work in the game. 

The fact is we don't know if there is a PA IRL, so we should act like there wasn't.

How a player can reach is all due to the enviroment, his dedication and luck of course.*

(*Well obviously phisical are more linked to genetic, so their increase is more limited and slower and obviously also mental/tecnique have limits that only phenomenal can excedeed)

Odegaard has never showed the same CA of Messi at the same age, so he would very harder for him reach the same level of Messi even if he will be model professionist.

Very harder, not impossible. E.g he could be more decisive than Messi in important matches (like WC) (i know that in the game important matches are not taken in CA, but IMHO should be the most important stats)

 

[jcp1417]

someone answer me this because I have not done it in a couple versions. If I edit a player to have a 1 in all attributes but a 200 in CA, would he not have amazing potential in a scout report? If he does, then I stand by what I said. PA should not be so apparent in scouting reports. There would be absolutely no reason at all to think that that player with the lowest current ratings possible would ever amount to anything despite whatever "genetic peak" he has.

[WorcesterLegend]

2 belgian players, both generated in Genk, both have 2 star CA and 5 (one black) PA, both are CM, the one that looked better in CA/stats spread was aproached by the top 8 of Premier league, i as a low table team at that point was interested in him but can't compete with the powerhouses, i go and see the other kid, is not that bad and i sign him, 8 years after, the one aproached by half of the world is a rotation player in Mid table west ham while the one i signed is right now the captain of the Belgian team and one of the best players in the world

PA for  regens IS dinamic, it depends on the things that happen around him if he ever reaches that potential, just like in real life, is like Balotelli, the guy had the makings to be the  next CR7 more or less, what happened? bad behaviours and being overconfident and he didn't reached his potential, the problem here is that is just a limit to say that a player in indonesia can't reach Premier league just by playing fine in indonesian league and have an indonesian/Tahitian/Seychelleian (however it is spelled :v ) messi

[WorcesterLegend]

hace 3 minutos, jcp1417 dijo:

someone answer me this because I have not done it in a couple versions. If I edit a player to have a 1 in all attributes but a 200 in CA, would he not have amazing potential in a scout report? If he does, then I stand by what I said. PA should not be so apparent in scouting reports. There would be absolutely no reason at all to think that that player with the lowest current ratings possible would ever amount to anything despite whatever "genetic peak" he has.

the game will randomly fill the players stats, using his position and favorite role for prefered stats

Edit: is like generating a Regen with 200 CA

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 minuto fa, WorcesterLegend ha scritto:

2 belgian players, both generated in Genk, both have 2 star CA and 5 (one black) PA, both are CM, the one that looked better in CA/stats spread was aproached by the top 8 of Premier league, i as a low table team at that point was interested in him but can't compete with the powerhouses, i go and see the other kid, is not that bad and i sign him, 8 years after, the one aproached by half of the world is a rotation player in Mid table west ham while the one i signed is right now the captain of the Belgian team and one of the best players in the world

PA for  regens IS dinamic, it depends on the things that happen around him if he ever reaches that potential, just like in real life, is like Balotelli, the guy had the makings to be the  next CR7 more or less, what happened? bad behaviours and being overconfident and he didn't reached his potential, the problem here is that is just a limit to say that a player in indonesia can't reach Premier league just by playing fine in indonesian league and have an indonesian/Tahitian/Seychelleian (however it is spelled :v ) messi

Not, PA is fixed in game. 

The scout report are dinamic.

[jcp1417]

Just now, WorcesterLegend said:

the game will randomly fill the players stats, using his position and favorite role for prefered stats

i don't know what you mean. also, i think the PA we're talking about isn't stars, but the PA rating in the editor

[WorcesterLegend]

hace 1 minuto, FlorianAlbert9 dijo:

Not, PA is fixed in game. 

The scout report are dinamic.

my bad, i was refering to PPA

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 minuto fa, WorcesterLegend ha scritto:

my bad, i was refering to PPA

[WorcesterLegend]

hace 1 minuto, jcp1417 dijo:

i don't know what you mean. also, i think the PA we're talking about isn't stars, but the PA rating in the editor

that what i wanted to get at, we as Managers shouldn't know that stat anyway, the reason we are using is to actually have some number for the potential of a player, because you can't know how good a player can be, you don't know how bad he can be either, so PA is like a physical/mental/Technical limitation for the player so that he can't reach more, that players do overachive form time to time, yes, maybe a modifier for say 3 outperfoming seasons, and a very limited one that is say 5 points, lets be honest, Vardy is like one of the few exceptions, and as noted earlier, overachieving is normal in all sport, players can have 5 good seasons (with good im saying a Stuani like) and still be...regular...because he reached that ceiling and unless he gets better players around him he won't perform any better, is like the idea of Bolt actually going even faster, Humans have limitation, science says that human only use like less than half of their brain, so in other words, anyone can be Einstein, but here i am using my brain in a football game

[jcp1417]

My question remains

[santy001]

36 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

If I edit a player to have a 1 in all attributes but a 200 in CA, would he not have amazing potential in a scout report?

This is another fictional situation that has no real basis in what will happen in the game, and I assume you mean PA (if you give a player all 1's and set him to 200CA the game will very quickly uplift his attributes to match his CA) but odds are the scouts would rate him poorly. Because right now he's in a poor position. 

An in game scout report would just show the facts, some insight on hidden attributes like consistency/professionalism/ambition and an assessment of the player. If he has all 1 attributes it will be very poor. 

Staff in general can be "stupid" as in not able to figure everything out or provide cast iron guarantees. I'll use a player I know first hand again:

Tom Edwards, he starts the game with

 

96 CA, -7 PA. This means the lowest his PA can possibly be is 120, which is enough CA to play in the premier league easily.

for the stars, its 2 gold stars Current Ability, 2 gold stars + 1 black star potential.

He's improved a bit, been playing a little bit here and there. But look at the scouts, they're suggesting he's only suited to League Two football. Yet he can be used in the championship and has been used in the premier league fairly fine for me. 

Meanwhile, Saido Berahino has this report:

He starts the game with

 

132CA, 165PA

The scouts rate him at 2.5 stars current ability, and 3 stars potential. Very interestingly, 2 of the biggest issues ahead of Berahino aren't being flagged up either. I'll explain why in spoiler tags since again its information not immediately available.

 

Saido Berahino has an ambition attribute of 2, and a professionalism of 5. To reflect that for the last few years he's struggled massively with engaging with the sport and having a desire to get it right. Yet the staff at the club are not picking this up at all, which shows the fallibility of reports in the game

[jcp1417]

18 minutes ago, santy001 said:

This is another fictional situation that has no real basis in what will happen in the game, and I assume you mean PA (if you give a player all 1's and set him to 200CA the game will very quickly uplift his attributes to match his CA) but odds are the scouts would rate him poorly. Because right now he's in a poor position. 

An in game scout report would just show the facts, some insight on hidden attributes like consistency/professionalism/ambition and an assessment of the player. If he has all 1 attributes it will be very poor. 

Staff in general can be "stupid" as in not able to figure everything out or provide cast iron guarantees. I'll use a player I know first hand again:

Tom Edwards, he starts the game with

  Reveal hidden contents

96 CA, -7 PA. This means the lowest his PA can possibly be is 120, which is enough CA to play in the premier league easily.

for the stars, its 2 gold stars Current Ability, 2 gold stars + 1 black star potential.

He's improved a bit, been playing a little bit here and there. But look at the scouts, they're suggesting he's only suited to League Two football. Yet he can be used in the championship and has been used in the premier league fairly fine for me. 

Meanwhile, Saido Berahino has this report:

He starts the game with

  Reveal hidden contents

132CA, 165PA

The scouts rate him at 2.5 stars current ability, and 3 stars potential. Very interestingly, 2 of the biggest issues ahead of Berahino aren't being flagged up either. I'll explain why in spoiler tags since again its information not immediately available.

  Reveal hidden contents

Saido Berahino has an ambition attribute of 2, and a professionalism of 5. To reflect that for the last few years he's struggled massively with engaging with the sport and having a desire to get it right. Yet the staff at the club are not picking this up at all, which shows the fallibility of reports in the game

no i mean set all his attributes and CA to 1 and his PA to 200

 

[santy001]

@jcp1417 As I said, its a fictional scenario you're inventing in your own head. If you want to see it, go and do it yourself. I already know the outcome. Doing it once doesn't even really prove anything, maybe if you had a thousand and scouted them all you could get some kind of basis but the game won't let you scout that many players in a short period of time.

I'm using examples of actual players in the game that exist, and the game is likely to produce similar to as it goes forward through newgens. You've got 2 players whom you now can know the CA & PA of, and their corresponding reports which shows that the staff aren't perfect in their judgements. 

[Seb Wassell]

1 hour ago, WorcesterLegend said:

2 belgian players, both generated in Genk, both have 2 star CA and 5 (one black) PA, both are CM, the one that looked better in CA/stats spread was aproached by the top 8 of Premier league, i as a low table team at that point was interested in him but can't compete with the powerhouses, i go and see the other kid, is not that bad and i sign him, 8 years after, the one aproached by half of the world is a rotation player in Mid table west ham while the one i signed is right now the captain of the Belgian team and one of the best players in the world

PA for  regens IS dinamic, it depends on the things that happen around him if he ever reaches that potential, just like in real life, is like Balotelli, the guy had the makings to be the  next CR7 more or less, what happened? bad behaviours and being overconfident and he didn't reached his potential, the problem here is that is just a limit to say that a player in indonesia can't reach Premier league just by playing fine in indonesian league and have an indonesian/Tahitian/Seychelleian (however it is spelled :v ) messi

^ Good in-game representation. How good a player can become is dynamic. But the ceiling on that is not.

[enigmatic]

Of all the arguments for dynamic PA, the argument that anyone with access to the same facilities and starting ability as a 16 year old Messi could have been as good as him is just bizarre. Everybody recognised the immense potential of a young Messi, but there have been plenty more first-team ready 16 year olds than the small, spindly Argentine and some of them got a lot more high level game time too.

By 17, Messi was performing who was performing skilfully but unremarkably in the Spanish third tier whilst a 17 year old Fabregas established himself as one of the best players in the Premier League and played double the number of games. On the other hand, football professionals admiring the remarkably mature Fabregas didn't expect him to suddenly add speed and dribbling to his game, whereas Messi's coaches knew that once he'd bulked up and smartened up he'd be a lot more difficult to defend against.

Similarly, have any of the people insisting that a player who scores ~20 goals in the Premier League should get the potential to further improve paid any attention to players who actually did it? Most of them were at their absolute peak when they scored those goals, some went rapidly downhill afterwards and the Henrys and Ronaldos that had a lot more room to improve were players with a glaringly-obviously higher level of potential than Kevin Phillips or Andy Johnson at the time...

[tajj7]

Probably the main criticism I have is not that the PA is fixed and not dynamic, but more that players like Vardy or less extreme examples don't really happen.  

A high percentage of high PA players seem to be found by the bigger clubs and generally become good.  I can't remember from all my times in a game some mid or earlys 20s player who might have bummed around league 1, suddenly having a good season, being picked up by a higher level AI club and going on to being a top level player.  

Nor do I see many players who are massive wonderkids that fall from grace, the game doesn't seem to create controversial players, it seems to create lots of professional youngsters, the amount of model citizen newgens seems a bit silly and I feel like years down the line there are too many very high PA players.

I remember in last years version getting 10+ years into the game and especially at middling PL teams you'd have guys that are clearly like 170-180 CA that you only really see at the start of the game at clubs like Real Madrid etc. I remember last years game doing the Dafuge challenge I bought a German midfielder from Everton who was basically Lampard levels of complete midfielder, I actually struggle to think of a guy in real life world football who was as good as this guy and yet he'd gone from some mid level bundesliga team to a poor Everton team, to be signed by another slightly higher PL team (me as Billericay) and late on I signed a guy who got relegated from Swansea who was basically Suarez levels pretty much, an insane striker. Yet these players weren't in or picked up by your City's or Barcelonas because all these squads had several players like this as well.

It would be interesting to do a save and see how many high CA/PA players are in the game each year and whether this goes up with the regens. 

And also how many high PA regens fail to get good.