So whats new ? (nothing)

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

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.

That's means nothing about PA. 

Firstly there is an huge difference playing for a Barca full of great player than playing even in a great club as Arsenal (and due to injuries of others).

And then, i remember, nobody thinks Fabregas at 17 was same or better then Messi.

(And obviously, phisical like speed cannot increase much)

That's the reason Messi was considered to have more potential: 'cause he was stronger (and his weakness are easier to train) not because at Barca studied his genetic 

[enigmatic]

35 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

That's means nothing about PA. 

Firstly there is an huge difference playing for a Barca full of great player than playing even in a great club as Arsenal (and due to injuries of others).

And then, i remember, nobody thinks Fabregas at 17 was same or better then Messi.

(And obviously, phisical like speed cannot increase much)

That's the reason Messi was considered to have more potential: 'cause he was stronger (and his weakness are easier to train) not because at Barca studied his genetic 

Everybody [correctly] thinking Messi had a higher potential than Fabregas is kind of a good argument for Potential Ability being a useful concept, I think...

And a conclusive argument against your suggestion that everybody with the same CA, training facilities, attitude and match time as a 16 year old Messi could have been as good as him. Fabregas at 17 was the midfield lynchpin for a title challenger, but never could have developed into someone as good as adult Messi. Messi at 17 wasn't guaranteed starts for a B team specifically intended to develop players like him, which finished 11th in a regional third tier division, even though everybody was amazed by stuff that little Messi could do with a ball and thought could be a much better player when he grew up.

[FlorianAlbert9]

20 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

Everybody [correctly] thinking Messi had a higher potential than Fabregas is kind of a good argument for Potential Ability being a useful concept, I think...

And a conclusive argument against your suggestion that everybody with the same CA, training facilities, attitude and match time as a 16 year old Messi could have been as good as him. Fabregas at 17 was the midfield lynchpin for a title challenger. Messi at 17 wasn't guaranteed starts for a B team specifically intended to develop players like him, which finished 11th in the third tier. Even though everybody was amazed by stuff that little Messi could do with a ball and thought could be a much better player when he grew up.

No. 

1) it's an argumemt AGAINST PA. 

Because they said Messi had better potential for his Current Ability at the time. And not for a genetic stat the is PA.

2) you Remember wrong. Fabregas went to Arsenal 'cause they told him he will not have space at Barca. While they kept Messi. 

The Fabregas could start at Arsenal 'cause they missed players.

Messi starting playing alongside Ronaldinho. 

And huge difference.

[enigmatic]

16 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No. 

1) it's an argumemt AGAINST PA. 

Because they said Messi had better potential for his Current Ability at the time. And not for a genetic stat the is PA.

2) you Remember wrong. Fabregas went to Arsenal 'cause they told him he will not have space at Barca. While they kept Messi. 

A 17 year old Fabregas started most league games and the FA Cup final for the Premier League runners up, because at 17 he was very much good enough for top tier football.  A 17 year old Messi played mostly for Barcelona's B team intended to develop players like him in the easier environment of the regional third tier and got less than 10 mins per game when introduced to the senior side, because he wasn't ready yet. 

That's current ability at the age of 17

Everyone at Barcelona expected Messi to be an amazing player one day, but they weren't sufficiently convinced that Fabregas would be better than Xavi and Iniesta to go out of their way to ensure he stayed on.

That's potential.

 

This really isn't very difficult to understand unless you're actively trying not to.

[FlorianAlbert9]

I think you don't understand the difference between CA and PA.

If Fabregas cannot play for Barca, but can starting for Arsenal after a couple of months, that's not PA. 

That's meaning that Fabregas wasn't good enought (CA) for playing at Barca (accordly to Barca's couches of course). 

 

So tell me for you how at Barca they think Messi will be better than Fabregas . 

Did they make genetic exames?

Cause genetic exames would be the only method to spotted PA (if that exist in the real world)

 

[enigmatic]

1 minute ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

I think you don't understand the difference between CA and PA.

If Fabregas cannot play for Barca, but can starting for Arsenal after a couple of months, that's not PA. 

That's meaning that Fabregas wasn't good enought (CA) for playing at Barca (accordly to Barca's couches of course). 

 

So tell me for you how at Barca they think Messi will be better than Fabregas . 

Did they make genetic exames?

Cause genetic exames would be the only method to spotted PA (if that exist in the real world)

 

I'm not sure whether you're a troll or just genuinely don't understand what you're talking about.

Because only somebody that really, really didn't understand football would try to argue that clubs make their decisions on whether to offer 16 year olds massive contracts to keep them there based on whether they currently have enough ability to play for the first team (hint: none of Barcelona's youth products have ever been good enough for the first team at the age Fabregas left).

Similarly, only somebody with no knowledge of the history of Fabregas and Messi would try to argue that Messi was the more complete player at the age of 17. Once upon a time there was a game called FM05, where a teenage "Francesc" was already rated as the good Premier League player he was and a teenage "Leo" was a player you hoped would eventually turn into a good La Liga player, even though much like Frank Rijkaard IRL you really wouldn't want to start him.

But professional football coaches get paid a lot of money to train thousands of selected kids over generations, until they become very good at spotting that players are at different stages of their physical growth, they learn at different speeds, some of them have skills that can't be taught, some of them have big weaknesses which they're starting to fix and some of them have limitations they'll never overcome. And so the coaches (and even former senior teammates) that claim that Messi's skills and turns and learning ability were extraordinary and they hadn't seen any young player like him are telling the truth, even though at the time he wasn't especially difficult to knock off the ball, didn't always run in sensible directions, hadn't learned which passes to play yet and wasn't exactly prolific in a mediocre regional league.

 

[jcp1417]

Maybe this can help illustrate my point that PA is too apparent to the user, even when they are not actually looking at the editor. Take this player in the screenshots below. Same exact player, nothing changes except for the editor PA, which is supposed to be his genetic peak. How does any scout measure that the player version with 75 PA is less genetically fortunate than the player with 200 PA? The answer is he can't. In real life, potential is largely based off current ability which is not modeled in FM. The scout's potential ability rating is based too much on the under-the-hood PA rating. 

[enigmatic]

2 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

Maybe this can help illustrate my point that PA is too apparent to the user, even when they are not actually looking at the editor. Take this player in the screenshots below. Same exact player, nothing changes except for the editor PA, which is supposed to be his genetic peak. How does any scout measure that the player version with 75 PA is less genetically fortunate than the player with 200 PA? The answer is he can't. In real life, potential is largely based off current ability which is not modeled in FM. The scout's potential ability rating is based too much on the under-the-hood PA rating. 

Looks fine to me. The player with 75 PA's potential is significantly overrated by the scouts, because the PA estimation actually is heavily based on his good-for-his-age CA . The player with first team potential has been spotted, but 3 yellow and one black stars is a pretty wide range, and lots of players given that rating by scouts will not make it to first team level.

Put another way, the scouts reckon the difference between the potential of your future Conference player and your probable Premier League regular is no bigger than differences between players in your first eleven. That's how much they're relying on current ability and age.

The world beater is accurately rated as probably very good, because world beaters are usually obviously potential first teamers to world class scouts even if they're far from the finished article. But lesser players will also sometimes be rated similarly highly.

 

The unrealistic bit is going into an editor and tweaking the "all other relevant information" rating to extreme values, not the results.

I mean, I'd like actually like for there to be more logical links between attribute distributions, attitude, CA, PA and training needs so there were more obvious players who were completely raw through lack of experience, players who were tiny but expected to grow, players whose development would be held back by their physical limitations etc, but you're always going to be able to screw that up with an editor anyway.

[jcp1417]

9 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Looks fine to me. The player with 75 PA's potential is significantly overrated by the scouts, because the PA estimation actually is heavily based on his good-for-his-age CA . The player with first team potential has been spotted, but 3 yellow and one black stars is a pretty wide range, and lots of players given that rating by scouts will not make it to first team level.

Put another way, the scouts reckon the difference between the potential of your future Conference player and your probable Premier League regular is no bigger than differences between players in your first eleven. That's how much they're relying on current ability and age.

The world beater is accurately rated as probably very good, because world beaters are usually obviously potential first teamers to world class scouts even if they're far from the finished article. But lesser players will also sometimes be rated similarly highly.

 

The unrealistic bit is going into an editor and tweaking the "all other relevant information" rating to extreme values, not the results.

I mean, I'd like actually like for there to be more logical links between attribute distributions, attitude, CA, PA and training needs so there were more obvious players who were completely raw through lack of experience, players who were tiny but expected to grow, players whose development would be held back by their physical limitations etc, but you're always going to be able to screw that up with an editor anyway.

I don't know that you understand what I did. I did not change anything other than PA for the same player. So I don't know where you're getting at the 75PA is highly overrated because they are all the same player.

Again, the only thing I did was change the PA for the same player to illustrate the PA's influence on the potential stars. Look at this in a real world context. How would a real scout know to rate the 200PA version at 4.5 stars, but the 75PA version at 2.5? If every thing is identical except for the genetics, which no one can measure, then the scouted potential should also be identical.

[FlorianAlbert9]

32 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

I'm not sure whether you're a troll or just genuinely don't understand what you're talking about.

Because only somebody that really, really didn't understand football would try to argue that clubs make their decisions on whether to offer 16 year olds massive contracts to keep them there based on whether they currently have enough ability to play for the first team (hint: none of Barcelona's youth products have ever been good enough for the first team at the age Fabregas left).

Similarly, only somebody with no knowledge of the history of Fabregas and Messi would try to argue that Messi was the more complete player at the age of 17. Once upon a time there was a game called FM05, where a teenage "Francesc" was already rated as the good Premier League player he was and a teenage "Leo" was a player you hoped would eventually turn into a good La Liga player, even though much like Frank Rijkaard IRL you really wouldn't want to start him.

But professional football coaches get paid a lot of money to train thousands of selected kids over generations, until they become very good at spotting that players are at different stages of their physical growth, they learn at different speeds, some of them have skills that can't be taught, some of them have big weaknesses which they're starting to fix and some of them have limitations they'll never overcome. And so the coaches (and even former senior teammates) that claim that Messi's skills and turns and learning ability were extraordinary and they hadn't seen any young player like him are telling the truth, even though at the time he wasn't especially difficult to knock off the ball, didn't always run in sensible directions, hadn't learned which passes to play yet and wasn't exactly prolific in a mediocre regional league.

 

Now i'm sure you completely don't understand PA.

Obviously the point about compare Messi and Fabregas is not to say that Barca left Fabregas cause he was weaker that Xavi. But that they think Messi was better (and the same Fabregas and Pique that play with him, said that)

I would not take a past edition of FM like a Bible, if so you will see a great numbers of 'wrong' CA and PA (that's normal cause nobody can do perfect db)

As you says in your last paragraph, you don't understand PA. 

Cause all you said is to in favour of my NO PA thesis.

In game PA has nothing linked to what you said. 

It's a casual stats.  Like a casual genetic limit that no scout can know.

That's the PA in FM.

[Stevedox]

Regens are a necessary evil, but i think they are far too over-powered and far too many become great too quickly. 5 years in and the premiership is littered with high quality regens, mostly foreign when in reality that isn't happening and hasn't happened at all over any period of time. 

I'd love to be able to tone the regen rate down, make it that special players only come through now and then, related to players that are retiring (i remember this used to be the case, you'd watch out for Sheringham retiring as a player would be generated in his place)

[CFuller]

16 minutes ago, Stevedox said:

Regens are a necessary evil, but i think they are far too over-powered and far too many become great too quickly. 5 years in and the premiership is littered with high quality regens, mostly foreign when in reality that isn't happening and hasn't happened at all over any period of time. 

Let's apply your logic to real-life. Mbappé, Theo Hernández, Rashford, Alexander-Arnold, Sancho, Pulisic, Havertz, Donnarumma, Cutrone, Chiesa, Milenkovic... they're all players who were too young to appear on FM14 but are highly-rated in FM19.

I wouldn't necessarily say newgens are overpowered in that respect. Indeed, I found the opposite to be true in FM11, when players took much longer to develop, and I only saw one or two newgens who were top-league regulars five years into a save.

16 minutes ago, Stevedox said:

I'd love to be able to tone the regen rate down, make it that special players only come through now and then, related to players that are retiring (i remember this used to be the case, you'd watch out for Sheringham retiring as a player would be generated in his place)

That is exactly how the old regens got their name - they were regenerated players. The problem with the old system was that it was quite easy to exploit. You just needed to wait for players like Kahn, Maldini, Batistuta, Shearer, etc to retire, look for kids of 16-18 with their nationalities and positions, sign them, and then you were golden.

There's no need for old-school regens in FM when the newgen system does a generally fine job of creating a new generation of footballers who aren't just copies of the generation before. Besides, when Thierry Henry retired in 2014, he didn't regenerate as Kylian Mbappé. 

[santy001]

I'm scratching my head a bit at the "I put unrealistic stuff into the game, it gave me an unrealistic output" phenomena here. 

I had to use FM18 since that's the only FM I bought an editor for to fix a training facilities bug with Salford. Took me a little while to get to grips with it but anyway, your assertion is that staff are too accurate. On a sample size of 1.

I don't have the patience to scout thousands of players in different situations. I figured the one sure thing I knew was I had reserves on this save game that I was looking forward to developing had it played out long. Also with it being a save I'm never going to play again, there's no harm in poking a little deeper now.

In game, they're sorted by staffs assessments of their potential. The editor pulls the curtain back on stuff I never knew. 

My top prospect, one whom I'd give 24 games to in the last season to begin trying to develop as my new striker only actually has far less ability than everyone thinks, and is almost at his peak. Meanwhile, Stephen Moore what a nightmare they've had there. The staff are suggesting he's my second best prospect. There's actually 16 players with better potential than him. In fact, some of the players quite highly rated by my staff, are comfortably sub 140 PA players. 

Also, looking at the editor is depressing as balls, I just found one of my centrehalves that I never really rated and didn't play too much. Who did actually come in towards the end of the save, was 199PA. He has improved quite dramatically late career (hello Jamie Vardy style development) up to the 170's and at 29 is a first choice player. But from 18-28 he was a bit-part player because he wasn't really developing well. 

If anyone knows how long the training development graph shows in FMT on FM2018 you can see his development below:

Because those dates actually along the bottom mean absolutely nothing to me.

But hopefully this adds an interesting turn to the discussion now, because I feel that is genuinely a Jamie Vardy-esc contender there for development in FM18.

 

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, jcp1417 said:

I don't know that you understand what I did. I did not change anything other than PA for the same player. So I don't know where you're getting at the 75PA is highly overrated because they are all the same player.

Again, the only thing I did was change the PA for the same player to illustrate the PA's influence on the potential stars. Look at this in a real world context. How would a real scout know to rate the 200PA version at 4.5 stars, but the 75PA version at 2.5? If every thing is identical except for the genetics, which no one can measure, then the scouted potential should also be identical.

The 75PA player is highly overrated because the scout has rated his potential in a 2-3* range at a Premier League club (i.e. he expects the player to be much better than he currently is and quite possible good enough to be a backup player at Arsenal) when he actually has barely any scope for improvement and will be lucky to forge a career in full time professional football. Ergo, the game actually places surprisingly little weight on his actual very low potential, and rather a lot on him being a player with decent ability for his age. And this is Arsenal, so your coach/assman is probably well above average at "judging potential" too. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand this point, you really aren't in a position to tell SI their mechanic is placing too much weight on something.

How an earth can I look at the "I clicked a button and changed their whole ability to learn, grow and get fitter" (which is what PA actually is) be looked at in a "real life context" anyway? "Nobody can measure genetics?" Reaaaalllly? I mean, I'm pretty sure an average high school PE teacher could have a half decent guess at which of his teenagers are genetically predisposed to being a lot bigger and stronger when they're adults, and I dare say there was a fair bit more sports science going on at La Masia when they were treating Messi's growth hormone disorder.

Rather than ask nonsense questions, what you should be asking yourself is "if I'm not completely wrong about scouts relying far too heavily on actual PA to come up with Perceived PA, why does changing a player to make them unlikely to have much of a future above Conference level make them only a little bit worse than changing them to make them potentially the greatest player in history". 

 

1 hour ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Now i'm sure you completely don't understand PA.

Obviously the point about compare Messi and Fabregas is not to say that Barca left Fabregas cause he was weaker that Xavi. But that they think Messi was better (and the same Fabregas and Pique that play with him, said that)

I would not take a past edition of FM like a Bible, if so you will see a great numbers of 'wrong' CA and PA (that's normal cause nobody can do perfect db)

As you says in your last paragraph, you don't understand PA. 

Cause all you said is to in favour of my NO PA thesis.

In game PA has nothing linked to what you said. 

It's a casual stats.  Like a casual genetic limit that no scout can know.

That's the PA in FM.

OK, I get it, you're a troll.

Guess I should have realised this when you made your initial post about how everyone that's good enough to be moderately useful for Barcelona's B and C teams at 16 could have been as good as Messi later in life. Live and learn...

[FlorianAlbert9]

8 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

The 75PA player is highly overrated because the scout has rated his potential in a 2-3* range at a Premier League club (i.e. he expects the player to be much better than he currently is and quite possible good enough to be a backup player at Arsenal) when he actually has barely any scope for improvement and will be lucky to forge a career in full time professional football. Ergo, the game actually places surprisingly little weight on his actual very low potential, and rather a lot on him being a player with decent ability for his age. And this is Arsenal, so your coach/assman is probably well above average at "judging potential" too. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand this point, you really aren't in a position to tell SI their mechanic is placing too much weight on something.

How an earth can I look at the "I clicked a button and changed their whole ability to learn, grow and get fitter" (which is what PA actually is) be looked at in a "real life context" anyway? "Nobody can measure genetics?" Reaaaalllly? I mean, I'm pretty sure an average high school PE teacher could have a half decent guess at which of his teenagers are genetically predisposed to being a lot bigger and stronger when they're adults, and I dare say there was a fair bit more sports science going on at La Masia when they were treating Messi's growth hormone disorder.

Rather than ask nonsense questions, what you should be asking yourself is "if I'm not completely wrong about scouts relying far too heavily on actual PA to come up with Perceived PA, why does changing a player to make them unlikely to have much of a future above Conference level make them only a little bit worse than changing them to make them potentially the greatest player in history". 

 

OK, I get it, you're a troll.

Guess I should have realised this when you made your initial post about how everyone that's good enough to be moderately useful for Barcelona's B and C teams at 16 could have been as good as Messi later in life. Live and learn...

I'm sorry you prefer continually to offend and put false statement about other's post instead of learning a thing you don't know how works.

[CFuller]

Further to what Santy recently posted, PPA is no sure-fire way to judge how good a player could become.

When I finished my FM13 save, I used a third-party program to look 'under the hood' and see my players' CA/PA values. I was particularly interested in a teenage striker I had who looked incredible for his age and was close to outscoring my own world-class strikers in the Premier League while out on loan. My coaches pretty much all had him down as 2* or 2.5* ability, 5* potential.

It turned out that this striker had ~140 CA and was very close to his peak PA (i.e. only a few points off). My coaches couldn't have known that he was effectively already peaking at 19, but because he was so good at 19, they assumed he would only get better and better until he was at an elite level.

I've no qualms with that, really. I'm sure there've been loads of examples of real players who looked amazing at 18/19/20 but never really had it in them to kick on and become truly world-class.

And I too have seen a Vardy-esque player in my career, though I had no involvement in his development. He was a striker who started at non-league Crawley, worked his way up the leagues, made his Premier League debut at 28, and then scored 26 PL goals during the season in which he celebrated his 32nd birthday.

[enigmatic]

38 minutes ago, CFuller said:

Further to what Santy recently posted, PPA is no sure-fire way to judge how good a player could become.

When I finished my FM13 save, I used a third-party program to look 'under the hood' and see my players' CA/PA values. I was particularly interested in a teenage striker I had who looked incredible for his age and was close to outscoring my own world-class strikers in the Premier League while out on loan. My coaches pretty much all had him down as 2* or 2.5* ability, 5* potential.

It turned out that this striker had ~140 CA and was very close to his peak PA (i.e. only a few points off). My coaches couldn't have known that he was effectively already peaking at 19, but because he was so good at 19, they assumed he would only get better and better until he was at an elite level.

 

There have been occasions when using an editor has confirmed to me that I assessed a couple of my players' PAs more effectively than scouts, without being able to see potential at all

I'd figured a young defender had hit his PA because every time one of his abilities went slightly up, another one went slightly down, despite having stepped up from youth football to playing consistently well in the Bundesliga. My scouts saw a high performing 19 year old on loan from an elite club and figured he must still have room to grow. The elite club were willing to discuss a future fee so were a little more aware of his limitations. After finishing with that game an editor confirmed his ~130CA was equal to his ~130PA, and probably had been for the entire loan spell.

On the other hand, I'd also signed a 24 year old released by a bigger club who my scouts thought would be my fourth best defender and unlikely to improve in future (and judging by the tiny min release fee he demanded he didn't rate himself that highly either!). I had a suspicion they might be wrong because he'd been better in a save where I'd managed him internationally, although he was a better tactical fit than my other players anyway. He improved a lot when exposed to first team football. The editor showed he still had more scope to improve to hit a potential in excess of 150, a lot better than the loaned teenager that supposedly had more room to improve. Probably would have done if I'd carried that save on. Could have signed for a much better club than mine very cheaply if anyone else had accurately gauged his talent.

[FrazT]

Can anyone remember what the opening post was about?

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

I'm scratching my head a bit at the "I put unrealistic stuff into the game, it gave me an unrealistic output" phenomena here. 

I had to use FM18 since that's the only FM I bought an editor for to fix a training facilities bug with Salford. Took me a little while to get to grips with it but anyway, your assertion is that staff are too accurate. On a sample size of 1.

I don't have the patience to scout thousands of players in different situations. I figured the one sure thing I knew was I had reserves on this save game that I was looking forward to developing had it played out long. Also with it being a save I'm never going to play again, there's no harm in poking a little deeper now.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

In game, they're sorted by staffs assessments of their potential. The editor pulls the curtain back on stuff I never knew. 

My top prospect, one whom I'd give 24 games to in the last season to begin trying to develop as my new striker only actually has far less ability than everyone thinks, and is almost at his peak. Meanwhile, Stephen Moore what a nightmare they've had there. The staff are suggesting he's my second best prospect. There's actually 16 players with better potential than him. In fact, some of the players quite highly rated by my staff, are comfortably sub 140 PA players. 

Also, looking at the editor is depressing as balls, I just found one of my centrehalves that I never really rated and didn't play too much. Who did actually come in towards the end of the save, was 199PA. He has improved quite dramatically late career (hello Jamie Vardy style development) up to the 170's and at 29 is a first choice player. But from 18-28 he was a bit-part player because he wasn't really developing well. 

If anyone knows how long the training development graph shows in FMT on FM2018 you can see his development below:

Because those dates actually along the bottom mean absolutely nothing to me.

But hopefully this adds an interesting turn to the discussion now, because I feel that is genuinely a Jamie Vardy-esc contender there for development in FM18.

 

 

are you really going to sit there and imply that my test means nothing because it was done on one player? Do the same test with any player and you will see that the PA is directly tied to scouted potential ability. That is all I'm trying to say, It's been said so many times here that the editor PA is static and genetic. I'm saying that real scouts do not have the ability to know what someone's genetic peak is. it is all unknown, which is why my test is valid. Take the same player, change his peak, and the scout should not know that the peak is any different than from the last time he scouted. It's the same player to him. 

[alanschu14]

7 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

are you really going to sit there and imply that my test means nothing because it was done on one player? Do the same test with any player and you will see that the PA is directly tied to scouted potential ability. That is all I'm trying to say, It's been said so many times here that the editor PA is static and genetic. I'm saying that real scouts do not have the ability to know what someone's genetic peak is. it is all unknown, which is why my test is valid. Take the same player, change his peak, and the scout should not know that the peak is any different than from the last time he scouted. It's the same player to him.  

It's a mix of both. adjusting a young player's CA with the editor can also adjust the PPA star rating. (though as I was experimenting, it was less obvious when you weren't dealing with extreme values).

It'd be interesting if the "potential" assessments only came after (for example) seeing a player's rate of growth once they're a part of the training.

[warlock]

34 minutes ago, FrazT said:

Can anyone remember what the opening post was about?

No, but I've really developed a desire for SI to make CA/PA utterly, irrevocably invisible.

[jcp1417]

3 hours ago, enigmatic said:

The 75PA player is highly overrated because the scout has rated his potential in a 2-3* range at a Premier League club (i.e. he expects the player to be much better than he currently is and quite possible good enough to be a backup player at Arsenal) when he actually has barely any scope for improvement and will be lucky to forge a career in full time professional football. Ergo, the game actually places surprisingly little weight on his actual very low potential, and rather a lot on him being a player with decent ability for his age. And this is Arsenal, so your coach/assman is probably well above average at "judging potential" too. I'm sorry, but if you don't understand this point, you really aren't in a position to tell SI their mechanic is placing too much weight on something.

How an earth can I look at the "I clicked a button and changed their whole ability to learn, grow and get fitter" (which is what PA actually is) be looked at in a "real life context" anyway? "Nobody can measure genetics?" Reaaaalllly? I mean, I'm pretty sure an average high school PE teacher could have a half decent guess at which of his teenagers are genetically predisposed to being a lot bigger and stronger when they're adults, and I dare say there was a fair bit more sports science going on at La Masia when they were treating Messi's growth hormone disorder.

Rather than ask nonsense questions, what you should be asking yourself is "if I'm not completely wrong about scouts relying far too heavily on actual PA to come up with Perceived PA, why does changing a player to make them unlikely to have much of a future above Conference level make them only a little bit worse than changing them to make them potentially the greatest player in history". 

Again, you are misinterpreting what the test was all about. The fact is that "genetic peak" is not something that can be seen in professional footballers so scouts should not adjust their whole opinion on the future of a player based on the PA. 2-3 to 4-5 is significant and there's no way a real scout can measure that. Scouts make projections based on current ability (and they even get that wrong most of the time across all sports). They can't look inside the genes to see if a player is a "200 PA". If the current ability is equal, all personality is equal, then there's no way that he knows one player has more potential than the other. 

btw, you're being quite rude. I'm just trying to have a discussion about a game we both love.

[santy001]

@jcp1417 Yes. I'm saying a test, of something that is impossible to have happen in the game means nothing. There isn't a problem with the transfer system if you add yourself as an AI manager and accept a £0 bid for Lionel Messi. If you take over an AI team and make them play all the youngsters every game, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the game getting that team relegated. 

Now, as for the actual mechanic, I believe the term that applies to scouts is "Perceived Potential Ability" now the scouts don't know the players potential, but depending on their ability the game uses the actual PA, and their ability to judge PA to simulate the elements of a scout assessing a player and where they think he can go. It's representative of something like "gut instinct" and representative of a scouts track record it's basically the process in which the game tries to simulate something no game can emulate - human intelligence.

The reason it has to be like this is because the basic formula would otherwise be Age + Current Perceived Ability = Potential. When neither of which are directly responsible for a players actual potential. They are influencing factors on where you believe they could go, but they aren't actually anything tangible. For scouts to have any worth in the game, to serve any functional purpose there has to be a simulation of the judgement calls they make in part of their day to day.

If the in-game scouts do not have this ability (perceived potential ability), then the in game scouts become completely useless and redundant. If you wish to make the argument that scouts should not be included, or that they should only exist in the sphere of FM to remove the fog of war on player attributes so be it, go make that argument in the feature requests section. But the claim that scouts know potential is so far wide of the mark that it means the point your'e trying to make is meaningless.

If your claim is that the staff member in game in question necessitates a CA of around 75PA for 2 stars of potential, and around 200PA for 4 stars of potential, then for a 5 star potential player for Arsenal to appear in his judgement, they would need 260+PA. Which isn't going to happen. It would also mean that the lowest entrant on the scale, would need a -18PA. Again not possible. So in conclusion, it has no real bearing, no real meaning. 

- - -

You're trying to play "aha gotcha!" with a system in the game that (demonstrably by my own post alone) works as intended with a range of players. When taking 1 reserve squad from the game, in which there's a full set of reports on potential available for, and comparing that to their actual potentials you see that your claim has no basis in reality. 

Getting so caught up in the semantics we're using to try and help your own understanding does nothing to help. PA as a researcher sets it is the players genetic PA. When it comes to a scouts perception of the PA, it's representative of an educated guess, of a career professional who's putting their name to a claim on what they believe is possible for that future. It's a very simple concept, will it stand up to the scrutiny of someone making up fabricated scenarios and poking it until it shows something they want to see? Probably not.

Yet as I demonstrated, when you show what the system is doing organically in the game, as its intended to be doing, with the curtain pulled back you realise that it gets kinda close with a few players, it gets it massively wrong with a lot of players and is definitely over-exaggerating the potential of a few based on their good starting points and young ages.

- - -

@warlock I have suggested this in the past. SI have said it can't be done as all the information is stored on your PC, the game needs ongoing access to these and encryption would be extremely difficult. Presumably the time constraints it would add to processing/saving/loading.

[FlorianAlbert9]

If the main attributes responsible for a player's development where all hidden (so also Determination), scouts, as IRL, will make their reports taking perceived CA+ mental stats for development+phisical stats (that must have a little margin to grow up). So they will important.

The problem is that with a PA that is random, the scout report for potentially would be Total useless, so scout in the game must know al least a range of actual PA.

[Dagenham_Dave]

36 minutes ago, warlock said:

No, but I've really developed a desire for SI to make CA/PA utterly, irrevocably invisible.

100% this. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

They are invisibile in the game 

[enigmatic]

32 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

Again, you are misinterpreting what the test was all about. The fact is that "genetic peak" is not something that can be seen in professional footballers so scouts should not adjust their whole opinion on the future of a player based on the PA. 2-3 to 4-5 is significant and there's no way a real scout can measure that. Scouts make projections based on current ability (and they even get that wrong most of the time across all sports). They can't look inside the genes to see if a player is a "200 PA". If the current ability is equal, all personality is equal, then there's no way that he knows one player has more potential than the other. 

btw, you're being quite rude. I'm just trying to have a discussion about a game we both love.

But of course scouts and coaches do have some idea what a player's "genetic peak" might be like. Man Utd spent years playing Lingard below his natural age group and telling him he'd be a late developer, whilst releasing more mature footballers playing with their age group because they didn't think they'd make it.

At the most basic level, it is palpably absurd to suggest that elite professional football coaches can't even tell the difference between a teenager who's fully grown and one who isn't (even if the teenager who is fully grown isn't any stronger and quicker or more balanced than the one who isn't). Obviously there are more dimensions to the difference between 200PA potentially the best player in the world and 75PA Conference fodder, many of which aren't actually described by six personality attributes and/or ratings of their current skills in a match situation (hence the point of creating a potential ability rating in the first place). But that just gives the scout more things to notice.

So yes, I have every confidence that Arsenal's actual coaching staff would judge a player in their academy who is likely to become the best in the world as more likely to make the first team than than a similar type of player in their academy who's reached his peak physique and stopped learning stuff. Though the actually interesting bit of your experiment is that they think the difference between the future genius and the future failure isn't particularly big, and rate the future failure as an above average prospect.

@santy001 here's probably predicted the future career paths of Stoke's youth products as accurately as an FM coach (i.e. usually within 50PA, so I'm not paying him that much of a compliment ) , and afaik the club don't give him full time access to the players and a big fat salary.

 

btw, it's also quite rude to repeatedly insist someone is "misunderstanding" or "misinterpreting" you simply because they point out your experiment isn't realistic and doesn't show what you think it shows. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

 

28 minuti fa, enigmatic ha scritto:

But of course scouts and coaches do have some idea what a player's "genetic peak" might be like.  

Sorry, but i cannot believe you really think that. 

It's totally out of world. 

The last regular in Barca that comes from la Malva is Busquets. A 30 yo player. So Barca spent yet money in youth teams even if they can check genetic peak of the youth player that came to audition?

(And so all the other teams).

[FlorianAlbert9]

How scouts work:

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/skills/what-do-scouts-look-footballers

There isn't a genetic test to spot the "peak"

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

 

Sorry, but i cannot believe you really think that. 

It's totally out of world. 

The last regular in Barca that comes from la Malva is Busquets. A 30 yo player. So Barca spent yet money in youth teams even if they can check genetic peak of the youth player that came to audition?

(And so all the other teams).

Sergi Roberto says wtf?

Please stop embarrassing yourself with your ignorance of Barcelona. 

I've seen some strange arguments deployed on these forums, but the idea that La Masia isn't very productive in terms of talent has to be the strangest. I'm not sure it really helps your even stranger original argument that everyone at the same level as a tiny and pretty raw Messi in his early teens could have been as good as him with the right attitude and setup either either...

Not every teenager who goes through an academy is ever expected to be able to make it as a first team regular, especially not if the first team is Barcelona. But it's quite hard to put out a youth side with only the one or two players you're really, really confident about and occasionally players pleasantly surprise you. Which isn't that different from the youth intake in a game which usually only gives you one or two 4* prospects, some of whom are a bit disappointing, and sometimes gives you 3* players who make it as first teamers.

 

But I guess if you're really, really determined to avoid acknowledging the fact that Man Utd were so convinced a not-good-enough 18 year old Lingard had the potential to play for their first team they kept him playing in the U16s instead of releasing him, and Barcelona really didn't have a clue about Messi's genetic condition when they were paying for his treatment for it, you can pretend to yourself that this is refuted by some quotes you read in a magazine.

[FlorianAlbert9]

You know much more of actual professional coaches and scouts.

Or you obviously know nothing. 

I prefer to listen to the words who really works in football world. 

While i don't know where you take you degree in science/medicine if you don't even know the difference between a GHD that is a medical condition that could be genetic and a phantomatic genetic test that say if you would be great at playing football.

(And about Sergi Roberto, of course i was speaking about an international level and not a player who at 26 made less than 10 app for a national that was not so great in the last 5 years)

[themadsheep2001]

@enigmatic @FlorianAlbert9

 

Enough of the jibes back and forth. 

Ultimately the only posts on PA that matter are those from Seb and Santy, being developer and researcher expertise. 

[forameuss]

20 minutes ago, themadsheep2001 said:

@enigmatic @FlorianAlbert9

 

Enough of the jibes back and forth. 

Ultimately the only posts on PA that matter are those from Seb and Santy, being developer and researcher expertise. 

While you're 100% correct, I can't wait for all the posts huffing about how they matter too.

[XaW]

On 26/11/2018 at 15:43, wrezanini1 said:

So you tell me, give me 5 things that have significantly improved/changed in the last 5 versions of the game, you dont even have to give me 5 for each version give me 1 for each 5 last years !

And as i said previously i would like to see a system of maybe rewarding me for winning the league/champs league for next year to develop new regens? How this is done of course there can be a lot of discussion of how this is done but I think there needs to be some sort of new features which actually do matter ! 

5 things from the last 5 version? Easy. 1. New scouting system, 2. New tactical system, 3. new training system, 4. scouting center, 5 social media. Now, that don't mean you like all these things, or that they are objectively better. You, however, simply asked for significantly improved or changed. All those 5 areas are without a doubt, objectively significantly changed.

But I would like to reverse that question back to you. From within the stated boundaries that SI have said (no personal life, car, wife, etc. No job involvement that a manager would likely have, stadium building, ticket prices, merch, etc), what realistic significant changes would you like? And if you have a lot (at least 1 each for the next 5 years!) then why haven't you posted about it in the suggestions forum?

I had some changes I wanted, and I've posted them there. One of the biggest things I wrote about there were transitional instructions in tactics. And now we have it. I expect that SI had that on their books long before I wrote about it, but since I did and quite a lot agreed, then it might have been pushed up. Or not, but at least SI knew there were users who wanted it. Several others in here have suggested things that ended up in the game at some point. So if you have good suggestions as to how the game should change, then please add them!

On 26/11/2018 at 21:09, FlorianAlbert9 said:

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.

But then it would be even easier to exploit than what we have now. There are a lot of dedicated FM'ers who would within a very short time find out the optimal route and suddenly everyone will have an influx of Messis in their games. This would likely lead to more people "gaming the system". Just like a lot did with the old tutoring system to have a complete youth squad of Model Professionals.

If it were a lot more random, then what's the fun in that? Then you would remove all aspects of a youth focus, since you could do everything perfect and still have the comparable chance to someone who don't offer it a single thought.

20 hours ago, tajj7 said:

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.  

I had a real Vardy case a few years ago when I played in Belgium. My team were just promoted to the 2nd tier and I picked up a newgen who had been released by Anderlecht. He was decent enough with good finishing and some other nice attributes, and my scouts said he could be a decent player for us. He was 21 or 22 at that time, I think. After some months in my reserves, I called him up due to an injury crisis and gave him a couple of matches. He played well, but not spectacular, so he became a regular sub that season and the next. The year after, when he were 25 i think we got promoted, and he was a rotation player. The first season in the top flight he just took off and ended as top scorer for us and his star rating and value sky rocketed. 2 season on he had scored more goals than games played and I had to sell him to Monaco for around £25M after some serious negotiations on my part. I followed his career and he did well at Monaco, but couldn't match what he had done for me, but still were a main stay in their team. He also became a regular in a good Belgian national side.

Now, this was a player who were released because he were too poor for Anderlecht, picked up by a random team from a division below. Played ok for a few years and then suddenly scored from all angles and had a couple of amazing seasons in his late 20s before slowing down a bit. Remind you of someone?

I will agree on one thing, and that is that, in my subjective opinion, too few "hot prospects" fail after becoming hyped up compared to real life. I haven't seen many cases of Mellors, Morrisons, Machedas, or even Januzai, Spearing and Flanagan (just the ones that I currently recall, too many Liverpool and Man Utd examples...). Players who were overly hyped compared to what would be the end result for whatever reason. Low professionality, ambition and determination could perhaps have even more impact in-game?

[santy001]

9 minutes ago, XaW said:

I will agree on one thing, and that is that, in my subjective opinion, too few "hot prospects" fail after becoming hyped up compared to real life. I haven't seen many cases of Mellors, Morrisons, Machedas, or even Januzai, Spearing and Flanagan (just the ones that I currently recall, too many Liverpool and Man Utd examples...). Players who were overly hyped compared to what would be the end result for whatever reason. Low professionality, ambition and determination could perhaps have even more impact in-game?

For human players, I'm of the belief that scouting and coach reports will serve to eliminate those with weak hidden attributes. 

I did make a feature suggestion recently, because it's something that's becoming more noticeable that a lot of footballers aren't either just over-hyped or good enough. 

I feel a consistency/important matches modifying attribute could be implemented to represent just how the trials and tribulations of life are impacting on their focus on football. It would need to be more malleable than a normal attribute, but it could open up to the fact that at the lower end its representing footballers who are struggling with gambling addictions, with alcoholism, with mental health issues or even just having a hard time of it in life as some do after the death of a relative. Having something like that which modifies mental attributes and hidden attributes could bring to the table a substantial aspect of life that influences how a players career goes.

Perhaps SI can bring this to fruition through other attributes, like how determination/ambition can suffer from getting too much too soon, or too much praise etc. But it's the one element we really cannot provide research for. Bojan put his name to an article recently talking about how he's had massive anxiety issues over the last 10 years. It's a yearning of mine for the game to develop something whereby a manager who can find the right way to manage and coach the likes of Bojan and Berahino get them to the potential they've shown. Whereas a normal manager struggles to get that out of them. Because one thing that stands out to me in football is that there have been player and manager combinations that have just worked, and the player has never looked as good again under another manager.

[jcp1417]

Some of you don't understand real life potential as well as you think you do and I'm tired of restating my point a dozen times only to have it redirected by people less concerned with critical thought and more concerned with having a high post count and trading insults. have a nice day.

[XaW]

9 minutes ago, santy001 said:

For human players, I'm of the belief that scouting and coach reports will serve to eliminate those with weak hidden attributes. 

I did make a feature suggestion recently, because it's something that's becoming more noticeable that a lot of footballers aren't either just over-hyped or good enough. 

I feel a consistency/important matches modifying attribute could be implemented to represent just how the trials and tribulations of life are impacting on their focus on football. It would need to be more malleable than a normal attribute, but it could open up to the fact that at the lower end its representing footballers who are struggling with gambling addictions, with alcoholism, with mental health issues or even just having a hard time of it in life as some do after the death of a relative. Having something like that which modifies mental attributes and hidden attributes could bring to the table a substantial aspect of life that influences how a players career goes.

Perhaps SI can bring this to fruition through other attributes, like how determination/ambition can suffer from getting too much too soon, or too much praise etc. But it's the one element we really cannot provide research for. Bojan put his name to an article recently talking about how he's had massive anxiety issues over the last 10 years. It's a yearning of mine for the game to develop something whereby a manager who can find the right way to manage and coach the likes of Bojan and Berahino get them to the potential they've shown. Whereas a normal manager struggles to get that out of them. Because one thing that stands out to me in football is that there have been player and manager combinations that have just worked, and the player has never looked as good again under another manager.

I agree, though this might bring up a whole bunch of legal issues for real life players. So maybe "baking" it into the controversy and other hidden mental stats would be a smaller pain? Though making sure all researchers use the same rating is hard enough as it is, i imagine, never mind trying to get into the players heads and mental issues.

For newgens at least this could be reflected in something similar to the "off pitch event" we already have, or "that the pressure of the fans at such a young age have made...", or something similar. It would bring a nice touch to me and could differentiate youth development quite a bit more than now.

[santy001]

53 minutes ago, jcp1417 said:

Some of you don't understand real life potential as well as you think you do and I'm tired of restating my point a dozen times only to have it redirected by people less concerned with critical thought and more concerned with having a high post count and trading insults. have a nice day.

Posts like this don't help the discussion advance though do they?

It's already been said what the scouting system is trying to achieve. It's using some of what is immediately observed about a player and through things like their JPA representing a professional coach giving their gut instinct feeling about a player. 

The scouts in game do not know the PA, even highly rated staff can be deceived by what I showed with my reserves in the post I put spoiler tags in.

Saying they're too accurate on a sample size of 1 that's being edited to show that the system isn't just pure RNG and dumb luck isn't a valid criticism. It would be far worse from a game perspective if scouting was actually just a cosmetic feature. Because that's the logical conclusion of the point you tried to make, that you're arguing that scouting should be more cosmetic, or cosmetic entirely and not be of any use in the game to the AI or human managers.

To reiterate:

Scouting is a system through which the game attempts to simulate something that cannot be emulated - human intelligence. It uses different aspects of the game without being a cast iron guarantee or definitive guide to a player - mirroring the real life margin of error that is possible when any scout makes any recommendation about any player. 

- - -

In more depth on your "test". As far as that staff member in game is concerned, he's assessed 3 different players. As @enigmatic states, he's way out on the 75PA player (personally I think around 95CA is the lowest with some extensive researcher cheese I could make a useful premier league player), and way out on the 200PA player (in the accuracy of his assessment) and kind of in the right ball park of the 149 player. However, even this is dubious because that 4th star of uncertainty is suggesting he could be truly standout which is kind of possible at 149, there are certainly ways to create a world class player at 149 CA but broadly speaking it's not so likely.

All your test shows is that if you use a system in the game in an unintended fashion you get weird outcomes. What you've done ultimately has little difference to someone saving and reloading then saying its strange how they won every game. 

From a functional game perspective, its significantly better that the game behaves the way it did with the test you did. This is because it demonstrates that the scouting system is actually a tangible and meaningful part of the game. Which is vital, it would be terrible if SI were adding integral parts of football but that they were merely cosmetic. It in no way demonstrates your claim though that scouts are too accurate. This is because with the numbers you used it rated a 75PA player as "at least" good enough to be a squad rotation player, potentially good enough for the first team.

A 149 player as "at least" good enough for the first team, potentially a key player.

And a 200 PA player as "at least" a good player, and maybe the potential to be one of the best.

If the scouts were as accurate as you claim then the 75PA would be a 0.5 - 1 star player for Arsenal.

The 149 player should be a 2.5 - 3.5 star player.

The 200PA player should be 4.5 - 5 star player.

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, XaW ha scritto:

 

But then it would be even easier to exploit than what we have now. There are a lot of dedicated FM'ers who would within a very short time find out the optimal route and suddenly everyone will have an influx of Messis in their games. This would likely lead to more people "gaming the system". Just like a lot did with the old tutoring system to have a complete youth squad of Model Professionals.

If it were a lot more random, then what's the fun in that? Then you would remove all aspects of a youth focus, since you could do everything perfect and still have the comparable chance to someone who don't offer it a single thought.

 

On the contrary. 

It will be harder. 'cause you have to really scout a player, you have to really look for his personality and above all, you have to really gave him much starter app. 

 

Now (in the past edition, i don't know if something more is changed a part of tutoring), i can fill my reserve team of young player without ever looking at their personality. Cause they are useless in his grow. 

With good scout, you can have reserve team at the almost same level of first. 

There are many more player with e.g. a PA of 150 than model professional in game.

It's very very very hard in game bet on the wrong young. 

It's impossibile to 'burn' him. 

 

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

@santy001

I think scouts in game don't know exactly the PA, but a range of it, yes.

It's logical, cause if the know nothing at all, they report will be only about ca+personality (as It should be) but totally useless in game cause PA is random and not linked to personality.

[enigmatic]

1 hour ago, XaW said:

I will agree on one thing, and that is that, in my subjective opinion, too few "hot prospects" fail after becoming hyped up compared to real life. I haven't seen many cases of Mellors, Morrisons, Machedas, or even Januzai, Spearing and Flanagan (just the ones that I currently recall, too many Liverpool and Man Utd examples...). Players who were overly hyped compared to what would be the end result for whatever reason. Low professionality, ambition and determination could perhaps have even more impact in-game?

Depends on how you look at it, I guess. One of the more frequent complaints about FM is that big clubs tend to hoard the Mason Mounts and Phil Fodens of the world, treat them as unsaleable assets and then not give them enough games to develop to their full potential before releasing them. Arguably this is the game realistically creating a whole generation of former "overhyped" youth players, but human players are usually very annoyed by this because they suspect they actually were potential elite players...

On the other hand I think you're probably right that the AI doesn't necessarily gives as many games IRL to players that just don't have what it takes to be that good like Spearing (who I don't think ever had any attitude problems, and I also suspect wouldn't get near starting appearances if he came through the Liverpool academy tomorrow) and certainly the game world doesn't generate as much excitement about a couple of well-taken important goals from an otherwise uninspiring player like Macheda.

[wrezanini1]

2 hours ago, XaW said:

5 things from the last 5 version? Easy. 1. New scouting system, 2. New tactical system, 3. new training system, 4. scouting center, 5 social media. Now, that don't mean you like all these things, or that they are objectively better. You, however, simply asked for significantly improved or changed. All those 5 areas are without a doubt, objectively significantly changed.

But I would like to reverse that question back to you. From within the stated boundaries that SI have said (no personal life, car, wife, etc. No job involvement that a manager would likely have, stadium building, ticket prices, merch, etc), what realistic significant changes would you like? And if you have a lot (at least 1 each for the next 5 years!) then why haven't you posted about it in the suggestions forum?

I had some changes I wanted, and I've posted them there. One of the biggest things I wrote about there were transitional instructions in tactics. And now we have it. I expect that SI had that on their books long before I wrote about it, but since I did and quite a lot agreed, then it might have been pushed up. Or not, but at least SI knew there were users who wanted it. Several others in here have suggested things that ended up in the game at some point. So if you have good suggestions as to how the game should change, then please add them!

But then it would be even easier to exploit than what we have now. There are a lot of dedicated FM'ers who would within a very short time find out the optimal route and suddenly everyone will have an influx of Messis in their games. This would likely lead to more people "gaming the system". Just like a lot did with the old tutoring system to have a complete youth squad of Model Professionals.

If it were a lot more random, then what's the fun in that? Then you would remove all aspects of a youth focus, since you could do everything perfect and still have the comparable chance to someone who don't offer it a single thought.

I had a real Vardy case a few years ago when I played in Belgium. My team were just promoted to the 2nd tier and I picked up a newgen who had been released by Anderlecht. He was decent enough with good finishing and some other nice attributes, and my scouts said he could be a decent player for us. He was 21 or 22 at that time, I think. After some months in my reserves, I called him up due to an injury crisis and gave him a couple of matches. He played well, but not spectacular, so he became a regular sub that season and the next. The year after, when he were 25 i think we got promoted, and he was a rotation player. The first season in the top flight he just took off and ended as top scorer for us and his star rating and value sky rocketed. 2 season on he had scored more goals than games played and I had to sell him to Monaco for around £25M after some serious negotiations on my part. I followed his career and he did well at Monaco, but couldn't match what he had done for me, but still were a main stay in their team. He also became a regular in a good Belgian national side.

Now, this was a player who were released because he were too poor for Anderlecht, picked up by a random team from a division below. Played ok for a few years and then suddenly scored from all angles and had a couple of amazing seasons in his late 20s before slowing down a bit. Remind you of someone?

I will agree on one thing, and that is that, in my subjective opinion, too few "hot prospects" fail after becoming hyped up compared to real life. I haven't seen many cases of Mellors, Morrisons, Machedas, or even Januzai, Spearing and Flanagan (just the ones that I currently recall, too many Liverpool and Man Utd examples...). Players who were overly hyped compared to what would be the end result for whatever reason. Low professionality, ambition and determination could perhaps have even more impact in-game?

 

 

New training system ? ok... al i ever done is make my coach take care of training and hire the best coaches and i have done this system since i remember and I am actually never forced to do anything in training.

Social Media its a "nice" gimmick no more to call that significant is a joke.

Tactical system ? Yea sure more positions more names to those positions basically more quirks to make your tactic fail I have not actually seen a demonstration of these new positional names etc demonstrated to us by the ACTUAL match engine. So al you are doing is guessing and hoping that these descriptions actually do what they say they do, and by my experience this most of the time does not do what it says it does. 

 

I also agree that there are far too many newgens that blossom into great players. 

 

I have for sure put in some actual feature suggestions. Namely online turn based feature, so that you can play a save with your friend and you play 10+ games and he can come in whenever he wants and play his 10 games etc. Basically to combat time restrictions/real life and lag. 

[HUNT3R]

Just now, wrezanini1 said:

Namely online turn based feature, so that you can play a save with your friend and you play 10+ games and he can come in whenever he wants and play his 10 games etc. Basically to combat time restrictions/real life and lag. 

That's not very practical though. Well, it's not practical at all. You can't skip ahead into the future and leave him behind. You'll be in alternate realities. You're technically playing on 1 save, so it's not something that's possible.

[forameuss]

7 minutes ago, wrezanini1 said:

New training system ? ok... al i ever done is make my coach take care of training and hire the best coaches and i have done this system since i remember and I am actually never forced to do anything in training.

Social Media its a "nice" gimmick no more to call that significant is a joke.

Tactical system ? Yea sure more positions more names to those positions basically more quirks to make your tactic fail I have not actually seen a demonstration of these new positional names etc demonstrated to us by the ACTUAL match engine. So al you are doing is guessing and hoping that these descriptions actually do what they say they do, and by my experience this most of the time does not do what it says it does. 

 

I also agree that there are far too many newgens that blossom into great players. 

 

I have for sure put in some actual feature suggestions. Namely online turn based feature, so that you can play a save with your friend and you play 10+ games and he can come in whenever he wants and play his 10 games etc. Basically to combat time restrictions/real life and lag. 

Like HUNT3R says, your idea isn't really technically feasible, whether you like the sound of it from a functionality perspective or not.  

And for the new features, particularly training, it doesn't really matter if you yourself don't use it.  I don't either, but I also wouldn't then dismiss it.  Are you really suggesting that it's only considered a new feature if you're forced into using it?

[herne79]

16 minutes ago, wrezanini1 said:

New training system ? ok... al i ever done is make my coach take care of training and hire the best coaches and i have done this system since i remember and I am actually never forced to do anything in training.

Tactical system ? Yea sure more positions more names to those positions basically more quirks to make your tactic fail I have not actually seen a demonstration of these new positional names etc demonstrated to us by the ACTUAL match engine. So al you are doing is guessing and hoping that these descriptions actually do what they say they do, and by my experience this most of the time does not do what it says it does. 

Forgive me but this makes it sound like you haven't actually played FM19.

The new Training system has been completely overhauled.  Sure, you can still ask your assistant to take charge as we've always been able to do, but just because you don't use it doesn't mean it isn't all new and a significant change (your original question).  There are two guides pinned to the top of the Tactics and Training forum if you'd like to find out more about the new stuff.

The Tactical system has also been overhauled.  There are not "more positions" or "more names" to those positions, so I don't know where you are getting that from?  Some player roles have been changed and updated, Team Shape has been removed, instructions have been changed, defensive width settings have been added, line of engagement is new and a feature for transitional play has now been included.  Not to mention a whole suite of preset tactics in different styles of play to help us get the ball rolling (if needed) at our new club.  How all of that plays out in the Match Engine itself can be quite a marked experience which hopefully you would notice if you try it.  Perhaps download the free demo and give it a go ?

If you are also experiencing your tactic fail as often as you seem to imply, you can always start a new thread in the T&T forum, post your detailed setup with the issues you're having and someone may be able to help you.

[wrezanini1]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

That's not very practical though. Well, it's not practical at all. You can't skip ahead into the future and leave him behind. You'll be in alternate realities. You're technically playing on 1 save, so it's not something that's possible.

Well it would be a headache to get around i am sure, but his team simply does not play. But some kind of feature where me and a friend could play the same save however not at the same time, that would be just a dream. How that would work in reality i don't know but I am willing to bet a feature like that would really get FM more players because online play is something FM really really lacks. 

Online play vs other players is what is lacking because right now the only player you are against is the A.I and the fantasy of your own mind which is great.

But competitive online play would bring FM to new heights with out a doubt ! 

That is the biggest reason other games are as huge as they are having an online feature and competition !

Right now the online features of FM are really difficult to execute mainly because of lag and even more because of time when i can play in regards to my mate or anyone...

I remember the days of FM online i was on it until they left the project i dont remember much because it was long ago but that online FM just really got me super exited unfortunately it didn't hold up for long and they scrapped the project. 

[HUNT3R]

Just now, herne79 said:

The new Training system has been completely overhauled. 

Not just this, but development too, which is great.

[CFuller]

8 minutes ago, wrezanini1 said:

Well it would be a headache to get around i am sure, but his team simply does not play. But some kind of feature where me and a friend could play the same save however not at the same time, that would be just a dream. How that would work in reality i don't know but I am willing to bet a feature like that would really get FM more players because online play is something FM really really lacks. 

His team does not play, and his team does not make any transfers either. How would it work if you can make all your transfers in the January window while your friend is still in December? What if you signed players that your friend had been looking at? That would give an unfair advantage to the manager who plays ahead of the other.

That's another reason why a turn-based Football Manager multiplayer mode is simply not practical.

And I too must say that I absolutely love the improvements made to training in FM19. It's got me more involved in a part of a game that I tended to put little thought into in recent FMs. The tactics overhaul as well has been a huge step forward. I simply cannot understand why anyone would say there's nothing new in FM19 compared to FM18.

[wrezanini1]

Just now, herne79 said:

Forgive me but this makes it sound like you haven't actually played FM19.

The new Training system has been completely overhauled.  Sure, you can still ask your assistant to take charge as we've always been able to do, but just because you don't use it doesn't mean it isn't all new and a significant change (your original question).  There are two guides pinned to the top of the Tactics and Training forum if you'd like to find out more about the new stuff.

The Tactical system has also been overhauled.  There are not "more positions" or "more names" to those positions, so I don't know where you are getting that from?  Some player roles have been changed and updated, Team Shape has been removed, instructions have been changed, defensive width settings have been added, line of engagement is new and a feature for transitional play has now been included.  How all of that plays out in the Match Engine itself can be quite a marked experience which hopefully you would notice if you try it.  Perhaps download the free demo and give it a go ?

If you are also experiencing your tactic fail as often as you seem to imply, you can always start a new thread in the T&T forum, post your detailed setup with the issues you're having and someone may be able to help you.

 

You obviously have not read my previous posts and i am doing fairly well with a modified version of last years tactics, in fact tactics feels a bit easier to get working. For me this year its been easier than most years I dont know perhaps because i started playing it after the beta came out.

Sorry for the huge screenshots.

But no I am in no way struggling and I actually enjoy struggling because that makes me want to play more lol.

In fact tactics have never really been a huge problem but for sure success in FM is 90% tactics in my experience over the years, of course having good players helps but having a great tactic in FM you can basically win anything which is kind of unrealistic but ok. 

[wrezanini1]

Just now, CFuller said:

His team does not play, and his team does not make any transfers either. How would it work if you can make all your transfers in the January window while your friend is still in December? What if you signed players that your friend had been looking at? That would give an unfair advantage to the manager who plays ahead of the other.

That's another reason why a turn-based Football Manager multiplayer mode is simply not practical.

And I too must say that I absolutely love the improvements made to training in FM19. It's got me more involved in a part of a game that I tended to put little thought into in recent FMs. The tactics overhaul as well has been a huge step forward. I simply cannot understand why anyone would say there's nothing new in FM19 compared to FM18.

 

So by reading this please go on and read my entire post that you just started reading.

Are you not agreeing with me that a better online feature would propel FM more than any new offline feature can ever do !

The biggest reason FM is not bigger is because it is simply very klunky online and playing vs friends is almost impossible. How this can be made I really don't know the best way but something needs to be done in terms of online modes !

Competing against friends or even random people online is what i miss by far the most !