[Discussion] Is it time to get rid of CA / PA?

[ChelseaFan]

If Football Manager really wants to go to the next level of depth, realism and immersion, I believe they need to get rid or at least revamp the CA/PA system.

Does the current iteration of Football Manager do enough to give you a sense of mystery surrounding an unknown player? Is there anything more satisfying then uncovering a hidden gem and getting them performing to a higher standard of which the star system gives them? I know current ability is just a score based on relevant stats for the player and you could argue it's just giving you an indication of how well they're likely to perform, but I feel at the moment, people (myself included) are too hasty getting rid of lower CA players. 

In regards to PA, why can't we have something more dynamic? I believe Miles said a few years ago they got Harry Kane all wrong, and so did a lot of people. Not many imagined him to be the world class striker he is today after a few cameos off the bench while Sherwood was in charge. 

Perhaps I'm just really itching to play a new game and I'm excited for the Beta. I think for the first time, I may play with attribute masking, just to it a bit more mystery. 

[-Jef-]

And replace with what? Every time that this issue is raised there is no better system to replace it with.

[LetsNotScoreGoals]

if u get rid of it it'll just be even more rng.

[DementedHammer]

We've been over this repeatedly. The best advice I can give regarding PA and CA is just don't look at it. It's not something that the player is supposed to be aware of in absolute terms. 

[Neil Brock]

50 minutes ago, ChelseaFan said:

If Football Manager really wants to go to the next level of depth, realism and immersion, I believe they need to get rid or at least revamp the CA/PA system.

Does the current iteration of Football Manager do enough to give you a sense of mystery surrounding an unknown player? Is there anything more satisfying then uncovering a hidden gem and getting them performing to a higher standard of which the star system gives them? I know current ability is just a score based on relevant stats for the player and you could argue it's just giving you an indication of how well they're likely to perform, but I feel at the moment, people (myself included) are too hasty getting rid of lower CA players. 

In regards to PA, why can't we have something more dynamic? I believe Miles said a few years ago they got Harry Kane all wrong, and so did a lot of people. Not many imagined him to be the world class striker he is today after a few cameos off the bench while Sherwood was in charge. 

Perhaps I'm just really itching to play a new game and I'm excited for the Beta. I think for the first time, I may play with attribute masking, just to it a bit more mystery. 

There's been countless discussions about this on the forum which have covered this in far more depth than I will do here, but one thing that often seems to be overlooked is PPA. It's not CA/PA you generally see in game, it's CA/PPA (player perceived ability) that you often see via scouting reports, so yes there's definitely a chance in game to have a player do a 'Harry Kane' whereby their potential ability appears to be low but they become a much better player due to hitting their 'true' PA. 

It's a bit of an oversimplification of how it works, but it can happen in game. If you are however looking at absolutes via say the in-game editor, then yes, you will lose that mystery. But then if you're after that mystery, then why you'd be looking at a players PA via the editor doesn't really make sense. Likewise for younger players, they're often set with PA's set within ranges rather than absolutes, so on one person's game they may well have a chance of developing significantly better or worse than another.

There are no plans to change the current system. If you do have a suggestion feel free to use the Feature Request forums to make it, but bear in mind it's not just how it works in game that's important, it's how our thousands of researchers would be able to use it to most accurately portray real life footballers abilities.  

[FlorianAlbert9]

PA Is totally unrealistic and too arcade. 

There isn't PA in real world (at least, not as used in the game). 

We already have the attributes, the situation and the enviroment to built up a more realistic development system. 

But i know that It would need an huge improvment in AI.

(And yes, i already made a more in depth post in feature request forum)

 

For the CA, similar problem. Human can already look only at attributes. 

The AI no. 

Edited October 31, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[mp_87]

No because I don't see what would satisfactorily replace it. As said above, just don't look at it, it's something the player shouldn't be aware of.

As I've said before though what they should get rid of is the star ratings etc. or the new numbered ranking for scout reports as a) the AI isn't good enough in any case and doesn't really give you a great analysis of why, and b) that is what seems to mislead FM'ers more than anything, and really you should be forced to do a more qualitative evaluation of players based on their attributes, traits, and if they fit into how you want to play. But instead we get lots of "I'm only getting two/three star prospects" and the like.

 

[sporadicsmiles]

As noted, if you want to change it you need to come up with a sensible way you could program it differently. 

CA makes sense, it is just some weighted average of attributes (or the other way round, but its the same thing anyway). This is basically an easy number you can use to understand how good a player is. And by "you" I really mean the code behind your scouts and staff. It is hard to imagine any way to do this that does not in the end boil down to a single number for comparison. 

The same, ultimately, can be said about PA. You need to have a single number that can be used by the code to understand how good a player could be. It is again very hard to see how you can do it in a different way. What could be more interesting would be to leave off the final PA until later in a player's progression. Right now players are given a fixed PA (in the editor sometimes a range is defined, but it is translated to a value when the game starts). I think it could be nice to extend this into the game. Keep a range of PAs that could be achieved depending on the training they get, their personality, etc. Maybe fix it at 18, or 21 or something. That would be my idea, anyway, to try to model players improving their potential. 

Also it is worth noting you are not supposed to be able to see the CA and PA of players in the game. That you can via the pre game and in game editor is something that can ruin immersion. If you rely on scouts, you are blind to this anyway. 

Or better, rely on your own judgement. People get extremely hung up on CA and PA. It is important, but it is not the be all and end all. One of the best players I have ever had on any FM game was a player who was mid 140s for PA (and reached the same for CA). He was never rated higher than 3 stars in my team (which was challenging for league and European titles). I only signed him as emergency injury cover initially. Yet he was consistently getting 20+ goals and assists a year from the wing. Why? Because his attributes were absolutely perfect for the way we played football. He was never a Messi or Ronaldo, but what he did excellently was also what my tactic needed him to do. It was a perfect match, and it taught me you do not always have to go for the best CA or PA to win. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

41 minuti fa, mp_87 ha scritto:

No because I don't see what would satisfactorily replace it. As said above, just don't look at it, it's something the player shouldn't be aware of.

 

 

Sorry, if I seem repetitive. 

But this, that the player doesn't have to be aware of CA/PA Is not a right reason. 

The point Is not to know them. 

When i played, i played exactly look at attributes and not stars.

But the AI no. First things. 

And It Is too much easy get low CA players overacheiving. So, let's Say you as human can choose to buy a player from a thousand name list, while the AI wont look at poor CA players.

 

PA then It Is totally another thing. 

As i said there is no PA in real life (and a Dynamic PA would be an error too)

Edited October 31, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[JordanMilly]

1 minute ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Sorry, if I seem repetitive. 

But this, that the player doesn't have to be aware of CA/PA Is not a right reason. 

The point Is not to know them. 

When i played, i played exactly look at attributes and not stars.

But the AI no. First things. 

And It Is too much easy get low CA players overacheiving. So, let's Say you as human can choose to buy a player from a thousand name list, while the AI wont look at poor CA players.

 

PA then It Is totally another thing. 

As i said there is no PA in real life (and s Dynamic PA would be an error too)

1) CA level has nothing to do with how good a player is, the attributes do. Are you saying there are no players who are particularly specialised at their given role, and awful outside of it (which would, per FM, result in a lower CA)? Those aren't overachieving players, just players who have found the niche in football that they excel in, and don't step outside their box.

2) You say there's no PA in real life - so there's no absolute maximum level of talent, physical ability, mentality, etc, a given individual player can reach?

3) You then say that someone's maximum ability isn't dynamic... so which is it? Does a player have a maximum ceiling for talent, or do they not?

You repeatedly go "CA and PA are bad and need to be got rid of", but you never seem to actually present an achievable replacement for those.

[mp_87]

11 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Sorry, if I seem repetitive. 

But this, that the player doesn't have to be aware of CA/PA Is not a right reason. 

The point Is not to know them. 

When i played, i played exactly look at attributes and not stars.

But the AI no. First things. 

And It Is too much easy get low CA players overacheiving. So, let's Say you as human can choose to buy a player from a thousand name list, while the AI wont look at poor CA players.

 

PA then It Is totally another thing. 

As i said there is no PA in real life (and a Dynamic PA would be an error too)

In general agree the AI could be better.

In terms of low CA players overachieving, I wouldn't say that because they can obviously fulfil the role. What it really shows, in my opinion, is that Fm'ers get too hung up on having perfect all round players who max out all three attributes areas when really it's unnecessary. For instance if I'm playing some tiki-taka style, 75% possession football I by and large just need (as we saw in real life - Messi, Xavi, Iniesta etc.) decent Technical and Mental attributes. I don't need Super strong, super quick, super tacklers. People can argue about some being needed but lets say most physical attributes are irrelevant, you're never going to need them. But most people are looking for these perfect specimens in all areas, and again I'll concede the AI needs to do better in recognising the relative strengths and possibilities of players.

Which brings me on to the next point, I'd definitely advocate more extreme variety between players in terms of how attributes are rated. Now I don't know if this would then have an impact on gameplay/ME, but I don't think it's that realistic at the moment. A lot of PL players for instance have many of their attributes set at 13/14 - I guess because that is seen as the base level for PL standard, whether it reflects real life or not. Take Pace/Acceleration for instance - Mbappe is your top level benchmark at 20 (note for reader: I do know it's out of 200 under the hood), then in the PL you have Salah at say 18 iirc, Son at 15/16... ok fair enough... but then you have really fairly slow midfielders, who when isolated and exposed often get shown up and breezed past by players on a regular basis, like Jorginho or Rodri with like 13 or 14 rating for pace when I'd argue it should be circa the 10 bracket, or even lower possibly.

So then with this I'd say there is an argument to see a bit more extremes in the attribute spread of players coming through - to carry on the theme for instance playmakers with high playmaking attributes but fairly horrific physicals - which I don't see replicated enough. So I see scope for improvement, but within the current CA/PA system.

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

Yes i did months ago. You find in in feature request 

1) no. CA is role based. It's not overall ability, it's ability linked to role. 

And again i wasnt argue about Rashford that can perform better of Messi. I contest a Championship level team in CL final. 

2) not in the way PA works in the game. 

Ask to pro scout how they evaluate a young. 

3) It Is not Dynamic in the sense that 'dynamic pa' Is used in this forum "well have a good season so his PA have to raise!" No. 

It Is dynamic the growth factor (structure, coaches, level of league etc) 

 

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

A prove of the unrealist PA system we had, is the U19 teams building in the game.

I very like to have a very young team, sell and debut another one and so on. 

But there something that ruin the simulation. 

At game start (so in real life) we have almost all the U19 teams for the most part national based. 

Top europe team have at max 50% foreing. 

Once you go further your could easily have U18 for the most part with good foreign (from lower nation). 

Cause in reality have sense to look for a foreign if It Is better of yours (in the position you need).

[santy001]

The reason from time to time the FM game gets players wrong, is unfortunately, the biggest weakness behind the CA & PA system is us fleshy researchers. 

I hope some day that SI rolls out the much anticipated omniscience programme, which will turn us into all knowing deities and we can stop making these mistakes. Until such time however, you're stuck with us getting some players wrong and having to strive for improvement.

It does seem almost as though there is some limiting factor to our ability to get it right, like our potential judgement when assessing players has some upper constraint we don't seem to be able to push through no matter how hard we work and no matter how much better the tools and environment SI provide for the research to be conducted in... I'm sure there could be a term for that.

- - -

In an ideal world players wouldn't ever be able to peer behind the curtain and see the CA and PA elements of the game. Even if you're naïve enough to believe that human potential has no limits, and that anyone can be what they want to be, including the worlds greatest footballer - FM is a game. Players break systems in games all the time. Any kind of malleable, dynamic system would get figured out by the player base in next to no time and every human player would brute force the dynamic system into having the best players. 

The only way to prevent this would be to make it completely random and given this in 99% of saves Cristiano Ronaldo would never have been capable of being Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi never would've been capable of being Lionel Messi. Despite their clear talent a random system would've deprived them of it in the FM's of their younger days. Except for a couple of save games in those years, and quite frankly that would be a far larger error margin than what we have now.

[FlorianAlbert9]

When you deliberaty (it's not the first time) avoid countering other people's posts, but countering posts invented by yourself to prove your thesis...it Is the death of discussion. 

I left. 

[Sopel]

My opinion (long post) :
A sensible compromise would be to give a little (I'm talking about values around 10-15 PA "points") headroom for the player's PA if the player would get to the 80% of his PA while under the certain age of - let's say - 20 years.

Example: You trust in / are forced to start a young, 17 yo winger, who with more gametime and training is quickly improving your attributes and becomes a fully-fledged starter by the age of 19.
Let's now say that the player had PA of 100 and CA of 70 at the age of 17 and got to CA of 90 at the age of 19. In this case, I'd propose that his PA would automatically be raised to 110, as probably he would probably catch some attention of better clubs, as a young player with booming talent, thus probably having better chances to be a better trained player.
Situations like these is how "sleeping talents" are born. Sure, we can say that the 100 was his talent pool and it should simply reach his ceiling and would never raise ever again - at the age of 20 he will be just the same for the next 10 years of playing football, no room for any sort of improvement. He was a booming young prospect but simply stopped, like that. move over.
Let's be honest, unless we're talking about some really low level league and some really unlucky player who wasn't noticed this is not like these kinds of stories end. If someone is outstanding at the young age, then 95% they will have even a stint at some better club. And when they do, they can thrive there, suddenly they can be better than we initially thought - why?

Because we need to accept talent isn't just a number, talent is perceived - just go to the sortitoutsi database and check how sometimes PA changes from edition to edition (Great example - Aaron Wan-Bissaka)
And I know that the "perceived talent" is mostly affecting us, human researchers that may be simply wrong and not predict future well, but the big and all-knowing computer knows "the future", so it's a case closed.

But what the computer doesn't do and is causing the whole PA problem for years in the FM community is that it doesn't account for randomness of life and simply human will to improve.
By the computer's outlook - you will be a forever bad footballer because you got born in the wrong country, wrong city, your parents signed you to the wrong club with youth facilities of 3/20. And whatever you would've tried you will never escape the lifelong destiny to be forever bad and even if put in the best enviroment in the world - you're helpless and nothing will change about you.
I don't know about you but I think this isn't quite life-like and immersive.

That's why the game should generate players in the clubs with PA corresponding to their "starting position", but be more flexible with the PA - it's the experience, resources and a bit of luck determine how far your talent can eventually reach, it's really not the case of your legs literally being unable to carry you further (unless it's due to the injuries of course)

Also, I'll just point out that I'm not advocating for a flat and "cheaty" PA raise just because some treshold has been met - we have attributes for that already in the game - Ambition, Determination, Professionalism, some other - that could handle by exactly how much the PA should raise (or fall).

Let's take Cristiano Ronaldo - he was a natural talent, but many consider that due to him putting extra work and professional attitude he got much further then he would get by going on talent alone. Maybe without that Ronaldo would be a max 180 PA player, instead of 195 PA that he is?

Also, the same system should be applied to the other end - the players would lose their PA points, due to benchwarming after certain age, not getting the playing time needed due to injuries or misconduct. Let's say that if the player has 40% of his CA after certain age (let's say 22) his PA would drop by said 10-15 points.
How often do you hear about wonderkids who didn't make it in the end - these tales must stem from something, right?
In FM if a player is destined for greatness he most probably (95%) will achieve greatness - there's far too few histories of wasted potential in FM.

Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.

 

[santy001]

@Sopel that's the thing though, Cristiano Ronaldo never had more potential than Cristiano Ronaldo ever had. He worked hard and tapped into more of his potential. The ease at which we live up to our potential is very different to what our actual potential is.

PA is meant to represent a genetic limit, a physical limit, that each individual has. In reality its something that is truly unknowable but for the purposes of the game it has to be estimated. Our role as researchers is to look and make that judgement even though we cannot ever truly know it. That does mean we will get it wrong. PA's never get reduced anymore, when we identify a player has potential we leave it there for the possibility a player blooms late in their career. You don't ever lose the potential you had, you lose your ability to live up to that potential. 

Your post is somewhat in contradiction to the development model in the game that we generally have been advised of to consider when rating players. The game has more players who fall by the wayside now, never really amounting to anything. The development model counts your entire point about "what the computer doesn't do" is it perfect? No but its an iterative process. 

You say you're not for a flat or "cheaty" PA raise because some threshold has been met. 

3 hours ago, Sopel said:

Let's now say that the player had PA of 100 and CA of 70 at the age of 17 and got to CA of 90 at the age of 19. In this case, I'd propose that his PA would automatically be raised to 110,

Here's that flat or cheaty PA raise you said you didn't want. It already starts off a process where you can look at having options in place to increase PA in a nonsense manner. The attributes you list, Ambition, Determination & Professionalism deal more with the development side, the acquisition or growth within that PA. So it would be nonsense for them to also somehow influence growth of PA if that weren't enough of a nonsense idea in the first place.

- - -

I can understand the arguments from a somewhat aspirational, positive frame of mind about life approach. That the potential of humans is not limited, yet there's a reason why so many people don't have the 100m sprint world record and for a lot of those elite its not because of a lack of application, or a lack of facilities. There's a reason why weight lifting records are where they are. There's a reason why no man or woman has just not taken off and developed the ability of flight. 

Keep in mind, Neil has pretty much said the idea is a non-starter. Every time its been brought up, its apparently never even been given remote consideration by SI. Keep in mind how far away that is from being a good, or at least ever likely to be adopted, suggestion for the game. I've seen this theory come up over the last decade if not more. If there were an inclination to move towards it, we would see things in the game that supported that transition. As it stands though, a lot of the developmental side of the game is if anything, moving away from what would be needed to support it.

[Sopel]

2 hours ago, santy001 said:

He worked hard and tapped into more of his potential. The ease at which we live up to our potential is very different to what our actual potential is.

Well then, you can say that about anyone, how can you know who else has more potential to be tapped to?

I agree with you about the PA's definition and the main problem isn't necessarily in the researcher added players.
(Also - I'd advise not bringing the "fleshy researchers" argument up, as there are countless examples every year of researchers - literally - moving the goalposts. "Oh I admit it, I didn't catch his talent last year, but after his great breakthrough I finally see what he is really capable of". Case in point - Tyrese Campbell from your Stoke recently got one-upped in PA department after his breakthrough in Championship last season at the age of 19-20. He had a perfectly good, high, adequate PA - what could possibly make you reconsider your opinion to the point that you would raise his PA by - dare I say it - 10 points on average??? After 4 editions of consistency in your opinion regarding the amount of his talent, this particular time you decided to tweak it to include the amount of talent you haven't accounted for before. Hmm.)
That ties nicely to my argument that you - and the computer - can't be certain of everything at all times as some stories may simply be unexpected and you should have a mechanism to account for them.

Let's say that the game generates a really min-maxed player with great, professional character that is faring really great despite his age. Sadly the played will be a starlet only for a few years because he will tap all of his untapped potential and rot in the low league club forever, because he "lost the genetic and physical lottery". His muscles simply won't grow, atrophy will consume them over the summer break, any additional synapses in his brain will simply dissolve as he is not a product of perfect eugenics branded by some top academy in the world.

I'm all in for the generated PA to be based on raw talent, sadly PA is closely tied to the academy the player got generated in.

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

Here's that flat or cheaty PA raise you said you didn't want.

Congrats on dismantling an example showcasing the idea with simple numbers, you really got me here.
I'm talking about serious overachievers at a relatively young age, not for a sudden PA jump for your loveable 28 yo captain. And it's not about the flat PA slap - that's why I threw the hidden attributes into the mix, as a form of control of how much the PA should be raised !IF! the player really surpassed even the computer's expectations. Throw all of these variables into the mix and you'll get PA raises of various amounts points.
(Side note: even researchers have a built-in tool in a form of negative-numbers PA - let's say that if a player had his PA randomised from -6 and got 110, then game would raise his PA by the cheaty 10 PA points and he would have 120 which is the maxiumum value of -6. In this situation the PA is still in the realms of what the researcher agrees that can be put on this player, while the change probably makes sense in the context of players gameworld. Or it cheated once again?)
Also, yes - in general those who are professional and of the right mindset achieve far more than those who don't do anything with their talent. Good character is sought after for a reason, you know? Because you can achieve much more with ambition driven athlete.

Also, you failed to notice that this would go both ways and players potential could worsen as a "penalty mechanic" (ooh, it got a little too game-y in my realistic game where all-knowing computer-god has accounted for every option while creating his masterpiece, ooh) for hoarding talent, but yeah, stinky players and their cheaty ways.

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

for a lot of those elite its not because of a lack of application, or a lack of facilities.

Yes, that's why countries like China pumped horrendous money into building facilities in hopes of mass producing talent. If the day comes that they will have a golden generation of players you'd probably say "yes, these kid simply have it mate, the other generations simply weren't born with it". Or about the kids on the african streets who game - and you, in this philosophy - deem unfit to make it, but I bet you that if you saw some of these in the ranks of your Stoke City you would be probably singing to a different tune. It's obviously due to the weather or the rich english history of football somehow affecting how much raw talent their bodies can hold after crossing the borders.

In general, what I'm proposing is more of a self-correction mechanism for the game as to keep the game fair and present player with sensical reactions to the unique stories of their footballers.
I'm not expecting the game to be correct about everything from the very start, the current generation method is a solid baseline but the whole system is static and football world is far from static - you know about 95% of wonderkids but there is this 5% group of players that you wouldn't have found on the Golden Boy shortlist dating 10 years back. Are these 5% important if it's such a low margin? Yes, everyone loves a good underdog story.
It's a way for the engine to correct those who overachieve and punish those who underachieved

3 hours ago, santy001 said:

Keep in mind, Neil has pretty much said the idea is a non-starter.

Oh yes, me - mere mortal - shall not oppose the powers that be!
People harped, harp and will harp about it for years to come. Maybe because they are end consumers that think that the game isn't reacting to their actions as they would expect it to do? Maybe there's a reason to that?
Also, if this forums' philosophy is to simply discard any idea based on topic and being closed off to any discussion of the game mechanics as surely nothing worthwile can ever come out of them - good going then!

[santy001]

Some of what you've posted I can't really touch since I've got concerns its in breach of the researcher NDA.

I'll boil it down to a few points though that you seem to be missing, which is a concern considering you're a part of the research team.

- Researchers are the definitive authority on the players they do the research for in the eyes of SI. That is literally the remit of the role.

- Flat or cheaty PA rises and declines are still flat and cheaty PA rises/declines even if you add more steps. They're both fundamentally wrong for the purposes of the game so there isn't any real distinction to be drawn between them.

- You being unable to comprehend the difference between the acquisition of potential, and the innate potential is your failing. Not mine. Selectively quoting what I've written and absolutely bastardising it to try and ascribe something to me that I haven't said at all is utter drivel. 

- An accusation that I'd adjust a players rating, merely because they signed for Stoke is about one of the most disingenuous comments you can make about a player in the FM series, and quite frankly I'd expect better from a researcher. It's usually the argument of an extremely annoyed fan who can't contain their frustration.

- Suggestions for non-starters come up regularly, without shifting the opinion of SI. Buy a club, be a director of football, spend your money, the inclusion of Women's football, licensing certain clubs/competitions or a dynamic PA system. Whether they be something SI don't want to pursue creatively, or in the case of Women's football and licensing the cost is too prohibitive they don't happen. 

[Simon Tipple]

@Sopel it's fair to say that I would have to disagree with you on this one. I think we need to continue this discussion, but the Research Forums would be the best place for that discussion.

It's obviously not the best time of year for us to engage fully with you on this right now, with our final deadlines approaching, but that would be the best place for this.

[autohoratio]

If I may butt in...

The concept of a *fixed* concrete ceiling PA that can never be exceeded is something I've never fully agreed with. Maybe humans in real life do have a maximum potential ability (which is just a working theory and not necessarily a fact), but to try and discern that maximum and assign a number to it from 1-200 will always be subjective at best and inaccurate at worst. In my view, we just don't (and can't) know if a person actually has a higher skill ceiling than initially thought, and if e.g. their training/development environment or attitude changes for the better then it might become apparent that the player was misjudged and does appear to have the potential to go further (the opposite scenario, having a lower skill ceiling than previously thought, can already apply in the game). In that case, I think having a dynamic PA - not to the same extent that the current model gives, but a smaller range - would allow for *some* flexibility when it comes to that subjectivity.

[santy001]

28 minutes ago, autohoratio said:

If I may butt in...

The concept of a *fixed* concrete ceiling PA that can never be exceeded is something I've never fully agreed with. Maybe humans in real life do have a maximum potential ability (which is just a working theory and not necessarily a fact), but to try and discern that maximum and assign a number to it from 1-200 will always be subjective at best and inaccurate at worst. In my view, we just don't (and can't) know if a person actually has a higher skill ceiling than initially thought, and if e.g. their training/development environment or attitude changes for the better then it might become apparent that the player was misjudged and does appear to have the potential to go further (the opposite scenario, having a lower skill ceiling than previously thought, can already apply in the game). In that case, I think having a dynamic PA - not to the same extent that the current model gives, but a smaller range - would allow for *some* flexibility when it comes to that subjectivity.

You're absolutely right that the biggest failing is ultimately going to be us the researchers. 

It's not necessarily easy to find them but Seb Wassel from SI iirc has put some brilliant posts up over the last couple of years about changes in the player development system. There have also been explanations on how firmly the focus is on development at this time than a CA/PA change.

The biggest problem that comes with any system whereby malleability is included, it either has to be randomised or criteria based. Randomised is entirely unrealistic, criteria based is open to exploits, its got to be tested and would be time consuming and difficult to test fully. 

The focus really has to be on getting the foundational spread of attributes right, and being in the right ball park with potential that the development model builds on this. 

[steloveschips]

I think the contextual advice is more realistic. Scouts and coaching team should be telling me that a player is likely to be better than a known player in the future but at the moment is more suited to league 1 for example

[Luke Hume]

Reviewed so locked.