Dynamic Potential in FM2021?

[baskor]

Does dynamic potential ability available in FM2021? If not, Can SI make it in FM2022 as its new feature? For example, who expect Ibrahimovic become the top goalscorer in Serie A with A.C. Milan?

[HUNT3R]

No it isn't a feature and it also isn't really something that's being consider (according to Miles), but if you want to make a feature request, please do so in the feature requests section. Dynamic potential (as flawed as it is) also really wouldn't apply to Ibrahimovic. He's ZLATAN! after all.

[mr broker]

man, this could be great, also the **** where after 24 years players start to grow up slower, have no sense. look at Caputo. this game is the same since years, this is the DLC of the DLC of the DLC

[santy001]

22 minutes ago, mr broker said:

man, this could be great, also the **** where after 24 years players start to grow up slower, have no sense. look at Caputo. this game is the same since years, this is the DLC of the DLC of the DLC

The development system was overhauled a few years back now and it has been possible for players to continue improving through their careers, up until the point at least age related decline begins to kick in.

This also negates the need for dynamic potential as if a player doesn't achieve it early on its still there as potential for the tail end of his career, or he may never fulfil it. I'm sure an awful lot of posters have to live with the fact they've not lived up to the potential they had in their parents eyes.

[RandomGuy.]

26 minutes ago, mr broker said:

man, this could be great, also the **** where after 24 years players start to grow up slower, have no sense. look at Caputo. this game is the same since years, this is the DLC of the DLC of the DLC

Maybe there's players like Caputo in the game? Same with Vardy. 

People mostly just don't see them because they're not signing players aged over 25 from the lower tiers.

[saihtam]

10 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Maybe there's players like Caputo in the game? Same with Vardy. 

People mostly just don't see them because they're not signing players aged over 25 from the lower tiers.

There is no players like Vardy in lower leagues, Vardy also did not have that PA when he was playing so low.

[HUNT3R]

The definition of PA (for FM anyway) is that it's the best you can ever be. Since that's the definition, it's not possible to be better than you can ever be.

[FlorianAlbert9]

Dynamic PA is non-sense. 

As well as the concept of PA itself 

[santy001]

It's going to take a few more years I think to fully filter through to the game but there are already more players knocking around in the game world who have the potential to make it at the top level but are currently down on their luck.

Saido Berahino is 27 now but still has a PA of 155. So in the right hands he could have a resurgence and be an effective player at a very high level. Broadly speaking that's a PA you can expect to be a squad player at the top end of the game. Jack Butland, while now at Palace, still has the potential to be a top keeper with 161 PA but can someone nurse that out of him as he moves into his 30's? For most it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to try, but maybe some player will pick these up on cheap deals, injuries might force their hand to give them a chance and then they really kick on and develop at the tail end.

As time goes by more of these players will occur in the database but it's probably another 2-3 years away before you've got a clutch of youngsters who've always had the potential to make it but haven't delivered on this but still have high PA's. So it could become more common a sight on the forums in the next few years.

Of course, in the game itself, it quickly becomes something more possible as you venture 10-15 years into the future. There are more organically available players in the game who have their potentials and haven't fulfilled them and so have cascaded down through the game from their lofty academy positions. 

[Brother Ben]

Ah, the annual dynamic potential thread, I always enjoy these  

[Freakiie]

Am I the only one confused about the example? We should have dynamic PA, because a world class striker, with world class PA is still putting in solid performances at 39? What does that have to do with dynamic PA?

If Zlatan is an example for anything it's that FMs decline model tends to be crap, since in FM a player of his age would've degraded to the point he wouldn't get up and down the pitch anymore without the help of a wheelchair.

[santy001]

I have to admit @Freakiie the OP doesn't make a good example for why PA should be dynamic. But, on the flip side, you have to remember that no one else has done either so its not alone in that regards :P

Generally all the PA replacement ideas have fallen a bit by the wayside due to being nonsense. 

[forameuss]

13 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Ah, the annual dynamic potential thread, I always enjoy these  

Annual?  It's more regular than that.  

Dynamic PA is a logical absurdity.There is not a single example that could persuade me otherwise.

[FrazT]

15 hours ago, baskor said:

Does dynamic potential ability available in FM2021? If not, Can SI make it in FM2022 as its new feature? For example, who expect Ibrahimovic become the top goalscorer in Serie A with A.C. Milan?

Raise it as a feature request as suggested, but as has been said above, SI have said that any review of the PA system is not on the short or mid term radar at tye moment

[FlorianAlbert9]

11 minuti fa, forameuss ha scritto:

Annual?  It's more regular than that.  

Dynamic PA is a logical absurdity.There is not a single example that could persuade me otherwise.

Right, but Dynamic Pa is a logical absurdity 'cause the the very concept of PA is a logical absurdity without evidence in real world.

Edited November 25, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[Brother Ben]

9 minutes ago, forameuss said:

Annual?  It's more regular than that.  

Dynamic PA is a logical absurdity.There is not a single example that could persuade me otherwise.

I like to call it the "my youngster I thought would be great turned out to be rubbish and i'm a bit annoyed" thread 

[forameuss]

5 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Right, but Dynamic Pa is a logical absurdity 'cause the the very concept of PA is a logical absurdity without evidence in real world.

Right, but it isn't being used in the real world, is it?  It's a construct to allow the game to work properly, and is supposed to be completely invisible to the end user.  Dynamic PA as a feature is a logical absurdity, PA itself is a necessary tool.

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 minuto fa, forameuss ha scritto:

Right, but it isn't being used in the real world, is it?  It's a construct to allow the game to work properly, and is supposed to be completely invisible to the end user.  Dynamic PA as a feature is a logical absurdity, PA itself is a necessary tool.

No, it isn't necessary. 

We already have all the necessary tool without PA. What missing is the necessary AI to balance the System. 

 

 

[santy001]

@forameuss Of course its not exactly correct in its reflection, but it is very much a case of recreating the innate human limits. Whatever omniscient being/demiurge you subscribe to or whether you believe its chance its a crude but entirely realistic reflection of limits we all face in life. 

But as you say, there have to be parameters because at the end of the day, its a game. The attribute scale could be 1-20, 1-100, 5.19 to 6.24, 1 to 25,000,000,000,000 or anything else you imagine and its the same for PA. There's just a sanity check for the numbers.

I get the benefit of years of SI spoon feeding me information, in an easy to understand manner as a researcher. The development system in the game is broadly encompassing, in a far more subtle way, what a lot of those who have cried out for PA replacement/abolishment systems have called for. 

[forameuss]

9 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No, it isn't necessary. 

We already have all the necessary tool without PA. What missing is the necessary AI to balance the System. 

So we already have the tool, except we don't because something else is needed.  So PA is necessary.  Got it.

 

2 minutes ago, santy001 said:

@forameuss Of course its not exactly correct in its reflection, but it is very much a case of recreating the innate human limits. Whatever omniscient being/demiurge you subscribe to or whether you believe its chance its a crude but entirely realistic reflection of limits we all face in life. 

But as you say, there have to be parameters because at the end of the day, its a game. The attribute scale could be 1-20, 1-100, 5.19 to 6.24, 1 to 25,000,000,000,000 or anything else you imagine and its the same for PA. There's just a sanity check for the numbers.

I get the benefit of years of SI spoon feeding me information, in an easy to understand manner as a researcher. The development system in the game is broadly encompassing, in a far more subtle way, what a lot of those who have cried out for PA replacement/abolishment systems have called for. 

Yeah, absolutely.  The "not existing" part is having a bald, numerical, and crucially observable limit on someone.  That's obviously never going to be the case in real life, but in a particular skill, everyone is going to have a certain static potential that the vast majority would never reach.  But the key in both cases, is that that amount is fixed.  There is no situation in life - or the game - that would merit your ceiling raising.  What DOES change is your path to that ceiling.  That's the bit that likely needs attention to make things a bit more dynamic, but PA shouldn't change.

[FlorianAlbert9]

The question is not if there is or not a limit. 

The point is that in real world It doesn't matter 'cause it is NOT use in evaluating players. 

Neither the best pro scout has any evidence of It, so no clubs buy or choose to develop a young according to an attributes like PA.

While in the game if you take off JPA from scout (scout know a range of the players PA) , using all the data expect the PA, It will not have any sense at all 'cause the development of a player for the most part rely on PA. 

 

 

[RandomGuy.]

On 25/11/2020 at 09:53, FlorianAlbert9 said:

While in the game if you take off JPA from scout (scout know a range of the players PA)

 

I don't think scouts in game have any knowledge of the PA at all. They're just guessing.

[FlorianAlbert9]

9 ore fa, RandomGuy. ha scritto:

I don't think scouts in game have any knowledge of the PA at all. They're just guessing.

You're wrong.

You can test It. 

And otherwise the attributes Jplayerpotential and the scouting itself in the game would not have sense. 

[Sloak]

9 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

I don't think scouts in game have any knowledge of the PA at all. They're just guessing.

They do, and it’s a massive part of what makes the game easier than real life. If you’ve played with the editor enabled you’ve seen your fair share of 130+ CA 17 and 18 year olds with less than 140 PA as well as players in that age range with ~110 CA and 170+ PA. In real life scouts look at the 130CA and think he has significantly more potential than the 110CA, but in FM your scout knows. The 130 will review as “operating near potential” if your scout is good, and the 110 will get 5 stars. These things can often be skewed as is well known, but the basis is there.

[santy001]

Hunter provides much better, and far more accurate than my own post could below. However I'll leave in the following.

If you're finding your backroom staff are too accurate in their assessments of players, then post examples and save games in here:

Transfers, Contracts, Scouting, Recruitment Meetings and Staff Responsibilities - Sports Interactive Community (sigames.com)

 

[HUNT3R]

5 hours ago, Sloak said:

They do, and it’s a massive part of what makes the game easier than real life. If you’ve played with the editor enabled you’ve seen your fair share of 130+ CA 17 and 18 year olds with less than 140 PA as well as players in that age range with ~110 CA and 170+ PA. In real life scouts look at the 130CA and think he has significantly more potential than the 110CA, but in FM your scout knows. The 130 will review as “operating near potential” if your scout is good, and the 110 will get 5 stars. These things can often be skewed as is well known, but the basis is there.

As Seb says here, PPA is mostly based on CA and age.

In FM20, I had a couple of youngsters where my coaches (and scouts before I bought them) got it wrong. One (22yo) had around 110CA but only 122PA. My coaches rated him as 2 star CA and 4.5 star PA. They had no idea he will be peaking soon.

The other, around 21yo, was rated as 1.5 star CA and 4 star PA (with 5 stars being a possibility). He did improve in the beginning but after a few months, progression slowed. Eventually at around 23 or 24 and having not improved very much in recent months, my coaches started to realise he's at his peak and gave him 2.5 star CA and 2.5 star PA.

If you do find issues, please report them, but the post from Seb is how the system is supposed to work.

[Cal585]

On 25/11/2020 at 06:20, santy001 said:

For most it probably wouldn't be worth the effort to try, but maybe some player will pick these up on cheap deals, injuries might force their hand to give them a chance and then they really kick on and develop at the tail end.

 

Is that a thing that exists in game? If I'm a 2nd division team, can I take a 27 year old failed potential player from the 3rd division (playing at that level), improve him, using my superior facilities and match experience, to be a leading member of my team and sell him on to the top division? Theoretically this should be possible due to players not developing due to injuries or lack of quality match experience at younger ages, but I've never really managed a heap of growth once they've hit 24, regardless of the development opportunities I've given them. I always assumed this was because they were past their prime development age but if it's more dynamic than I assumed, then I might start trying to find some older diamonds to polish.

[santy001]

@Cal585 the thread linked above by @HUNT3R has some excellent posts from Seb in it which details some of the capabilities of the system stretching back a few years. For some players, the game will have determined their organic peak isn't until the later stages anyway so there's a definite chance that it can work for you. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

5 ore fa, HUNT3R ha scritto:

As Seb says here, PPA is mostly based on CA and age.

 

No. 

Maybe mostly if the difference in PA is low and your scout is weak.

I love the game and the effort team put in. 

But i find not fair when they try to disguise something 

You can use the official in-game editor to prove that is not true. 

(Or you can using the pre-game and create a new game)

Take your worst young with a scout PPA of 1 star and edit him with 200PA. Suddenly the scout report Will change in 4/5 star (according to your team).

(While of course in real world Will not change nothing cause scout report are really based only on CA, Age, personality and enviroment)

It cannot be otherwise 'cause if the scouts in the game really know nothing of PA then all the game system will fall.  

And the PPA will be useless cause you have another scout attributes for CA and you know the age 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[herne79]

10 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

But i find not fair when they try to disguise something 

That's pretty harsh to say when they are the ones with the in depth knowledge of how things work and you don't.

If you see something which you believe to be different, the only thing you should do is start a thread in the bugs forum and provide evidence.  Bear in mind that just because something seems to be different does not necessarily mean it actually works how you think.  There have been plenty of "studies" which users believe to show how things work differently from what SI say, only to be debunked once SI actually look at the data and show how the users haven't taken all aspects into account.  Not saying that's what's happened here, but something to consider before you start pointing fingers.

Maybe you are onto something,  Maybe you're not.  But the only way you'll know for sure is to raise it in the bugs forum and get SI to look.  Give them a copy of your game save(s) and tell them what steps to follow to recreate the issue.

[callamity]

Don't know of this has been asked or answered and thought this thread may cover it. 

 

Peak potential, what is this? Why is it there? this number is listed different to most max potentials. 

Is this dynamic? While having a static max potential, someones peak may alter dependant on situation. Injuries, club facilities, coaches, personality changes etc.

 

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No. 

Maybe mostly if the difference in PA is low and your scout is weak.

I love the game and the effort team put in. 

But i find not fair when they try to disguise something 

You can use the official in-game editor to prove that is not true. 

(Or you can using the pre-game and create a new game)

Take your worst young with a scout PPA of 1 star and edit him with 200PA. Suddenly the scout report Will change in 4/5 star (according to your team).

(While of course in real world Will not change nothing cause scout report are really based only on CA, Age, personality and enviroment)

It cannot be otherwise 'cause if the scouts in the game really know nothing of PA then all the game system will fall.  

And the PPA will be useless cause you have another scout attributes for CA and you know the age 

 

 

Or, the fact that you're editing them with the IGE is what causes issues. I haven't checked with the pre-game editor because I don't even know how to use it. That's for the bugs forum, so if you have examples, it would be great to report them.

If you look at an unedited squad, it looks much better:

You can see that, generally speaking - higher PCA = higher PPA. That's between players of the same age. Look at Valceanu vs Ianc, for instance.

Speaking of age, this is also an influence. Look at Halilovic vs Predatu for instance. Very similar CA (and PCA) but very different PPA ratings, even though their PA is similar. Bordean is very highly rated for PPA because of his high CA/PCA.

 

[Freakiie]

23 minutes ago, callamity said:

Don't know of this has been asked or answered and thought this thread may cover it. 

 

Peak potential, what is this? Why is it there? this number is listed different to most max potentials. 

Is this dynamic? While having a static max potential, someones peak may alter dependant on situation. Injuries, club facilities, coaches, personality changes etc.

 

Peak PA (and CA) afaik are simply the max value said player ever had in any previous versions of FM. Generally it is different from current PA as a lot of players in their younger age have higher PAs than what they ever accomplished in real life and thus in later versions their PA is lowered (closer) to the level of what their max CA was. Altering won't do anything and it's more of an internal database value of "how good was this player at one point" and "how much talent was he expected to have at one point".

[FlorianAlbert9]

42 minuti fa, HUNT3R ha scritto:

Or, the fact that you're editing them with the IGE is what causes issues. I haven't checked with the pre-game editor because I don't even know how to use it. That's for the bugs forum, so if you have examples, it would be great to report them.

If you look at an unedited squad, it looks much better:

You can see that, generally speaking - higher PCA = higher PPA. That's between players of the same age. Look at Valceanu vs Ianc, for instance.

Speaking of age, this is also an influence. Look at Halilovic vs Predatu for instance. Very similar CA (and PCA) but very different PPA ratings, even though their PA is similar. Bordean is very highly rated for PPA because of his high CA/PCA.

 

Sorry, but the difference in your example are insignificant.

And what are your scouts' attributes?

I never said scout know exactly PA. 

But i said they know a range. 

A difference of 10 point Is too low. 

Take a player with the same CA of yours, but PA of at least 180 and we see. 

I'll make a test now

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

(I haven't Buy the in game editor for fm21, so i post the screen of pre.editor) 

I edit a player to have the lowest CA (10) and the max PA (200). and the other youngs with an higher CA (70) and almost same PA (71)

i edit also the Assistent to have 20 in JCA and JPA

As you can see: 

Czingraber has the lowest CA (60 Point difference) and that correctly is reflected in scout JCA. 

So he has the same age, a very high difference in PA (and he has 10 in professionism and deter, i dont' change the other players, but someone has 8 someone 16 ) but despite that he have better stars in Potential by Assistent.

So  JPA is NOT mostly based on age and CA.

And that in a Second division team in Hungary where 70 points are avarage for a senior so the difference in potential stars is not so high. 

If you try the same test in a Premier League team, you will have, alle the PA71 players with a star at max and Czingraber with at least 4. 

 

That's not a matter of bug section, that is how System works.

Edited December 2, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[Tom 99]

On 25/11/2020 at 10:25, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Right, but Dynamic Pa is a logical absurdity 'cause the the very concept of PA is a logical absurdity without evidence in real world.

Without evidence? So I have just train every day and someday I am so good like Messi and C. Ronaldo? Awesome. Why aren't all the other professional football player so good like Messi and C. Ronaldo? Are they just too lazy? Answer: We all have a performance ceiling. The concept of PA is a simplification of this ceiling (I could only train acceleration and pace in FM to become so fast like Mbappe which isn't possible in real life. In real life there is a PA for every skill).

Edited December 2, 2020 by Tom 99

[herne79]

27 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

That's not a matter of bug section

Yes, it is.  If you believe you have found something in game which goes against what the developers say, that is absolutely what the bugs forum is for.

However:

27 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

that is how System works

Not necessarily.  First, you do not know all the variables and how they interact with each other.  Only the devs know this.  So yes, increasing somebody's PA could have the impact you show, however different outcomes are also perfectly possible.  For example:

https://community.sigames.com/topic/526127-fm-19-youth-intake-blyth-is-there-any-chance-of-getting-a-jewel/?do=findComment&comment=12561067

In there I demonstrate how PPA is not necessarily fully reflective of PA and there are discrepancies, some quite large, between the two.  That cannot be explained away, as you are doing, by simply saying it's essentially all PA based.  Clearly something else is happening here which we mere users are unaware of.

So yes, some results which you show seem possible, however other results are also quite possible thus drawing the conclusions that you are is a little premature.  But again, upload your save game and define the steps to recreate the issue for SI to investigate if you believe things are not working as described or intended.

[FlorianAlbert9]

I made the test in Premier with Manchester

1. i set Huighes with a CA 49 and a 200 PA  (i have set 49, 'cause in Englad Setting 10 as in other test is too harsh 'cause of course he will never become good

the other with 90PA (i don't change CA cause it need to much time  ) 

2. i dont' change staff, assistenti have 17 in J Potential

Consideration: 

i have to say that i expetced Hughes to get more star, maybe CA49 is too low for reaching similar potential. (i try with also 70 CA and the get Half star more in potential)

Said that the 15yo players have better CA and are 2 years Younger, so of course age and CA have an impact, but not mostly: in fact if we look at 16yo, their are all rated lower. 

So if scout know nothing about PA how Hughes is the best Young rated?

[FlorianAlbert9]

7 minuti fa, Tom 99 ha scritto:

Without evidence? So I have just train every day and someday I am so good like Messi and C. Ronaldo? Awesome. Why aren't all the other professional football player not so good like Messi and C. Ronaldo? Are they just too lazy? Answer: We all have a performance ceiling. The concept of PA is a simplification of this ceiling (I could only train acceleration and pace in FM to become so fast like Mbappe which isn't possible in real life. In real life there is a PA for every skill).

if you at the age of 13/17 have the same ability of 13/17 Messi,the same mentality and the same environment, then yes you have all the possibility to become a great. 

Messi ad Cr7 were great at Young age. 
And all players with great ability at Young age that failed, you will not hear 'he was very professional, but not so high PA' but the contrary 'he has very potential, but he wasn't professionalism.

 

[FlorianAlbert9]

23 minuti fa, herne79 ha scritto:

Yes, it is.  If you believe you have found something in game which goes against what the developers say, that is absolutely what the bugs forum is for.

No, againt. 

Of course they know that works in that way. 
Only they prefer say that 'mostly' no.

 

I made others test: 

there is a margin of error higher than what I thought. 

but remain the fact the PA is a factor and has impact in scout report. 

Edited December 2, 2020 by FlorianAlbert9

[callamity]

1 hour ago, Freakiie said:

Peak PA (and CA) afaik are simply the max value said player ever had in any previous versions of FM. Generally it is different from current PA as a lot of players in their younger age have higher PAs than what they ever accomplished in real life and thus in later versions their PA is lowered (closer) to the level of what their max CA was. Altering won't do anything and it's more of an internal database value of "how good was this player at one point" and "how much talent was he expected to have at one point".

If thats the case, its pretty pointless. But fair enough. Thanks for the answer.

[Cal585]

7 hours ago, santy001 said:

@Cal585 the thread linked above by @HUNT3R has some excellent posts from Seb in it which details some of the capabilities of the system stretching back a few years. For some players, the game will have determined their organic peak isn't until the later stages anyway so there's a definite chance that it can work for you. 

So they won't actually grow much once they've passed their peak even if they take a step up in facilities and standard? That's a shame, I guess I will stick with the younger ones who are less likely to be past their "development age range" as Seb puts it in the thread. I understand that it can happen if you get the right type of player with a late development, but seems to random to hope for. I'm sure SI will keep refining the system though to make it more dynamic.

[JordanMilly]

3 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Of course they know that works in that way. 
Only they prefer say that 'mostly' no.

I'll warn you here politely now Florian. If by this you are accusing SI devs (who have zero reason to lie about how perceived potential ability works) of lying about how the system works, you aren't going to be lasting long on here, since 1) they're not lying, and 2) you'd be in breach of the forum rules.

If you'd like to clarify your statement, feel free, but from your picture (copied below), your point of "Look, PA is the main thing!" appears to be incorrect from the start, given that the scouts/coaches are predicting the same potential as two players with 110 less potential than him whilst also suggesting they have better current ability than him despite them only having approx the same CA. That quite clearly indicates that PA is not the sole factor or the main factor, and no one in a position to know said that it wasn't a factor at all. Your own image quite clearly shows that the scouts/coaches believe that those two players being at a rough current ability at the age of 15 suggests they'll have high potentials (meaning, as Seb said in the post previously linked to, age and current ability are the main factors for perceived potential ability), despite that not being the case when you look at PA. If PA was a main factor, their potentials would be down at 1 to 1.5 stars, tops, but it isn't, so they aren't.

If you're not going to be intellectually honest with yourself, I'm not entirely sure what the point of any continued discussion on the topic with you is, because any further discussion would not be carried out, by yourself, in good faith.

[santy001]

1 hour ago, Cal585 said:

So they won't actually grow much once they've passed their peak even if they take a step up in facilities and standard? That's a shame, I guess I will stick with the younger ones who are less likely to be past their "development age range" as Seb puts it in the thread. I understand that it can happen if you get the right type of player with a late development, but seems to random to hope for. I'm sure SI will keep refining the system though to make it more dynamic.

No player improves directly in relation to better facilities is my general understanding though. There are certain random triggers in the game that can cause (quite sizeable) improvements for players so you can stumble into one of these and potentially have a good player on your hands. 

In general all I'd be saying is maybe don't disregard those 27/28 year olds who might otherwise put you off because of their age - because it is a common thing for FM players to move onto young players very quickly. The system will continue to be improved as you say though, and I do genuinely look forward to where it ends up with more years of development behind it.

- - - - -

@FlorianAlbert9 Jordan has touched on it mostly but you can't really claim that 2x 90PA players and 1x 200PA players having the same potential ability, 2.5 stars proves your point. Your experiment has failed at the first hurdle. If you are finding issues though you really ought to be logging bugs so that SI can look to test these at volume over the thousands of test saves they run. 

[FlorianAlbert9]

Funny. 

Firstly you both say that: (Seb's words) "Those stars that the scouts give you are not based on PA." 

Now you claim that my experimemt has failed  and suddenly you said no one said that wasn't a factor at all.

Intellectualy honesty, yes, i know. 

I stopped cause i cleared that i bring test to prove, you faith.

 

[themadsheep2001]

On 03/12/2020 at 04:45, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Funny. 

Firstly you both say that: (Seb's words) "Those stars that the scouts give you are not based on PA." 

Now you claim that my experimemt has failed  and suddenly you said no one said that wasn't a factor at all.

Intellectualy honesty, yes, i know. 

I stopped cause i cleared that i bring test to prove, you faith.

 

 

I don't care either way about the dynamic potential argument, but I do care that any discussion is done honestly and in good faith. It's clear you have little intention in doing so, so i think it's best you are taken out of the thread for the benefit of those who want to

[Sloak]

12 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Funny. 

Firstly you both say that: (Seb's words) "Those stars that the scouts give you are not based on PA." 

Now you claim that my experimemt has failed  and suddenly you said no one said that wasn't a factor at all.

Intellectualy honesty, yes, i know. 

I stopped cause i cleared that i bring test to prove, you faith.

 

 

I’d like to thank you for fighting the good fight brother. I lack the energy to respond to all of the comments, but I appreciate your willingness to. I wasn’t even attempting to complain about this, I enjoy it, it allows for you to find cheap wonderkids more often than is realistically possible, which is fun. FM is an excellent simulation, but it’s a simulation. I’m not sure why there’s even a disagreement over wether the scouts can see it, it’s pretty blatant they can.

[Speedy.Martini]

Maybe the only "problem " is that some regens have their CA too close to their PA. I never look in the editor, so I dont know the CA and PA of the players, but when I look at some posts above, this seems the case.

 

[Freakiie]

I don't know what exactly scouts base their PPA on. What I do know though, is that they've saddled me with utter trash plenty of times when I snatched up those youngsters they rated as a 5* PA that'd be a definite future world star. And no, that was not because my scouts were garbage, that was while playing at some of the best clubs in the world with superb scouting staff. Vice versa, I've seen plenty of players that had massive PA that my scouts simply didn't rate. Especially low rep newgens seem to suffer that treatment, picked up cheap African newgens often enough that nobody rated well (but had solid attributes for their age), then two years of developing at your club and their reputation skyrockets, so they suddenly go from 200k valued "eh I guess he'd be a solid back up" to 10m valued "Wow what a wonderkid" in the eyes of your staff and the world.

You see exactly the same with people doing extensive youth saves. Regularly the initial big star of the intake doesn't get very far, meanwhile some initially relatively poor rated players start getting minutes in the first squad and they develop like crazy, so half a year later your initial 5* newgen who barely saw any attribute growth is already down to being rated as merely 4* and some seemingly insignificant 3* talent is developing like mad and already took the lead as the biggest talent of the batch.

Now, one last thing. For all these "rigorous" "tests" Florian is doing. You realize you're doing this with your own players yes? Obviously you're going to have much more in depth knowledge of your own squad than of scouted youngsters and as such using staff insight is completely irrelevant towards the question "do scouts see PA".

So instead I did the experiment differently. I took the Bayern youth team. Ruined some of their big talents, made weaker talents 200 PA and then proceeded to scout them all with Dortmund. The result was that a lot of players, despite me capping their PA close to what their current CA is are still very highly rated with plenty of room to grow. Multiple players that have some PA left, but are by no means potential world class are still rated 5*, some of the 200 PA guys are rated 5* (mainly those that actually look like good talents in the first place) and some of the 200 PA guys are not rated as 5*, generally those that are already older or have relatively poor CA. If there's a clue that some of these things might not add up, it's the fact that Bayern is willing to let Zirkzee go dirt cheap (so they do have some clue on their end), but your scout is still looking at him and going "hey this guy has 4* PA and plenty of room to grow!".

Also scouts have apparently very different opinions...

Scouted Zirkzee (who has crap PA now), started at 4* PPA, then at 100% knowledge scout rated him merely 3*. Then had my head scout (who has 19 JPA, so he's a good scout mind you) have a look at Zirkzee again. BAM 4.5* potential! For only 3.4m! BOSS BUY THIS GUY!

But scouts can see PA?

 

[CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon]

Well, I've had plenty of world beaters over the years with 5* ratings from excellent scouts who turned out at retirement to have a 150 PA but excellent mental/hidden stats. Meanwhile some other players had 3.5*, 170 PA but were inconsistent squad players at best with what turned out to be average mental and hidden stats.

I wonder how much the mental and hidden stats play a part in scouting? It can't just be PA and Age because I've seen too many 150 rated career heroes over the years.