YOUTH RATING - following average FIFA RANKING Revised V2 - game popularity revised too

[shwanko]

This is changing the scale following all Youth rating for new gen players following an objective approach that uses FIFA ranking average over last 28 years to determinate how good each nation area producing quality players.  

The 2 extreme end had been kept as set by SI previously, with Brazil having same 163 rating (as in default FM) while keeping other end kept low near what FM had set at the other end of spectrum, then we set countries within that spectrum using a correlation system. in V2 now, we lowered Brazil rating so all nations lowered to reduce amount of World class players to keep in same level as SI anticipated. 

There is curves added to increase countries in South America and Africa as they have more talented players but poor facilities..

we added another curve as I believe FIFA ranking is unfair slightly for nations like South America and Europe as team play stronger sides than what countries in Asia or north America do, Therefore some additional points been added for tougher nations like South America, followed by Europe then Africa then at the end all rest of world. 

Furthermore, popularity of football for many nations had been corrected, ex: Nigeria  was set for "completely useless" ?!!! which is wrong 

 After this patch, all nations like Germany, Argentina, France and Spain will have closer rating unlike the default FM where Germany was ahead all of them  by 15 points when in reality their average ranking was 5th similar to Spain and Argentina.  Same for Italy  averaging 9th while in game is as good as those teams !! England was not far with at 10th place while in FM, the default rating put England behind Egypt and Mexico !! comn !! I know England are not top 5 but sure We are not below Mexico and Egypt ?!!  that is what Fifa ranking is saying too .. our average was 10th in world , while Egypt was 37!! so how they are rated 138 in FM when England is 120 !! That is insane !! 

FM rating overall was very subjective. This Patch will at least insure it is following more objective rating system following Average Fifa ranking. 

below is a comparison sample of top40 ranking and how that ranking changed following FIFA ranking average 

 

to use this ranking: Just add the file below in folder at path below and load it when you start a new game.

C: / Users / "username" / Documents / Sports Interactive / Football Manager 2021 / editor data * 

below is V2 file 

 

 

YOUTH RATING.fmf

Edited December 23, 2020 by shwanko

[freddieos]

I can't believe that SI are releasing a game with that many errors or incomplete information in the backend.

Has this patch "corrected" all nations youth ranking or just the major nations? And have you taken things such as population or youth team tournament success into consideration?

[shwanko]

1 hour ago, freddieos said:

I can't believe that SI are releasing a game with that many errors or incomplete information in the backend.

Has this patch "corrected" all nations youth ranking or just the major nations? And have you taken things such as population or youth team tournament success into consideration?

Yes mate .. I corrected all nations even smaller ones .. to make game balanced and still challenging 

When I laid them on a scale and spread them .. the ranking showed nations are so closers to each other, look to Portugal SI gave them 114 !! while Brazil is 163 ?!! and Egypt 138 !! nations like Spain 140 same for Argentina !! 

Everything was just so subjectively been put. 

Fact is nations are closer to each other than SI is suggesting 

I add a comparison of rating based on ranking on original post  

[Handyfernandy]

How about Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and San Marino fm. Any change? 

[willz71172]

so this make newgens better is it good too go with the file

[shwanko]

1 hour ago, Handyfernandy said:

How about Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and San Marino fm. Any change? 

yes all of them changed 

Indonesia - from 56 to  75

Malaysia - from 35 to  71

Singapore - from 35 to  77

San Marino - from 29 to 46

which is important bcz there are way less inferior countries who should be losing 4-0 or 5-0 to them but FM make them almost same range 

was trying to keep the scale valid all over the rating 

[shwanko]

49 minutes ago, willz71172 said:

so this make newgens better is it good too go with the file

overall quality will improve especially  for countries underrated by SI 

but keeping the scale valid all over the spectrum 

Edited December 10, 2020 by shwanko

[freddieos]

Thanks for posting the country breakdown in the original post.

I'm a bit worried about the game producing too many players with high Potential Ability with this mod. I mean, you have upgraded New Zealand to 88 rating - same as Sweden has by default. And Tunisia to 122 - same as Holland by default. Doesn't seem right to me.

Have you run a test over say 10 years+?

Edited December 10, 2020 by freddieos

[Bigpole]

49 minutes ago, freddieos said:

Thanks for posting the country breakdown in the original post.

I'm a bit worried about the game producing too many players with high Potential Ability with this mod. I mean, you have upgraded New Zealand to 88 rating - same as Sweden has by default. And Tunisia to 122 - same as Holland by default. Doesn't seem right to me.

Have you run a test over say 10 years+?

probably not, I guess the author doesn't have a clue what Nation Youth Rating means and what it covers. 

[Captain Krakatoa]

Don't want to be rude or anything

but in my bare eyes, what the author doing is increasing all nations youth rating.

Wouldn't this make some imbalance in the save world after says like 10 years?

[Bigpole]

6 hours ago, Captain Krakatoa said:

Don't want to be rude or anything

but in my bare eyes, what the author doing is increasing all nations youth rating.

Wouldn't this make some imbalance in the save world after says like 10 years?

My bet is that the author thinks that nation youth rating should be based on fifa ranking because it is a measure of 'country strength'. I could agree with some ratings for some countries and changing them (and just leaving it there). But completely changing every country (and by changing the author meant boosting youth rating value in every country I guess by 20/30/40%), means that you'll get a massive influx of wonderkids in every country. Which will imbalance the game in about 5-10 years I guess.

The author saying the nation youth ranking is(was) very subjective. So this file supposed to make it more fair by boosting all nations artificially because there's no much difference between Turkey players, Uruguay players and for example Belgian players (in their respective countries/leagues). 

My suggestion is for the author to browse the forum and check what nation youth rating covers because that was explained more than few times and THEN make a file with his 'suggestions' (which are not subjective of course, because SI's values are, according to the author), and test the file before the release, at least till year 2030-40.

[GreenTriangle]

3 hours ago, Bigpole said:

a massive influx of wonderkids

It depends on what is meant by wonderkid. I made a test. I created 12 identical leagues, each with 12 identical teams. I set absolutely all parameters to average. Then I experimented with a single parameter (Youth rating), initially set to 100 and changed to 50 or 150. What are the test results?

Frequency (%) of players (newgens received at youth intake) with a certain PA :

Of course, the players' PA at youth intake is higher for YR 150. But it's very high, huge? Not. As a term of comparison, the top 20 seniors generated (with "add players to playable teams") for each of the respective clubs have an average AP of about 100. This means that even at a Youth rating of 150 most of the youth generated (about 90%) will have a lower AP than the middle level senior players. As for the more special players ... let's admit that "wonderkid" means "player with a PA at least equal to an important player in the top 6 teams in the Premier League". In this case the effect of the forced increase of the PA is negligible. No hordes of wonderkids are generated.

Okay, is there a problem? No ... and yes. No, because absolutely all clubs will generate players with a slightly higher PA. There will be no a major advantage for the human player, except for those who hunt wonderkids. They will find - maybe - 20 players instead of 5 or 10 ... but this for every 1000 newgens. And yes, there is a problem because the change of Youth rating does not affect the CA. Clubs will receive players like slightly higher PA ... but with the same CA as now. Small clubs do not have facilities, so they will not be able to develop their players. Instead, the big clubs will have an advantage because they will be able to buy cheap players with a slightly higher potential and will be able to train them properly.

Note: any attempt to estimate the PA of future youth intake for a particular club based on this test is futile. The test I did does not describe the situation at a certain club but refers to a large number of players and clubs and to certain specific conditions.

Edited December 11, 2020 by GreenTriangle

[Wolf_pd]

@shwanko  looking at the method to determine youth rating, you use a different method to SI. It is very much possible the outcomes differ. That doesn't mean SI does it wrong, SI does it right, you do it wrong or do it right. Correcting many mistakes as you mention in the title, is a bit of a misnomer. So do you mind if I change that part of the title?

[Handyfernandy]

On 11/12/2020 at 01:31, shwanko said:

yes all of them changed 

Indonesia - from 56 to  75

Malaysia - from 35 to  71

Singapore - from 35 to  77

San Marino - from 29 to 46

which is important bcz there are way less inferior countries who should be losing 4-0 or 5-0 to them but FM make them almost same range 

was trying to keep the scale valid all over the rating 

Wow, i love to try your works. tks for your great job

[Longhorn]

In my years of playing FM I normally have a save playing as an MLS club as well as the US Men's National Team.  My play style is to develop young players so each save will cover several game years.  Naturally I examine each year's crop of US newgens and speaking about the newgens developed in the US the most you can reasonably expect to see is a very few players with a PA of 130 generated.  Contrast this with players that are entered into the database by humans who have scouting knowledge of some sort to rate the real life players and you will note a wide discrepancy.  The game will not generate players like Christian Pulisic (PA 170), Weston McKennie (158), Tyler Adams (150), Josh Sargent (146), Giovanni Reyna(162), and several young players still in MLS with PA in the 150 range.  It seems to me that this discrepancy should demonstrate that the newgen system produces unrealistic results, at least for the US.  The humans that enter real players into the database do better, but even then there are some curiosities.  Reggie Cannon went from 119 while at FC Dallas in the 2019 database to 130 in 2021 (he now plays for Boavista). Chris Richards was listed in the 2019 database as 137 while he was essentially on a long term trial from the FC Dallas Academy to Bayern Munich, but in the 2021 database he shows as 158.  Brenden Aaronson was listed at 107 while at Philadelphia in 2019, but now shows as 150 since his transfer to RB Salzburg.  Because of this discrepancy I now normally adjust the newgen rating for the US with each new version of FM, and even with the newgen PA set to 150 I don't see the type of players generated that we see in real life, although the game will produce newgens that top out at about 139 rather than 130 with the vanilla settings.  It should also be noted that simply changing the newgen rating does not guarantee a competitive group of players when viewed at the global level since many other factors affect the newgens, such as facilities, staff, and reputations, and that is as it probably should be, but I do agree that the newgen system needs some work.

[shwanko]

On 10/12/2020 at 19:57, freddieos said:

Thanks for posting the country breakdown in the original post.

I'm a bit worried about the game producing too many players with high Potential Ability with this mod. I mean, you have upgraded New Zealand to 88 rating - same as Sweden has by default. And Tunisia to 122 - same as Holland by default. Doesn't seem right to me.

Have you run a test over say 10 years+?

well how Sweden will produce another Ibra with a pathetic 88 rating when Iraq in default is 106 !! if Iraq is 106 sure Sweden should be more .. 

Sweden ranking averaged 22.. they had some decent sides and great quality players .. is normal to see more quality coming from them.. if FM thought IRAQ is 106 then sure Sweden need to produce more and be higher  

[shwanko]

On 10/12/2020 at 20:46, Bigpole said:

probably not, I guess the author doesn't have a clue what Nation Youth Rating means and what it covers. 

I understand what it is .. and is not only factor but main one 

[shwanko]

On 11/12/2020 at 01:12, Captain Krakatoa said:

Don't want to be rude or anything

but in my bare eyes, what the author doing is increasing all nations youth rating.

Wouldn't this make some imbalance in the save world after says like 10 years?

no ..I making distance between nations fair .. is not my mistakes SI make IRAQ better than Sweden .. Egypte better than Portugal or England ..

If you noticed I lowered Egypt from 138 to 125 .. but yes increased others and lowered others .. the whole idea was to spread them by what ranking is saying 

is not my fault SI lowered rating of countries stronger than iraq or egypt .. is natural to fix what SI missed 

[shwanko]

On 11/12/2020 at 08:25, Bigpole said:

My bet is that the author thinks that nation youth rating should be based on fifa ranking because it is a measure of 'country strength'. I could agree with some ratings for some countries and changing them (and just leaving it there). But completely changing every country (and by changing the author meant boosting youth rating value in every country I guess by 20/30/40%), means that you'll get a massive influx of wonderkids in every country. Which will imbalance the game in about 5-10 years I guess.

The author saying the nation youth ranking is(was) very subjective. So this file supposed to make it more fair by boosting all nations artificially because there's no much difference between Turkey players, Uruguay players and for example Belgian players (in their respective countries/leagues). 

My suggestion is for the author to browse the forum and check what nation youth rating covers because that was explained more than few times and THEN make a file with his 'suggestions' (which are not subjective of course, because SI's values are, according to the author), and test the file before the release, at least till year 2030-40.

I doubt Si tested it tbh 

and I doubt SI used any system when value it 

is not first time I release this patch !!! I do it every year in FMscout .. although many thought it will produce more quality initally but none said so by actual playing it , you  just guessing and am working with logic .. if SI think Egypt quality is 138 , why is problem England 120 and Portugal should be higher?!! I actually lowered Egypt rating. 

[shwanko]

On 11/12/2020 at 11:31, GreenTriangle said:

It depends on what is meant by wonderkid. I made a test. I created 12 identical leagues, each with 12 identical teams. I set absolutely all parameters to average. Then I experimented with a single parameter (Youth rating), initially set to 100 and changed to 50 or 150. What are the test results?

Frequency (%) of players (newgens received at youth intake) with a certain PA :

Of course, the players' PA at youth intake is higher for YR 150. But it's very high, huge? Not. As a term of comparison, the top 20 seniors generated (with "add players to playable teams") for each of the respective clubs have an average AP of about 100. This means that even at a Youth rating of 150 most of the youth generated (about 90%) will have a lower AP than the middle level senior players. As for the more special players ... let's admit that "wonderkid" means "player with a PA at least equal to an important player in the top 6 teams in the Premier League". In this case the effect of the forced increase of the PA is negligible. No hordes of wonderkids are generated.

Okay, is there a problem? No ... and yes. No, because absolutely all clubs will generate players with a slightly higher PA. There will be no a major advantage for the human player, except for those who hunt wonderkids. They will find - maybe - 20 players instead of 5 or 10 ... but this for every 1000 newgens. And yes, there is a problem because the change of Youth rating does not affect the CA. Clubs will receive players like slightly higher PA ... but with the same CA as now. Small clubs do not have facilities, so they will not be able to develop their players. Instead, the big clubs will have an advantage because they will be able to buy cheap players with a slightly higher potential and will be able to train them properly.

Note: any attempt to estimate the PA of future youth intake for a particular club based on this test is futile. The test I did does not describe the situation at a certain club but refers to a large number of players and clubs and to certain specific conditions.

interesting info.. cheers mate 

and agree with you 

[shwanko]

On 11/12/2020 at 20:43, Wolf_pd said:

@shwanko  looking at the method to determine youth rating, you use a different method to SI. It is very much possible the outcomes differ. That doesn't mean SI does it wrong, SI does it right, you do it wrong or do it right. Correcting many mistakes as you mention in the title, is a bit of a misnomer. So do you mind if I change that part of the title?

there doesn't seem to  be any system used by SI to value it and tbh you can't value it by any other objective system other than FIFA Ranking .. SI has strong DB team which rate every single player and country ... but who is controlling the overall global values? most probably head of team and one or two of his assistant who just set and decide.

there is no logic that can explain how Egypt is 138 and England is 120 and poor Portugal full of talents are 114 .. trust me there is no system ... just 2-3 people deciding values as they want with no tests on how it goes   

Is what am proposing perfect? Sure not ?!! and am try to make it better every year by playing with curves to add more advantages for countries in South America and Europe bzc they play tougher matches so ranking is not fair to them. 

But at least make more sense than what Si is awarding at the moment.  

[shwanko]

9 hours ago, Handyfernandy said:

Wow, i love to try your works. tks for your great job

cheers mate .. 

I do it every year but never posted her but Fmscout .. 

have plans in future to revise it more especially correlation curves for South America and Europe  and feedbacks will help sure 

[Bigpole]

13 minutes ago, shwanko said:

I understand what it is .. and is not only factor but main one 

What factor? I'm not talking about what covers youth intakes, i'm talking about what stands behind the values for each country. And for your information it's not only 'how many players have come from this country and eventually become good'. 

 

7 minutes ago, shwanko said:

I doubt Si tested it tbh 

and I doubt SI used any system when value it 

is not first time I release this patch !!! I do it every year in FMscout .. although many thought it will produce more quality initally but none said so by actual playing it , you  just guessing and am working with logic .. if SI think Egypt quality is 138 , why is problem England 120 and Portugal should be higher?!! I actually lowered Egypt rating. 

Are you really suggesting that SI haven't tested thoroughly the main thing that helps determining the 'basic quality' of youth in every country? I've said earlier, I'm not a fan of some of the ratings either, but to change this drastically as you did won't be 'recommended' for any long save. And if you'd had the title - here's my ratings, they are based on countries performance in relation to fifa/elo rankings - that'd be okay, because it's your version/vision of how these values are set (or should be set). But in the title, you have 'correcting many mistakes', which is pretty big statement really. I don't like judging people's work, as long as it's reasonable and within creator's vision which he expresses (by saying it's fantasy or 'close to the reality'). Yours it's a bad mix-up of both.

[Robbles Quin ®™]

in my opinion, it should not be based solely off current rankings. If i was the one at SI looking at and trying to figure this out, I would use the rankings of the past 20 years as a guide. at least enough for a full generation of players. not only that i would look at advancements in the top league of those countries. I.e (have clubs developed better facilities). the average level of a player in those countries etc.)  if we look solely at a league for example you can this example from the J league in Japan. 

There are 4 stages in which the league as a whole and every single club in the top 3 teams are graded, how they improved and why.

Stage 1: Marketing, Average Attendance, Stadium Capacity Utilization Ratio, Ratio of new spectators to total attendance, and Average revenue per spectator. (YES they look for ways to gain new supporters and make them spend more)

Stage2: Efficiency, Wage bill per point won and matchday revenue per point won (this means, how much are these teams spending vs the other teams.

Stage 3: Management, Wage bill to total revenue, social media following, social media follower fluctuation and profits from merchandise sales (This looks at the effects on how each team uses social media to gain new spectators and how that correlates toteams having more money to spend)

and Stage 4: Revenue, Year on Year revenue and Equity Ratio (club finances, stability, growth and potential)

 

The second photo explains Yokohama F.M after they were acquired by the City Football Group and how the club has improved and why. it even explains how the Youth System has improved as a result. 

 

SI inflates some of these numbers because the amount of players who actually play/simulate leagues like brazil or sweeden would be very small to lets say the UK/France/Germany and spain. that means countries that are not simulated have less regens and less regens correlate to a weaker national team. but its brazil so to counter this happening, they have stronger but lesser regens. not saying its realistic, but its much better than just using the rankings as a guide. leagues should definitely play a bigger part in the scores. 

welcome to say i am just speaking ***** BTW.

[Bigpole]

1 hour ago, Robbles Quin ®™ said:

in my opinion, it should not be based solely off current rankings. If i was the one at SI looking at and trying to figure this out, I would use the rankings of the past 20 years as a guide. at least enough for a full generation of players. not only that i would look at advancements in the top league of those countries. I.e (have clubs developed better facilities). the average level of a player in those countries etc.)  if we look solely at a league for example you can this example from the J league in Japan. 

There are 4 stages in which the league as a whole and every single club in the top 3 teams are graded, how they improved and why.

Stage 1: Marketing, Average Attendance, Stadium Capacity Utilization Ratio, Ratio of new spectators to total attendance, and Average revenue per spectator. (YES they look for ways to gain new supporters and make them spend more)

Stage2: Efficiency, Wage bill per point won and matchday revenue per point won (this means, how much are these teams spending vs the other teams.

Stage 3: Management, Wage bill to total revenue, social media following, social media follower fluctuation and profits from merchandise sales (This looks at the effects on how each team uses social media to gain new spectators and how that correlates toteams having more money to spend)

and Stage 4: Revenue, Year on Year revenue and Equity Ratio (club finances, stability, growth and potential)

 

The second photo explains Yokohama F.M after they were acquired by the City Football Group and how the club has improved and why. it even explains how the Youth System has improved as a result. 

 

SI inflates some of these numbers because the amount of players who actually play/simulate leagues like brazil or sweeden would be very small to lets say the UK/France/Germany and spain. that means countries that are not simulated have less regens and less regens correlate to a weaker national team. but its brazil so to counter this happening, they have stronger but lesser regens. not saying its realistic, but its much better than just using the rankings as a guide. leagues should definitely play a bigger part in the scores. 

welcome to say i am just speaking ***** BTW.

 

1. It's not based solely on rankings (that's a free tip for any of you reading the thread)

2. SI's way of calculating the ranking in my opinion, should be something like fixed value and other values that represents something. And all these values have an effect on newgens in this country. 

3. Marketing, Attendance, Finances should be taken care of clubs, not the nation or government. And yes, basic rules for everybody and how certain aspects of club management should be mandatory but in the end it is (and should be) up to clubs whether they want to keep it basic or evolve a certain way of 'acquiring' clients(in our case fans).

4. Pointless really to post the photo in Japanese, because only you and maybe few other people would understand this.

5. Saying that SI artificially up the numbers because some leagues (countries) are more popular than other is just complete and utter nonsense (to put it lightly). Your theory is just a load of bollocks without any proof and support, so for you and other people astounded by this theory I'm gonna explain this to you (and other people that reach this part of my response).

It may come as a surprise to you but you don't need leagues to be active to have matches and competitions played everywhere in the world. Matches are played everywhere, every-time, whether or not you want it or like it. Newgens are created each year in every country, and they are created based on youth rating for the nation, youth coaching and facilities of that nation's club and few other factors. The number of newgens in each country is related to size of loaded database because the game tries to keep the number of players around the same. So any claims that SI wants to balance the world by increasing/lowering something is straight up horsesh***.

It's not your fault that you don't know some aspects of the game. But spreading false informations is just way off beam. 

[CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon]

A lot of interesting work here.

I'm always torn between realistic adjustment based on parameters like these or playing vanilla. I think this year I need to embrace this from the start.

 

[shwanko]

21 hours ago, Bigpole said:

What factor? I'm not talking about what covers youth intakes, i'm talking about what stands behind the values for each country. And for your information it's not only 'how many players have come from this country and eventually become good'. 

 

Are you really suggesting that SI haven't tested thoroughly the main thing that helps determining the 'basic quality' of youth in every country? I've said earlier, I'm not a fan of some of the ratings either, but to change this drastically as you did won't be 'recommended' for any long save. And if you'd had the title - here's my ratings, they are based on countries performance in relation to fifa/elo rankings - that'd be okay, because it's your version/vision of how these values are set (or should be set). But in the title, you have 'correcting many mistakes', which is pretty big statement really. I don't like judging people's work, as long as it's reasonable and within creator's vision which he expresses (by saying it's fantasy or 'close to the reality'). Yours it's a bad mix-up of both.

yes ... I suggest that SI did it without an objective methodology ..

I did my PHD working with numbers and statistics .. when I see stats I see patterns straightaway ..  and aside from FIFA ranking I see no other route unless subjective evaluation which will vary from one person to another 

I challenge SI to come out and say what methodology they used .. and I will guaranty to u it was subjective 

numbers are my game thanks to my scientific background working with DATA while doing my PHD 

there is no methodology that let Egypt 138 in rating and Portugal 114 !! is simply chaos bcz it is sadly subjective method what SI used. 

Edited December 13, 2020 by shwanko

[shwanko]

20 hours ago, Robbles Quin ®™ said:

in my opinion, it should not be based solely off current rankings. If i was the one at SI looking at and trying to figure this out, I would use the rankings of the past 20 years as a guide. at least enough for a full generation of players. not only that i would look at advancements in the top league of those countries. I.e (have clubs developed better facilities). the average level of a player in those countries etc.)  if we look solely at a league for example you can this example from the J league in Japan. 

There are 4 stages in which the league as a whole and every single club in the top 3 teams are graded, how they improved and why.

Stage 1: Marketing, Average Attendance, Stadium Capacity Utilization Ratio, Ratio of new spectators to total attendance, and Average revenue per spectator. (YES they look for ways to gain new supporters and make them spend more)

Stage2: Efficiency, Wage bill per point won and matchday revenue per point won (this means, how much are these teams spending vs the other teams.

Stage 3: Management, Wage bill to total revenue, social media following, social media follower fluctuation and profits from merchandise sales (This looks at the effects on how each team uses social media to gain new spectators and how that correlates toteams having more money to spend)

and Stage 4: Revenue, Year on Year revenue and Equity Ratio (club finances, stability, growth and potential)

 

The second photo explains Yokohama F.M after they were acquired by the City Football Group and how the club has improved and why. it even explains how the Youth System has improved as a result. 

 

SI inflates some of these numbers because the amount of players who actually play/simulate leagues like brazil or sweeden would be very small to lets say the UK/France/Germany and spain. that means countries that are not simulated have less regens and less regens correlate to a weaker national team. but its brazil so to counter this happening, they have stronger but lesser regens. not saying its realistic, but its much better than just using the rankings as a guide. leagues should definitely play a bigger part in the scores. 

welcome to say i am just speaking ***** BTW.

this is exactly what I used not over past 20 years but 28 years dear .. this is why I said average rating 

I disagree with your Yokohama F.M example, stronger clubs who will encourage their youth ranking and invest on it will attract better  players and improve training facilities ..

City and Chelsea are examples of that too 

Meanwhile, you are talking about progressing from CA to reach PA faster ..

Youth rating will generate PA not CA so what you mentioned above is not relevant to PA but more towards improving faster from player CA to PA.

players generated who join City or chelsea would had joined UTD Or Arsenal anyway but picked those 2 bcz their training facility and financial backing then sure improve faster towards their PA.

but as what you mentioned is not PA but how improving CA faster 

let us take case of Japan,

I remember during 80 and 90s they were average. 

but they start bringing famous players and make league more interesting, and improving training facilities and quality of coachs, what happened next is football become more popular so more are coming into the game thus sure increase quality and with good coaching and training facilities they are reaching PA faster 

My patch corrected Football popularity in each country and  youth rating. am dealing with PA not CA so didn't touched training facilities for example.  

 

[shwanko]

2 hours ago, CoffeeFueledCurmudgeon said:

A lot of interesting work here.

I'm always torn between realistic adjustment based on parameters like these or playing vanilla. I think this year I need to embrace this from the start.

 

LOL ..why not mate .. is personal choices and tastes 

 

[Bigpole]

2 hours ago, shwanko said:

yes ... I suggest that SI did it without an objective methodology ..

I did my PHD working with numbers and statistics .. when I see stats I see patterns straightaway ..  and aside from FIFA ranking I see no other route unless subjective evaluation which will vary from one person to another 

I challenge SI to come out and say what methodology they used .. and I will guaranty to u it was subjective 

numbers are my game thanks to my scientific background working with DATA while doing my PHD 

there is no methodology that let Egypt 138 in rating and Portugal 114 !! is simply chaos bcz it is sadly subjective method what SI used. 

I told you once, now I'll told you the last time - youth nation rating IS NOT BASED ONLY ON FIFA RANKING/COUNTRY STRENGTH. Check what the youth ranking covers and come back with better response, because I feel like I'm wasting my time.

[feche]

This looks good but the numbers are all really high. If you downgrade everyone by 10-15 points, this will be awesome but like this it will make the game easily overloaded with godlike newgens

[GreenTriangle]

On 12/12/2020 at 23:18, shwanko said:

well how Sweden will produce another Ibra with a pathetic 88 rating when Iraq in default is 106 !! if Iraq is 106 sure Sweden should be more .. 

Sweden ranking averaged 22.. they had some decent sides and great quality players .. is normal to see more quality coming from them.. if FM thought IRAQ is 106 then sure Sweden need to produce more and be higher  

Sweden can produce another Ibra at any time, even with a 88 youth rating. This because players born in Sweden but selected for youth intake in another country benefit from the youth rating of the country of adoption. They don't even need to be citizens of that country. It can be easily demonstrated. It is known that English clubs receive many players from Wales and Northern Ireland for youth intake. Theoretically these players should be much weaker than their English colleagues. Are they much weaker? No, because they are created considering the rating of England, not that of Wales or Northern Ireland. This is also true for African or Caribbean players. On the other hand, the number of clubs that generate players is very important. One is to generate 2 or 3 players for each youth intake and another is to generate 20 or 30. The Iraqi and Egyptian leagues generate (if not selected) a maximum of 3-4 players. The Northern Ireland League generates maybe 5-6 players ... but in addition to these, another 20 players with relatively high potential are generated in the youth intake of English clubs. Who will produce more good players? Iraq or Northern Ireland ?

 

[bazhsw]

Putting a data head on, I'd be mindful of saying this approach is scientific, unlike SI's model which is subjective (it may be, I don't know).

Taking a 30 year average runs a risk of flattening out variation and peaks and troughs in a rating.  It is entirely conceivable, nay predictable to expect any nations rating to fluctuate in shorter periods (think economic hardship, political instability, wealth of country, population, investment in football pre and post tournaments).

I think it is okay to say, 'I have modelled this on a 30 year average of FIFA rankings' and let people decide if it's for them but the rankings are not indicative of a nation's relative youth intake.

 

A few points to consider;

 

a) a particularly good manager can significantly influence the nation's ranking, sometimes for a decade or so - they will have no bearing on the youth rating.

b) very few players will break through to the national team in a given youth intake.  From a data perspective letting the actions of a very small sample influence the youth intake for a nation seems off.

c) as @GreenTriangle pointed out, a player's development may have occurred elsewhere

 

It seems arbitrary also.  Seeing as the FIFA rankings are based on very few games played by very few players.  You wouldn't do this based on 'goals scored by nation' in a period but the FIFA rankings are not much better.

 

I think we all recognise that a nation higher in the rankings will have a better youth intake and football infrastructure than one lower, we recognise Brazil produces better players than Kiribati but at best I think your ranking is an indicator of youth football infrastructure and the relationship is not as direct as you think.  Correlation is not causation.

 

Anyway, I don't want to dump on your work and I hope you and others find this a better way of playing the game.  I'd just be mindful that if we are using terms like 'realistic' or 'correcting mistakes' or invoking data science / analysis thinking that there is a sound evidence base for doing so, especially as there are lots of people modding away, striving for realism and, or depth who have thought long and hard about their underpinning thinking to get a more immersive experience.

[shwanko]

On 13/12/2020 at 21:30, Bigpole said:

I told you once, now I'll told you the last time - youth nation rating IS NOT BASED ONLY ON FIFA RANKING/COUNTRY STRENGTH. Check what the youth ranking covers and come back with better response, because I feel like I'm wasting my time.

u keep talking but not explaining ?!! 

either u reply with details and have a discussion or not !?!!

am not saying youth rating = FIFA Ranking !!! for million time is not !!

what am saying tho is an indication .. actually only objective refence we can have .. and challenged you to give am another objective method .. you couldn't !! 

either you have and mention it and we discuss it or no need to talk nonsense

you adding nothing to discussion or helping me or guide me when u offer nothing ?!! 

collect ur thoughts and let us have an objective discussion so I can correct mistakes bcz I know myself FIFA ranking is not youth rating, but is only objective indication we can base ourself upon.. sure youth rating and players generated can't flip FIFA ranking and at least be parallel to it  

[shwanko]

On 13/12/2020 at 23:49, feche said:

This looks good but the numbers are all really high. If you downgrade everyone by 10-15 points, this will be awesome but like this it will make the game easily overloaded with godlike newgens

I followed FM SI rating trying to keep highest (brazil) and lowest and keep countries in middle (ex: IRAQ) in same region  

But totally agree.. I think problem is with Brazil raring 163 !! is ridiculous and I think is what has pushed all below higher .. 

will work on a 2nd Patch where I will lower Brazil to something like 150  and restructure the rest based on that 

I totally agree with ur suggestion mate .. Thanks for feedback 

[shwanko]

On 14/12/2020 at 05:32, GreenTriangle said:

Sweden can produce another Ibra at any time, even with a 88 youth rating. This because players born in Sweden but selected for youth intake in another country benefit from the youth rating of the country of adoption. They don't even need to be citizens of that country. It can be easily demonstrated. It is known that English clubs receive many players from Wales and Northern Ireland for youth intake. Theoretically these players should be much weaker than their English colleagues. Are they much weaker? No, because they are created considering the rating of England, not that of Wales or Northern Ireland. This is also true for African or Caribbean players. On the other hand, the number of clubs that generate players is very important. One is to generate 2 or 3 players for each youth intake and another is to generate 20 or 30. The Iraqi and Egyptian leagues generate (if not selected) a maximum of 3-4 players. The Northern Ireland League generates maybe 5-6 players ... but in addition to these, another 20 players with relatively high potential are generated in the youth intake of English clubs. Who will produce more good players? Iraq or Northern Ireland ?

 

this is where you are wrong .. Ibra is a graduate from Sweden academies till age 18 ... meaning with current FM setting , Sweden will never have another Ibra..

Sweden is a country that produced many quality players .. not only Ibra .. they finished top 4 there  times in world cup before 1950 and finished 3rd at world cup in 90s and always a hard team to beat 

[shwanko]

On 14/12/2020 at 07:15, bazhsw said:

Putting a data head on, I'd be mindful of saying this approach is scientific, unlike SI's model which is subjective (it may be, I don't know).

Taking a 30 year average runs a risk of flattening out variation and peaks and troughs in a rating.  It is entirely conceivable, nay predictable to expect any nations rating to fluctuate in shorter periods (think economic hardship, political instability, wealth of country, population, investment in football pre and post tournaments).

I think it is okay to say, 'I have modelled this on a 30 year average of FIFA rankings' and let people decide if it's for them but the rankings are not indicative of a nation's relative youth intake.

 

A few points to consider;

 

a) a particularly good manager can significantly influence the nation's ranking, sometimes for a decade or so - they will have no bearing on the youth rating.

b) very few players will break through to the national team in a given youth intake.  From a data perspective letting the actions of a very small sample influence the youth intake for a nation seems off.

c) as @GreenTriangle pointed out, a player's development may have occurred elsewhere

 

It seems arbitrary also.  Seeing as the FIFA rankings are based on very few games played by very few players.  You wouldn't do this based on 'goals scored by nation' in a period but the FIFA rankings are not much better.

 

I think we all recognise that a nation higher in the rankings will have a better youth intake and football infrastructure than one lower, we recognise Brazil produces better players than Kiribati but at best I think your ranking is an indicator of youth football infrastructure and the relationship is not as direct as you think.  Correlation is not causation.

 

Anyway, I don't want to dump on your work and I hope you and others find this a better way of playing the game.  I'd just be mindful that if we are using terms like 'realistic' or 'correcting mistakes' or invoking data science / analysis thinking that there is a sound evidence base for doing so, especially as there are lots of people modding away, striving for realism and, or depth who have thought long and hard about their underpinning thinking to get a more immersive experience.

great feedback mate 

regarding your points

a- agree good manager can increase football popularity thus more players roasters, thus more players with PA than just handful one  

b- youth rating will generate PA , that won't guaranty they will break through to the national team sure. it will depend on many other factors to raise CA enough to be picked.

C- player development is CA .. youth rating is PA .. this is why we are talking about 2 different things here. 

 

agree on some points u raised.. imo SI need to enhanced variation and style of players .. so youth intake are reflection on style of football in some countries . 

therefore while Brazilian will be more technically biased , some like Sweden or Iraq will be more about physical and crossing , headers ..etc.. while countries like Japan or Korea more about pace and quick fluid passing ...etc

at the moment SI don't offer that . 

and I think they should 

 

thanks for feedback 

[Bigpole]

5 hours ago, shwanko said:

u keep talking but not explaining ?!! 

either u reply with details and have a discussion or not !?!!

am not saying youth rating = FIFA Ranking !!! for million time is not !!

what am saying tho is an indication .. actually only objective refence we can have .. and challenged you to give am another objective method .. you couldn't !! 

either you have and mention it and we discuss it or no need to talk nonsense

you adding nothing to discussion or helping me or guide me when u offer nothing ?!! 

collect ur thoughts and let us have an objective discussion so I can correct mistakes bcz I know myself FIFA ranking is not youth rating, but is only objective indication we can base ourself upon.. sure youth rating and players generated can't flip FIFA ranking and at least be parallel to it  

1. It's a download thread not a discussion. It's up to creator (in this case You) to find correct data, you have search option and putting few words like I don't know - nation youth rating should give you desired results.

2. You're not saying (right now) that youth rating is fifa ranking but your first sentence in opening post says otherwise. Poor choice of words my friend.

Quote

This is correcting all Youth rating for new gen players following an objective approach that uses FIFA ranking average over last 28 years to determinate how good each nation area producing quality players.  

3. I could help you, within few minutes really but I engage you to read few posts from SI Staff in threads where the discussion was. I get your frustration, because I have/had my own problems with editor in general (with recreating lower leagues to be specific). As I've said earlier, I agree that some values are too good or too bad. But you can't change it drastically like you did because it will create a pool with overpowered players. In countries outside europe there are many academies/clubs that are good enough to produce quality players so removing the ceiling (assuming that PA is the ceiling) will just generate tons of 160-170PA players which is simply not accurate. The values we have now (with maybe slight fixes to more than few countries) are pretty accurate and what I'd change is facilities and coaching/recruitment in these countries. 

[GreenTriangle]

18 hours ago, shwanko said:

this is where you are wrong .. Ibra is a graduate from Sweden academies till age 18 ... meaning with current FM setting , Sweden will never have another Ibra..

Sweden is a country that produced many quality players .. not only Ibra .. they finished top 4 there  times in world cup before 1950 and finished 3rd at world cup in 90s and always a hard team to beat 

What's the difference between
- 1. Ibra, born in Malmo, junior player in Malmo (by the way, FBK Balkan is not really an academy) and professional player for Malmo FF, and
- 2. "Virtual Ibra", born in Malmo, junior player in Malmo  ... but who became a professional player in Gelsenkirchen? Is "Virtual Ibra" not Swedish? Is not produced by Sweden? Can't he be a key player in a very competitive Swedish national team?
On the other hand ... the fact that the frequency in the predefined database is lower does not mean "no Swedish wonderkids at Swedish clubs". It means that the number of wonderkids born in Sweden and selected by Swedish clubs is not very large. And a major increase in youth rating does not generate countless wonderkids. Generates many more mid-level players with slightly higher PA.

[shwanko]

I revised rating by lowering higher end which I kept as SI done for Brazil 163 to 150

and rescale everything back to minimize chances of world class players ..

I think SI gone over board with Brazil rating is ridiculous and dragged everything up 

will post new file for download next Friday as am busy at work  

[shwanko]

On 20/12/2020 at 22:32, Bigpole said:

1. It's a download thread not a discussion. It's up to creator (in this case You) to find correct data, you have search option and putting few words like I don't know - nation youth rating should give you desired results.

2. You're not saying (right now) that youth rating is fifa ranking but your first sentence in opening post says otherwise. Poor choice of words my friend.

3. I could help you, within few minutes really but I engage you to read few posts from SI Staff in threads where the discussion was. I get your frustration, because I have/had my own problems with editor in general (with recreating lower leagues to be specific). As I've said earlier, I agree that some values are too good or too bad. But you can't change it drastically like you did because it will create a pool with overpowered players. In countries outside europe there are many academies/clubs that are good enough to produce quality players so removing the ceiling (assuming that PA is the ceiling) will just generate tons of 160-170PA players which is simply not accurate. The values we have now (with maybe slight fixes to more than few countries) are pretty accurate and what I'd change is facilities and coaching/recruitment in these countries. 

it is data editor hideaway .. so comments are important,.. many others did useful comments and now have amended rating accordingly  and will post new download soon 

meanwhile ur reply is not helping mate  .. there is no rules that says download is not a discussion area too , bcz we need to improve the file and we can't do that without discussion. 

you still don't offer an alternative method .. and you welcome to do so.

and nothing wrong with my choose of words !!! to say football is not popular in Nigeria or middle east can only come from someone who never been there .. I fixed those mistakes in regards football popularity ..

I run game for some years with old file and it did increase world class players by 3 times .. but that was not my fault .. is SI bcz they made Brazil 163 in rating .. my mistake is I kept both high and low ends same and rescaled ..

new file lowered Brazil now, so fixed SI exaggerated rating of Brazil and rescaled everything back and am testing for years now and seem getting almsot same amount of wonder kids like it was with SI rating but spread more accurately

u welcome anytime with feedback and I will appreciate it  bzc at end we want a better experience at the end. 

kind Regards

[shwanko]

On 21/12/2020 at 11:27, GreenTriangle said:

What's the difference between
- 1. Ibra, born in Malmo, junior player in Malmo (by the way, FBK Balkan is not really an academy) and professional player for Malmo FF, and
- 2. "Virtual Ibra", born in Malmo, junior player in Malmo  ... but who became a professional player in Gelsenkirchen? Is "Virtual Ibra" not Swedish? Is not produced by Sweden? Can't he be a key player in a very competitive Swedish national team?
On the other hand ... the fact that the frequency in the predefined database is lower does not mean "no Swedish wonderkids at Swedish clubs". It means that the number of wonderkids born in Sweden and selected by Swedish clubs is not very large. And a major increase in youth rating does not generate countless wonderkids. Generates many more mid-level players with slightly higher PA.

sure Ibra career blossomed in Ajax at 19. this is what had pushed his CA towards his higher PA

PA is distributed randomly by SI around that youth rating so is not mid-levels players, you will see more jumps up or down, so you will definitely have new Ibras ready with correct league and opportunities .  when I run the game I seen player in Swiss at age of 16 with PA 188 when I awarded them just 127. So there is a strong factor of randomness up and down that value.  

What you discussed is factor or clubs/league/ coaching/ training facilities/ academy on progress from CA to PA .. and we agree in that case here 

 

[shwanko]

will post new revised youth rating once testing is finished 

so far results of no. world class players is more close to what SI is using ,.. is easier now to compare with Scout genie is out 

[Jimbokav1971]

I don't offer venture into this sub-forum, (because I'm not an experienced Editor myself), but this is an area that interests me as I often play Youth Only saves and I have reservations about how the system is currently working in FM21. . 

@shwankoI appreciate what you are trying to do and I would admit that my own personal feeling is that Youth Rating should be a fluid value within the game, (as you suggest), and I have also thought that the only way to do it would be via FIFA ranking/coefficient or something similar. 

The very significant problem, (that @Bigpolehas been trying to make without success it seems), is that by linking it only to FIFA rankings, you ignore the other areas that SI have included to come up with these ratings in the 1st place. You in effect limit the scope of what contributes to the Youth Rating, (and I don't think many people would argue with you that it needs work), but you are in effect skewing the results even further. 

I for example am managing in Gibraltar at the moment. They haven't been a member of FIFA for 28 years so what are you using for their value? The same goes for other Nations who have been welcomed into FIFA within the last 28 years. 

You asked what areas SI consider in order to determine their "subjective" rating system, (and of course it is subjective), but the problem with your system is that where SI has considered many different areas, (such as population, wealth or game importance for example), you have chosen to ignore them completely. I would suggest that this makes your system even more subjective than the SI system because you are simply discarding areas that have previously contributed to the decision making process. 

I can see that this has been a project of yours for years, (and I applaud you), but I think you really need to find the other factors that SI use to determine Youth Rating and you need to also include these in your system. You've effectively been doing the same thing for 4-5 years with the exception that you now use an average rating over the last 28 years in some cases. Many people have told you of the flaws in your system, (and how twinned with the game importance attribute it is going to skew the results), but you don't seem interested in listening. 

With respect, you know that the FIFA ratings don't work on their own and that's why you have to add further edits to balance things up, but what you consider in making these final edits seems to be anyone's guess. What you've basically done is reduced the margin between the best and the worst, (just because it seemed wrong to you), and while the current system certainly isn't 100% accurate, your new system is no more accurate. It's just different. 

@shwankoin your response to the comments by @GreenTriangleI think there is a lack of understanding somewhere as to what is and what isn't possible within the current system. You think that with the current system, another "Ibra" coming through as a Swedish Newgen is not possible. 

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You need to be careful with what you think and what you know, because some people believe what they read. 

Just to prove my point I have looked in my current game, (I'm in May 2040), and I have looked for a Nation who have a lower Youth Rating than Sweden and who have produced a player of similar PA to Zlatan. 

Kang Chol-Ryong is a 29 yo Worldclass GK from North Korea. His PA is 185 and his CA is 185.

North Korea have a Youth Rating of 84 in the game I think. 

Sweden by comparison have a Youth rating of 88 in the game.

I don't want to post a picture of the top players in my game ranked by PA because there is still at least 1 real player on the list, but your main reason for doing what you are doing is that you don't want to see loads of amazing high PA Brazilians coming through and ruining the game. From my point of view, I think I want to see fewer high PA English players coming through. 

Keeping in mind that neither the Brazilian nor English structures are active, there are 4 ENG players in the top 17 players in my game, (with 3 more with ENG as a 2nd Nationality), compared to just 1 single player from Brazil. 

Your system is going to make this situation worse rather than better because while BRA remains the same at 163, ENG has been boosted from 120 to 150. I understand that this doesn't make sense to you, but that's because you are not incorporating the other factors, (and game importance), in your thinking. If I use your system in my game, I am going to get more high PA ENG players and if anything I want fewer. (I'm using them as an example because it's popular opinion that the ENG National team over-perform in the game relative to real life). 

I hope that it's a little more clear now why the likes of @Bigpoleand myself have serious reservations about your new system. 

Good luck with your project,  but I think the majority of experienced players are going to be turned off your system 

Edited December 22, 2020 by Jimbokav1971

[shwanko]

15 hours ago, Jimbokav1971 said:

I don't offer venture into this sub-forum, (because I'm not an experienced Editor myself), but this is an area that interests me as I often play Youth Only saves and I have reservations about how the system is currently working in FM21. . 

@shwankoI appreciate what you are trying to do and I would admit that my own personal feeling is that Youth Rating should be a fluid value within the game, (as you suggest), and I have also thought that the only way to do it would be via FIFA ranking/coefficient or something similar. 

The very significant problem, (that @Bigpolehas been trying to make without success it seems), is that by linking it only to FIFA rankings, you ignore the other areas that SI have included to come up with these ratings in the 1st place. You in effect limit the scope of what contributes to the Youth Rating, (and I don't think many people would argue with you that it needs work), but you are in effect skewing the results even further. 

I for example am managing in Gibraltar at the moment. They haven't been a member of FIFA for 28 years so what are you using for their value? The same goes for other Nations who have been welcomed into FIFA within the last 28 years. 

You asked what areas SI consider in order to determine their "subjective" rating system, (and of course it is subjective), but the problem with your system is that where SI has considered many different areas, (such as population, wealth or game importance for example), you have chosen to ignore them completely. I would suggest that this makes your system even more subjective than the SI system because you are simply discarding areas that have previously contributed to the decision making process. 

I can see that this has been a project of yours for years, (and I applaud you), but I think you really need to find the other factors that SI use to determine Youth Rating and you need to also include these in your system. You've effectively been doing the same thing for 4-5 years with the exception that you now use an average rating over the last 28 years in some cases. Many people have told you of the flaws in your system, (and how twinned with the game importance attribute it is going to skew the results), but you don't seem interested in listening. 

With respect, you know that the FIFA ratings don't work on their own and that's why you have to add further edits to balance things up, but what you consider in making these final edits seems to be anyone's guess. What you've basically done is reduced the margin between the best and the worst, (just because it seemed wrong to you), and while the current system certainly isn't 100% accurate, your new system is no more accurate. It's just different. 

@shwankoin your response to the comments by @GreenTriangleI think there is a lack of understanding somewhere as to what is and what isn't possible within the current system. You think that with the current system, another "Ibra" coming through as a Swedish Newgen is not possible. 

I'm sorry, but that's just not true. You need to be careful with what you think and what you know, because some people believe what they read. 

Just to prove my point I have looked in my current game, (I'm in May 2040), and I have looked for a Nation who have a lower Youth Rating than Sweden and who have produced a player of similar PA to Zlatan. 

Kang Chol-Ryong is a 29 yo Worldclass GK from North Korea. His PA is 185 and his CA is 185.

North Korea have a Youth Rating of 84 in the game I think. 

Sweden by comparison have a Youth rating of 88 in the game.

I don't want to post a picture of the top players in my game ranked by PA because there is still at least 1 real player on the list, but your main reason for doing what you are doing is that you don't want to see loads of amazing high PA Brazilians coming through and ruining the game. From my point of view, I think I want to see fewer high PA English players coming through. 

Keeping in mind that neither the Brazilian nor English structures are active, there are 4 ENG players in the top 17 players in my game, (with 3 more with ENG as a 2nd Nationality), compared to just 1 single player from Brazil. 

Your system is going to make this situation worse rather than better because while BRA remains the same at 163, ENG has been boosted from 120 to 150. I understand that this doesn't make sense to you, but that's because you are not incorporating the other factors, (and game importance), in your thinking. If I use your system in my game, I am going to get more high PA ENG players and if anything I want fewer. (I'm using them as an example because it's popular opinion that the ENG National team over-perform in the game relative to real life). 

I hope that it's a little more clear now why the likes of @Bigpoleand myself have serious reservations about your new system. 

Good luck with your project,  but I think the majority of experienced players are going to be turned off your system 

Thanks for feedback mate .. 

I will reply back point by point.

First you mentioned Gibraltar, and countries like those who started later, I took that in consideration so am using it when ranking is stable in this case  is last 3 years which is not 200 average but 195 where you can see curve is stable .. even countries like Iraq or Palstine and others who don't play homes bcz of wars I added extra curves to balance it .. I gave thought on it and not taking average as average but studying each case 

Again I still want a discussion on factors that impact PA with is youth rating Bigpole was referring to was more related to CA than PA. 

you mentioned I ignored other factors like economy.. Economy won't improve football or create more PA .. may be enhance CA .. and this is big MAY BE .. otherwise Canada or US would had been best in world. tbh am not sure how this is a factor, as rich countries kids prefer playing with high tech games while more poor kids choose to play football as they can't afford other toys. go to rich areas and poor area in same country and see who are out of street playing football more. the only factor I take here is how good is their training facilities which is irrelevant factor to economy at least in FM.
Then you mentioned Football popularity, which I already edited and took it in consideration. I said above I changed rating for football popularity which was wrongly set in many countries by SI. EX: football popularity in Nigeria is useless ?!!   

you mentioned population too .. which is sure a factor .. 

 

now the real argument is dose FIFA ranking reflect PA or CA ? my answer is simply CA bcz I think

FIFA RANKING = Youth rating ( PA) + population (amount of players generated) + training facilities (improve CA to reach PA) + football popularity (amount of players generated)
 

Now what I did as explained before I put some curves to correct FIFA ranking according to continent as some are tougher thus harder and each point is harder to get than in other continent 

but in same time, I added more curves to countries in Africa and South America because they have more talented kids but poor facilities , so to say I didn't take that in consideration is wrong. 

I added alots of curves to correct many of factors you mentioned.. yet you talk like I just simply took FIFA ranking and applied it .. which is not the case 

is system prefect? sure not 

is it better or at least more accurate than SI? sure .. you can't argue that Egypt is better than Portugal by 24 points !! or football popularity is useless in Nigeria .. and you can't argue that is well thought concept by SI that had put lots of thoughts on it .. bcz all above shows they didn't

V2 is now lowered brazil rating from 163 to 150 , thus lowering all rating within scale.

Results of amount of PA depend on active leagues too in game and there is big randomness in it. EX: seen swiss player having 188 PA when country was set for 122 .. and 190 for a player in Thailand when their rating is  86. 

As I said, this is not a perfect system, but at least will keep randomness within much more correct scale.

I never simply applied FIFA ranking like brainless person that you try to portrait me !! I added many curves to correct many of factors you mentioned .. lowering continent and increasing others based on each factor mate

 

   

Edited December 23, 2020 by shwanko

[shwanko]

Version 2 is out .. thanks to many feedback and suggestions 

I updated file in link 

[-Jef-]

I think many have apprehension towards this because you say "there are less world class players" and I wish you showed actual data to show how many world class players are in the game by 2030-2035 that are regens. Make 5+ saves and compare it to what SI gives us at the start. I am sure you have done these tests but making it public for people to see would make people try this. 

I tried one of the youth rating improvements last year with my Famalicao save where I had to sign Israeli players and by season 4 I could have 4-5 Israeli starters with PA 150+ which was highly unrealistic and I think many people fear this as well. Not sure whose data file it was but I know it kind of ruined the save and career thread for me.

A lot of factors go into how good a youth intake for a country is and if one of the factors goes neglected and left untouched it throws the whole thing off.