santy001

Members
  • Content count

    4,677
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About santy001

  • Rank
    Stoke City Researcher

Favourite Team

  • Favourite Team
    Stoke City

Recent Profile Visitors

4,826 profile views
  1. If 100 is his potential that's his potential. It's meant to reflect his genetic limits. These limits apply to us in all walks of life. This is the thing, now in my late 20's and never having taken up running, I'm never going to come anywhere near close to what my 100m sprint potential was, but that's never changed. There is a time I could have run 100m at available to me at some point in my life if it had gone differently. Just like there's a maximum potential weight I can lift and so on. The only way to actually increase your "potential" is to go into the realms of doping. Definitely not something that would/should/could be touched by FM. That's what most people don't seem to be accepting, that players just have a limit. At the same time, a player can't ever lose potential. FM does a good job of emulating the aspects of it being too late to actually reach potential, like the goalkeeper @herne79 points out in his post above. That player always had the 195 potential, but he never realised it. That doesn't mean his potential was ever less than 195, it just means he never had the environment to enable him to live up to his potential.
  2. @ilkork The big problem is still in FM, the journey from starting to CA to fulfilling PA is too easy for the right players, and the right players are too easy to identify for human players especially. The rewards for good seasons are already there, acquiring CA, improved reputation, increasing value. I think I've made the point before, but PA should actually be completely hidden from the game, I don't know how they'd do it, but it really shouldn't be visible even the -X numbers we researchers set, if people want to edit it, then in the editor make a field that just overwrites the hidden researcher value. We get potential wrong all the time, its the one area of FM we'll never be able to forecast properly. There are mechanisms, peer reviews of data that help keep things a little more in check... but it's always going to be the area in which there are the most mistakes. But people gravitate towards it so much, when its not the area of the game that actually has the most pressing need for further refinement. There also needs to be a realisation, at any point above 150CA you already have one of the worlds best players. It may not feel like it, especially considering over time the ~150CA players tend to end up becoming your fringe/squad players but that is really the case. I've definitely said it before, but any player over 130CA can cut it, and thrive in the top leagues in any country on FM - after that its all down to the spread of attributes.
  3. I agree with you in theory that development curves would be nice but its then either random or set by researchers and neither are realistic, which is of course the aim. An example is lets say Marko Arnautovic, because he's a player I do the research for and see regularly. When he first arrived, Balotelli said he was worse than him for being a bit of a wild card. However, he had children, he was now living in a relatively quiet area, he's become something of a model professional in the way in which he lives his life and approaches training and the game in general (still has a temper but that's a different matter to professionalism, at least in FM terms) how do we forecast that say compared to someone who had fairly similar troublesome beginnings, but ended up somewhere completely else in life - Nile Ranger? I'm a huge believer that player development needs more work, but it definitely has to be organic within the game, not relying on something external from researchers making additional vague predictions about players futures or by using arbitrary templates.
  4. I can't speak for SI but I imagine one of the SI guys will mention, tools like that have no real relevance/direct worth for anyone looking at the game because its got a large degree of guesswork. For example, I'm well aware of those tools, and I've seen the kind of offering up they make on attribute weighting and are so horribly wrong. They're interesting, but development isn't already mapped out and available to anyone to see so it can't be extracted from the game in any way.
  5. Young players in clubs with top level training facilities, playing in the top league of their country aren't considered candidates for success? I guess perhaps that leaves it down to youngsters who get Golden Boy nominations and such then? Like Thibaud Verlinden and Ramadan Sobhi? I'd tell my Head Researcher there is no way in a million years based on what I've seen I'd sign off on either of them eclipsing Messi or Ronaldo. @XaW more changes to CA acquisition and development would be a much better source of variation than just flat PA. The -X PA system is not an ideal solution anyway, its just representing uncertainty. the bands are likely to become smaller than bigger. The variety @Cougar2010 mentions is far more likely to come through more subtle means, scouting reports, enhanced player relationships (certain managers establishing a rapport with players, that may not be replicated elsewhere) and perhaps something I would advocate is a scope for more variance in the hidden attributes. Players like Freddy Adu, Cherno Samba etc as fondly remembered as they are, have to be considered errors in the data process. All I can say is ultimately, based on everything I've seen involved with FM, this is the exact opposite way to the path that has been trodden so far in terms of the approach to youngsters in the game. It would have disastrous consequences for newgen production, and would in a single sweeping blow render something in the region of 10 years work wasted because there is no way of imposing (other than some dumb luck lottery, or arbitrary system) what defines a successful youngster. For every season a player progresses through, if you have 3 or 4 saves across an FM title and average about 15 years in each one, you're seeing 45-60 global youth intakes. The change it would have a few years into the game would be horrendous in the sense that there would be far too many of these truly elite, handful in a generation players knocking about.
  6. It does sum it up, you've got no idea what you're on about. Stoke have top level training facilities and a category 1 academy. Based on your own rules, it'd move him into the top tier. Even if you find some way to then still disclaim Shenton, I'd still have to put Sobhi and Verlinden in as potentially better than Messi and Ronaldo, and while I believe both have the potential for good futures in football, I don't believe its quite that good. But coming back to Shenton even then you do realise at 170CA he would then be one of the best players in the world? Which would be very much a potential scenario. The only would be to start artificially imposing limits on player development, which is an even worse way to come at the problem. I would type a long response, but your point about Godin and Leite showed you have little understanding of CA beyond your own imposed imaginary meaning. You're now suggesting that if you sign him before the game has started (which is impossible and suggests what you actually want is a big club development bonus for when they sign someone), or move his club in the database his PA changes. My printer can potentially print 59 pages per minute, if I put it in a nicer office it doesn't gain the ability to potentially print 10 more pages per minute.
  7. Oliver Shenton can never be better than Messi or Ronaldo though, I say that with 99% confidence. However, your system would mean its possible. There are more players we see every year, by the magnitude of tens of thousands, who aren't better than Messi and Ronaldo and never had the potential to be. Your system would mean there could be hundreds (and in a database where every player under the age of say 19 could hit 200PA it would be likely there would be - at least - hundreds) who come through just at the start of the game. Once this change happens, the whole of the newgen system follows it. Every year hundreds more would be getting created, by the time you're 10 years in you'd have possibly closer to 10,000 than 10 Ronaldo/Messi potential players.
  8. To take your point to the extreme, why don't we just leave them all blank? What if we're wrong about their tackling, their passing? What if we're wrong about their current ability or determination? It should be more flexible right? Maybe Diogo Leite could be a better striker than Benzema. Maybe Benzema could be a better defender than Godin. If they had more flexible attributes from the very beginning, then surely that is better too? We will make the wrong decisions on individual attributes as well after all. Most of us change attributes in less than a 6 month time frame. This argument always hits a point when someone starts equating CA with actual ability. I could make a 160CA defender better than Godin even if he was at 169CA. Odds are, I could actually make a 130CA defender that runs him very close.
  9. So your system wouldn't facilitate a Jamie Vardy at all then? Or any kind of break-out player? The game already does facilitate this with its current system, its rare, as it should be. There are players who can develop late, or look promising, fade and then prove themselves capable later in their careers.
  10. The big problem here is you're misunderstanding what potential is. Potential isn't the opportunities you have in life, potential is the limit on what you can achieve. You never have more potential than you have, the problem is in identifying that potential. Here's what happens the moment you leave it down to some player influenced system: - Players begin tinkering and testing development systems, approaches, training, match time etc. - Players start to collaborate on their testing and feedback. - Within weeks, maybe months the "every player 200 PA guide" appears in the training and tactics section. - Every player has to start following these guides to get their players to this limit. - FM becomes "develop a 200PA player 2018" The moment you take the shackles off, is the moment players will look for ways to break the system. Your system is far less realistic though, because its assuming every player has the same potential, that every player can be Messi/Ronaldo and they can't. - - - - As I mentioned, the problem lies in identifying potential, it's the hardest thing in the world. We simply can't reach a level of perfection on this front because we're human and as much effort as we put in as researchers, its very hard to predict the future. What would probably be a more pertinent solution would be further changes to CA acquisition and development. There isn't any real way to describe the situation correctly, but it is still too easy for a human player to identify the kind of player in FM who will develop well. There needs to be less certainty, then researchers could actually afford to be more on the generous side with PA's to facilitate such break-out players.
  11. The biggest limiting factor is one that all games face, most game AI has seemingly hit a limit. They can add more rules, conditions and parameters that govern their behaviour but it still always breaks down to at a horribly over simplified level of A+B=C There will be further improvements, and it will get better but its an iterative process that has limits on how much can be added each year just down mostly to physical man-hours. At the same time, the AI isn't meant to know what these triggers are, and as I said, its not something I see any way to test, but I believe consistency and important matches will be tied mainly to the events that happen in matches. This may mean you have a theoretical situation where an AI manager can bring about these changes, but the triggers in game just don't occur because the game plays out a different way. Let's say, for the sake of argument, there's a condition in the game that scoring 5 penalties in total, deep into cup competitions when the score is level. Now a player may never even have this situation occur in his career, and even if he does, he might do 4, but then on the 5th he's been subbed off, or a more proficient penalty taker is now in the team. It's a difficult thing to improve, and you're not likely to stumble upon a surefire way that you can remember across your gameplay without logging every choice.
  12. Testing that it increases or not doesn't test if it can increase or not is the main jist of what I'm going for here. It's entirely possible to run an enormous amount of tests and not see it budge, but someone who plays the game in a certain way may actually see regular changes. AI managers are at an enormous disadvantage to players still, because they tend not to recognise when to retrain, when to train certain things, which leads me to believe they'd also be oblivious to consistency changers and important matches changers. It means testing AI behaviour is always going to be a stab in the dark.
  13. The major hang up is that without knowing the underlying mechanics you can't really test if its working or not. I don't know the specifics of what should or should not alter it. No one outside of SI should because its such a potentially powerful, game altering mechanic that works fine as it is on the whole. Odds are that you don't need 10 years to analyse it, but rather the testing would need to be intensive across a season to work out what can potentially alter it and what can't. As I said though, my theory is that its related to matches themselves in some way, and that the situations are rarely handled/dealt with in a way that increases consistency.
  14. Playing often doesn't make you more consistent. Just because a player plays often, that isn't because they're more consistent. I feel like this is a major point here. Just playing in games doesn't mean these things must improve, some players can go their entire career playing at the highest level without ever achieving consistency or becoming comfortable in the big games. The problem you'd be assuming needs to be fixed is that you believe playing makes you more consistent, but it doesn't. It's something that develops within some players over time, and actually worsens in others over time. Consistency is only a barometer of how often a player can play at his full ability (even then, the other mental attributes affect it), not in any way related to how often he plays. It means there is a place in the world for premier league players to be rated in the 120-130CA range (Glenn Whelan, Jon Walters), because they're extremely consistent. It also means, I could justifiably rate Xherdan Shaqiri as a 170CA+ player with very low consistency, and this is in part why the data and regen systems won't ever match in their spreads. It's very hard to simulate the paths these players have had their careers take. Jon Walters went all the way down the pyramid and came back up, Glenn Whelan has endured the challenge of some £30-£40m worth of midfielders challenging for his spot and not dislodging him and Shaqiri has gone from being the next up and coming players at one of the biggest clubs in the world to mid-table Premier League with Stoke.
  15. One thought I have, is that the AI won't utilise players correctly to see the improvements. Odds are most human players won't either, but developing consistency and making someone comfortable in the big games is something that should be obscure and difficult to understand. It may be you can do 9 out of 10 steps right, but the 10th step is an in-game situation that doesn't come to pass. The big problem with this test is that you don't know specifically what you're testing, you're just looking for an outcome. It means while it may appear its not functioning, the situation just hasn't arisen with an AI manager who creates the right environment to take advantage of it. Which I think is the most likely thing. There's a reason why this section of the game has to be as obscure and as difficult to interpret as possible - because otherwise its a must-do meta-gaming way to play. The mix with the rest of the metal attributes is far more important, a high consistency, high important matches player with low professionalism is not going to be all that much use to me to be honest.