Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by enigmatic

  1. I think you both agree with each other there... But this is the important point. Something is needed to stunt a player's growth, or allow it to accelerate for some players but not for others as circumstances improve. Currently one of these factors is PA. PA is a very effective method of doing this. It has a very clear and obvious primary effect, does not need to change every time a player gets a year older or improves their CA or has mental variables added or changes. It does not need a calculator for people to know the limit it imposes on a player's development. It is not profoundly illogical, like assuming young, professional players already playing top division football must have a very low level of "natural talent" (or similar) if they are not to become world class. It can allow people to become late bloomers if they get few games early in their career and to plateau if they get lots, like happens IRL. It broadly parallels what managers are actually trying to estimate in game and IRL when they spend millions on teenagers. Nothing that has been proposed so far is not significantly worse than PA in this respect. There is no reason to believe that random player development triggers will produce more realistic outcomes in the absence of any limiting factor, and plenty to suggest it wouldn't. There is no reason to believe player growth rate is more realistically influenced by a fixed two digit "natural talent" or other starting value than a varying-in-game delta between CA and PA Until you can prescribe something which is not more confusing, more deterministic and/or less usable than PA for basic research tasks like "I would like to ensure this player who is already close to his peak does not become too good" or "l think this player might be able to play at a much higher level despite his attitude and this one won't even though he doesn't have any major issues" you are unlikely to persuade anybody to eliminate PA... And if you intend for SI to devote thousands of hours of programmers and volunteer researchers' time thinking up and implementing alternative data and development models to eliminate a variable which is invisible in-game to produce effects which the player almost certainly won't notice, you have to ask yourself whether there's actually any point to this other than trying to win an argument on a message board
  2. Sure, the maturation of the player will be slower. But I want it to be near zero because I have watched a player not improve very much in two years of playing regular top division football, and I know from watching football that very few people improve to become CA150+ top class international footballers, and it's particularly unlikely that somebody who has spent two years at the top level without getting better is going to be one of them. As @perpetua pointed out, most senior players only get a few CA points better in their mid twenties, unless they have world class talent or have only just started playing top level football. And the ones who improve the most are not necessarily the most professional or talented; usually it's the opposite and they had big problems earlier in their career... It makes no sense to set my top division first team player "natural talent" to a very low value because he has far more footballing talent than most people in the database will ever have. It makes no sense to set his natural talent to a very low value because he has more speed and strength than most people in the database. It is even worse to set his professionalism to a low value because it will make him complain to his manager all the time (even though he never does that IRL). But if I don't set most of these values very low, he apparently keeps improving until he is a top class international player. What makes a lot more sense to me is to say "OK, he can improve a little bit, but he is very unlikely to become better than Player Y, who is the best midfielder in the squad and has a CA of 149". So I'll set his PA a little lower, maybe 143 (Maybe I underestimate his potential by five points. Maybe I overestimate by five points. C'est la vie. Or if I really think I have no idea how good he may become, I can leave PA blank. ) What is unrealistic is for my player to (normally) continue slowly getting better for six years until he usually reaching CA 155+, and becoming an important player for Italy, because below average Serie A players at 23 do not normally become important Italy players by 27. And instead of just imposing a limit, I have to put lots of different mental and age and position values into a calculator to discover I must give him no natural talent and no natural physique and professionalism to stop the continuous rate of improvement. The first two attributes look stupid, because he is not weaker or more untalented than average, and the last attribute makes him complain all the time.
  3. I'm glad we are now acknowledging the new system will restrict player's ability to improve just like PA The main problem is this seems more restrictive and less flexible than the current system, and much more confusing. So imagine a 23 year old player who has an apparently very professional approach to the game, has been playing first team football for four years and has a CA of 134. Imagine this player hasn't improved very much over the last two years of playing top division football, so the researcher assumes he's quite near his peak and sets a PA of 143. Now with this proposed new system it's almost inevitable that a professional player will keep improving over the next 4-6 years to a much higher level than the researcher thinks they actually will reach, and they should end up playing for Italy, even though many 23 year olds who are good enough to play in Serie A are never good enough to play for Italy despite having OK attitude. The only way of stopping this is to set him with a low professionalism (which means he has behavioural problems he doesn't have in real life) and very low values for "natural talent" and "natural athlete", which will appear to be nonsense if the player actually has enough talent and athleticism to play in Serie A, and there are lots of young players in Serie C with higher values.
  4. This is an exceedingly good suggestion, well thought out and presented. Particularly like the idea about completely voluntary press conferences and punditry, and being able to abstract away from all the repetitive and detailed (and often misplaced) questions with a general approach (rather than delegate to an assman who the game allows to completely screw it up for you) Even some of the small things in here could be implemented. I'd actually like to see tweets mocking the manager in the social feed (maybe they're already there and I'm just too scared to look at it after I've lost!)
  5. Definitely makes sense to be able to ask managers of local bigger clubs, especially if you have a formal relationship with them
  6. I guess the other facet would be that it was completely invisible to scouts/coaches, unlike PA which I believe is a (lowly-weighted) constituent part of the Perceived Potential Ability calculation that results in all those stars, recommendations and signings. Although if every player has it, you'd end up just factoring that into your understanding of scout reports anyway...
  7. You could probably taper off "hidden talent" towards the top end of the scale because by the time a player approaches 150CA their talent isn't exactly "hidden" In essence it basically is the CA acquisition model changing though, it's just assuming that most players' CA acquisition stops at the value set in the database which is 15 short of their actual PA which is only ever reached in unusual circumstances like Stoke winning the league. The pluses of this is that in the event of having a perfect season Shawcross is so much more assured in his decision making he becomes the sort of player than gets picked regularly for England and Manchester City want to buy (which doesn't quite happen through reputation because the top managers have good enough Judging Ability to realise he isn't better than their existing defenders); the minuses are that if the human manager is already good enough to achieve the league title with Stoke, he doesn't need the assistance of SuperShawcross for the next season...
  8. And of course he wouldn't have got a "natural talent" of 15 as someone who'd been looked at and rejected by second and third tier teams and ended up playing for petrol money in the eighth tier. He'd have been more likely to get a natural talent of less than 5. If anything, lower division researchers would expect to be more conservative about setting parameters designed to affect players' typical growth speed than setting the a maximum potential ability a player is usually not expected to reach.
  9. I certainly don't understand why SI would calibrate a new system where players probably grow beyond the limits of the PA set by researchers at present (which most players don't even reach in game). They haven't spent decades collecting data points on how good researchers think older players actually are and balancing how good researchers think younger players might become to permit any new development model to ignore all that and assume that the younger players are mostly going to be a lot better than the last generation and if they've got the right attitude they'll continue improving indefinitely. If you changed the hard limit into a combination of growth rate parameters, it's going to be balanced so on average players end up about the same level before. Some players might be capable of doing a bit better than their current PAs and some players would do a bit worse. Not necessarily the ones researchers want. But there's no logical development model that's going to allow a full grown adult noted for his unprofessionalism and not noted for particularly stellar talent to develop like this and work across a database full of unheralded, quick players scoring plenty in lower divisions. Most strikers who score nearly 29 goals in the Northern League don't have the talent to make it in League 2, never mind the England team, and researchers are going to continue to be expected to acknowledge that reality with whatever growth parameters they're allowed to set. It's especially hard when I can't think of a single growth parameter (age, attitude, talent, club trained at) which, say, Tom Cleverley wouldn't have been logically given much, much better values than Vardy, yet the system needs to be designed to ensure Cleverley didn't improve much over similar periods. Of course the much easier way is to listen to all those people saying "yeah, Cleverley's a good player at a big club with a good attitude but he's never going to be any better than say, James Milner", and set a hard limit on his potential ability around the level of James Milner.
  10. There are six pages of arguments, some of them very detailed, against these proposals already. Perhaps more progress would be made if you deigned to read them... As for the nation's "youth rating", my experiments with FM17 suggested it had very little impact on national side player potential relative to other facts such as nation reputation (which is very dynamic) and clubs
  11. I don't see the logic in assuming that because researchers correct their perceptions of potential based on real world information, the game should randomly alter potential based on no real world information...
  12. He always had the talent, but there's no way a researcher would have known that. He didn't get a 145PA, after all. So he wouldn't get the 20 "natural talent" needed to give a 24 year old Conference-standard striker a non-zero chance of improving rapidly enough to to play football at the high end of the Premier League in three years time. (Also, the game generally doesn't significantly improve players' professionalism from 24 onwards).
  13. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't. Young Jamie Vardy in early FMs: potential of ~100 Young Jamie Vardy in hypothetical system: "natural talent" rated very lowly because he's a failed youth prospect playing in the lower divisions where all he needs is speed, professionalism rated very lowly because he turns up to training drunk, ambition rated very lowly because he spent three consecutive seasons earning £30 per week at Stockbridge Park Steels. CA never improves above 100 in game because the game development model ensures that Conference standard players in their mid twenties with low starting ability, low natural talent, unprofessional attitudes and lack of ambition only improve very slowly and as a 24 year old he's only got five years of improvement possible in the best case scenario. In some saves he gets released and fails to find another contract, in some saves he reaches the heady heights of League Two but fails to get into the team, in a couple of saves he actually loses some of his rawness but under absolutely no circumstances does the range of possible development paths allow someone with his starting attributes to become an England star. So if you're setting development speed parameters, there's still a maximum limit of ability most players can reach in the best possible FM game situation based on a function of their starting ability, age, an development parameters like natural talent, mental attributes and other factors like position. And assuming SI wants to stop most players with good attitudes and moderate talent becoming world class then the effective limits for most players will actually be quite low. Only now the researcher probably doesn't understand what that limit actually is when setting it, which is probably a step further backwards
  14. That's why I'd prefer an optional variable to a "Physical PA" and would assume it would come with researcher recommendations about it being completely optional and recommended only for specific situations where a researcher is confident the player is a relatively early or late physical developer for their age or has some other anomaly in their development that needs to be accounted for. (As @Raptor Longe correctly notes this is similar to his idea of a "natural talent" in that it's a (physical) growth speed parameter rather than a limit (except I'd also keep the PA with it's far more easily-interpreted and benchmarked effects as well) I'd suggest visually representing it in the editor as a dropdown (or mutually exclusive checkboxes) rather than a number as well as its effects might not simply be a continuous number e.g. as well as as well as "Physically very mature", "Physically fairly mature", "Likely to continue growing" you might also get "Injury impaired" for players whose physique has been marked down as they've been out of the game for an extended period but might rapidly recover it in the right conditions, "Past physical peak" for players who have had premature body breakdowns. Though I must admit I'm struggling to think of an appropriate euphemism for "plenty of excess weight to lose" which might actually have the most potentially interesting possible effects on a player's future development. Bale's an unusually late developer into a physical monster but also a bit of an exception to the rule that high PAs are rarely ever too harsh: IIRC his first fixed PA was about the same as Evra's which looked generous at the time (though tbh his ability as a fullback never has been that great!)
  15. The trouble with completely separate physical, mental and technical potentials is it's a lot more thought for researchers than "does this player A have a chance of becoming better than players B, C, and D?", because you've got to take into account the way that (many) players compensate for losing physical attributes by becoming a bit smarter at the very end of their career, and completely change how players are evaluated by the AI. FM already tries to replicate the fact that even for high PA players, physical improvement normally happens quite rapidly at a young age, is much harder if a player already has high stats in an area and certain physical attributes are hard to improve if the player is short or skinny, whilst mental stats keep improving for a long time. It doesn't do it perfectly (the issue Santy noted with high potential skinny regens often turning out ultra-strong was reported and acknowledged as a bug in FM17 - don't know if fixed for FM18) . But it might well still model that development better than researchers having to re-rate everybody with three sets of potential according to new guidelines which are mostly going to be re-implementing stuff already hardcoded into the game... That said, I suspect some researchers do have some idea of which players with a high PA are exceptions to general rules about growth. For example some physically impressive 17-20 years olds still have plenty more growing to do (like young Cristiano Ronaldo did), and some physically unimpressive 17-20 year olds are pretty much fully physically mature and thus aren't going to improve much in those areas even if their technical and mental abilities go all the way to world class (peak Scholes was as small and asthmatic as teenage Scholes). The more common cases of course are physically imposing teenagers who are basically full grown adults who won't get much taller or stronger and teenagers with low physical stats who basically still have a child's frame but will have a growth spurt before they're 21 even without much game time. So there might be a good case for a completely optional physical maturity variable within the existing PA parameters which defines young players' chances of significant physical improvement in certain areas even without necessarily having ideal facilities or match experience. (Could also be integrated it into the in game scouting/coaching system so those who are really good at judging potential sometimes advise that young players' physical weaknesses will always be a problem or might go away in future) There might also be a case for a "experience" variable to reflect undeveloped players' existing level of match experience. This could of course have plenty of uses in game, but one of them would be to allow for players with low "experience" to improve certain acute weaknesses (e.g. concentration, decisions, passing) very rapidly if given game time and assume that players with already high "experience" will improve in a more balanced and gradual way with any acute weaknesses they have being more likely innate traits that always stay quite low.
  16. I think that the interest in terms of gameplay and publicity would be a lot bigger than the low WSL attendances suggest, but a lot of the problems are political. SI would get criticism whichever option they picked from (i) have a different version of the match engine to reflect the significant differences between the top levels of male and female football, especially in terms of physique (ii) use the same match engine (bar cosmetic differences to players), but scale female attributes (and regen attributes) accordingly so even the top level female footballers all have single digit attributes in many areas, especially physique or (iii) use the same match engine and attribute ranges since it's a separate football world, and it's not as if the statistics for km covered are exactly right for men's football anyway and hope that nobody objects to them representing women as basically short men... There's similar complications for the financial and transfer models since they don't really resemble any level of men's football, and introducing novel reasons for taking time out the game like pregnancy but at least that bit isn't likely to see accusations of patronising female footballers levied at them.
  17. It's not really worth overcomplicating a research process and/or making lots of players randomly become very good for the sake of a few players the researchers have underestimated in the past. You could probably make the PA figures slightly looser, but I haven't seen a great deal of evidence that researchers are consistently underestimating players and if you make PAs generally higher and harder to reach, it's just going to make the AI do an even worse job of developing players. The reality is most players do have absolutely zero chance of developing into a good footballer (where good = PA>140). That's why clubs spend millions of pounds on hot prospects rather than spraying it around on useful 19 year olds from the third tier who might come good. And most of the players who go unnoticed for most of the career in the lower divisions but end up doing fine in the top division are of below average all-round ability for the top division even when they make it there (typically balanced out by consistency and attitude and being well specialised for certain roles) . There's certainly nothing in the game stopping you from taking players who've maxed out their potential at CA125 into the top division and winning titles with them. People who disagree with the proposal understand it perfectly well. We just think it sucks. Frankly it makes far more sense for researchers to impose artificial ceilings on player development by setting PA = 130 than by setting some opaque combination of professionalism, ambition, determination, "natural talent", CA and age which has the equivalent effect of ensuring the player can't improve past PA130 in the scope of their career (and probably won't reach 120). At least when it's PA 130 or PA 170 people can easily express an opinion on whether it's far too harsh or far too generous Natural talent 10, Determination 13, Professionalism 12, Ambition 11, CA 100, Striker 20, Age 20 years 6 months, Game version FM19.3.1 not so much.
  18. Manchester United look at an enormous number of young footballers and are constantly running trials and paying real money to find the most exciting youngsters, and of the 30 or so they actually take on in each age group you can count the numbers who end up with a CA of over 120 on one hand. Many of the youth intakes don't produce any players with potential in the 140+ range. More fail to become professional footballers than fall into that range So even if you're a 16 year old that Man Utd has actively sought out because their scouts think you have unusual footballing talent, your chances of actually being a high end Premier League player are in the region of <5% and your chances of failing to get a professional contract anywhere is higher even with one of the world's best coaching setups. So why on earth would any self-respecting game developer give random footballers that big European clubs and researchers alike don't think have unusual footballing talent a good chance of becoming a high end Premier League player simply because the person playing the save signed them for Man Utd?
  19. Umm... I've signed plenty lot of second and third tier players for top tier teams in FM, and played loads for England U21. Some of them, like Ryan Sessegnon, Andre Dozzell and Will Hughes even have a chance of becoming world class. What would be unrealistic is if I could sign just any young player from a lower division and expect them to turn into a good top division player just because they were playing at a higher level of football. Because very few third tier players make it to the top tier, and even fewer are considered high level. I'm doubt Andy King's potential changed much from when he was a good player for Leicester in the third tier to when he was a perfectly useful squad player for Leicester the Premier League champions. Although if you listen to half the people in this thread, a player with an attitude and starting abilities as good as him should have improved a lot when surrounded by better players. He didn't, in FM or real life.
  20. Does SI keep stats on CA/PA changes from version to version? Would be interesting to know the percentage of players which ended up peaking at or below the level they were given by researchers several years ago (apart from doubtless having plenty of other benchmarking and anomaly-spotting uses for SI)
  21. Editor allows you to filter players by club, select a large number of players and change one attribute for all of them at the same time Doing it with an entire database might be ambitious, but doing it with all players for all the top tiers of the top 3-5 European leagues should be feasible without taking too long.
  22. If you want to remove this limit, you have to make a convincing argument either that (i) all young players with high starting ability should be able to continually improve until they have 200 CA (ii) it's better for the maximum PA a player can achieve to be set by a function of their age, CA "professionalism", "ambition" and similar attributes and a value called "natural talent" so the researcher still effectively sets a maximum PA, they just don't understand what number it will be. You have not done either, and both making growth totally unlimited or making players develop in similarly predictable ways but with much more researcher error will result in much more unrealistic futures and unbalanced games. I mean, what's the difference between setting John Smith's PA at 135 and setting his "natural talent" to 10 in your example, except that researchers understand that the first example means that they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player if they have a good career and don't understand that setting "natural talent" to 10 means they will be limited to never being better than a low end SerieA/Premier League player because "natural talent" levels have to be set differently for players of different professionalism?
  23. The thing about PA is despite the assumption people in this thread keep wrongly basing their arguments on players don't have to reach it in game, and usually don't. Balotelli did have huge potential, he just didn't live up to it And if you're irritated by Depay usually turning into a CA 160 player which is still quite plausible, just imagine how annoying it would be if they got rid of any upper limit, and his high level of "natural talent", starting ability and club meant he usually turned into a CA 190 player... How good a player might be at their best is a whole lot easier to guess than a young player's "professionalism" and "ambition" and whether setting certain values of this will end up with the player usually becoming too good. And you don't have to introduce absurdities like making most players at lower division clubs unprofessional and unambitious to try to prevent most them from ending up playing at much higher levels. Yes, CA is a large part of guessing PA, but we can also make reasonable assumptions that a 21 year old who's played top division football for three seasons and not improved is playing very close to their potential and one who's only just made the team might still have more room for growth, and an U17 star player who relies heavily on the fact that he's bigger than his teammates probably doesn't have particularly outstanding potential whereas the little skilful guy that the club has brought over from Eastern Europe might get a lot better than he is now.
  24. Most of the values governing generated players' PA are already dynamic, including but not limited to league standard, club reputation, clubs' facilities and national team current reputation. That's why people have been able to make the likes of San Marino competitive after playing FM for a very long time (indeed if anything the system is already far too generous: a nation of 33,000 people is not going to produce many great players even if its club side dominates Serie A for a generation) But it's pretty obvious that you can pump all the money in the world into the league of Ireland and Brazil with its 200 million football fanatics having skill-focused kickabouts on beaches is still going to have some advantages in the player pool. It really isn't "racism" to acknowledge that.
  25. Well yes, I think it's pretty clear that one of the major advantages of PA is that one relatively-easy-to-guesstimate attribute cancels out the likelihood of several hard-to-estimate and often random attributes ensuring that the national teams of the future are usually dominated by little known players from the lower leagues. And if you've never seen a 19 year old that doesn't get better, you haven't watched much football. - I think when we've reached arguments that PA is "racist" because the US national team isn't as good as Brazil's or Germany's it's probably where we start to realise that PA is a lot better than the lunacy we'd get if SI caved into demands to eliminate it...
  • Create New...