Cinnabon09

Random PA's needs tweaking

18 posts in this topic

I think random PA's (negative PA's) needs tweaking. At the moment we have PA's going from 150-180, and 170-200. A lot of talents in FM today have -9 PA's. For some of these it is just too obvious that they will not peak at an ability represented by 150 PA or 180. An example is a player like

Aaron Ramsey

The risk of a player like him ending up with

150

CA/PA is not realistic. I suggest giving out random PA's with more intervalls. There are two options i can see here:

*PA from -20 to 0; e.g.

-20= 180-200

-19=170-190

-18=160-180

and so on

* PA given by not set intervalls but within the SI researchers guessed range; e.g.

-175 to 190

-182+

what do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think random PA's (negative PA's needs tweaking). At the moment we have PA's going from 150-180, and 170-200. A lot of talents in FM today have -9 PA's. For some of these it is just too obvious that they will not peak at an ability represented by 150 PA or 180. An example is a player like Aaron Ramsey. The risk of a player like him ending up with 150 CA/PA is not realistic. I suggest giving out random PA's with more intervalls. There are two options i can see here:

*PA from -20 to 0; e.g.

-20= 180-200

-19=170-190

-18=160-180

and so on

* PA given by not set intervalls but within the SI researchers guessed range; e.g.

-175 to 190

-182+

what do you guys think?

Yeah do agree. Or maybe keep the current system, but keep the max PA available if the player plays often and is tutored and then gradualy decline in-game if he is not. As in, if a player of -9 PA can reach 180 PA, but this depends how you train/play him, rather than being set at the start of your save :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's obvious that a player won't end up in a sufficiently large portion of one of the negative PA ranges, surely there is enough information on hand to give him a fixed PA. Even if he's still young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't think it needs to be one system or another. maybe SI can do both systems or even keep the old one and add one or both of the ones i suggested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's obvious that a player won't end up in a sufficiently large portion of one of the negative PA ranges, surely there is enough information on hand to give him a fixed PA. Even if he's still young.

in the ramsey example i am pretty sure he won't end up with an ability represented by CA 150 as peaked. i think this is also true for several other players. i can name santon or rafael da silva among others. plus, a very young player should not be given a fixed PA for fairness sake. i have no idea how much ramsey will develop, because he is still so young, so a set PA is not fair. i am still certain he will have a higher PA than 150 though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Aaron Ramsey is a good example of a player who has potential and more than likely will be above 150 PA, what about other players though such as Francis Jeffers who looked like a promising youth at one stage in his career and moved to Arsenal and now plays for Sheffield Wednesday having not achieved an awful lot with his career, no offence to fans any of the clubs he has been at. Jeffers arguament sort of backs up the SI range, however, I personally think the ranges should be lowered little bit, like maybe have them in gaps of 15 instead of 20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jeffers can be viewed as a player with a random PA that ended up at the bad end of the scale. and like i said, you don't necessarily need to remove the old system. just add a new system in addition to the old one. for example you can have a -9 for a player that has yet to prove himself at a high level on a consistent basis, and 170+ or 170-185 for a player that already has proven that he will make it at the top level (but is still too young to be given a set PA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that being said, i don't think gaps of 15 is a bad idea either. maybe even gaps of 10 points is ok. one thing is for sure. the need to have more brackets than just -9 and -10 for world class youngsters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the first suggestion is GREAT !!!

-20 for 180-200

-19 for 170-190

-18 for 160-180

-17 for 150-170

etc

intervals of 20 are much better than the current system !

but 1 think is sure; SI will NOT change anything, because they're too 'bad' in IT, its funny but its TRUE!!!

since years people are crying for flexible competition reputations... SI has NO idea how to do it i'm sure !!!

they just continue recopying the same game since years, each time with some little junk which has 0% impact on the game

they're even unable to fix bugs which are present since fm2007...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's wrong with PA 150? It's not that bad. He's still young and he may find himself stuck in development at any one stage, or may suffer a serious injury which really hurts development as a youngster. A player with CA 150 is a solid player and will do a solid job even for Arsenal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but 1 think is sure; SI will NOT change anything, because they're too 'bad' in IT, its funny but its TRUE!!!

since years people are crying for flexible competition reputations... SI has NO idea how to do it i'm sure !!!

they just continue recopying the same game since years, each time with some little junk which has 0% impact on the game

they're even unable to fix bugs which are present since fm2007...

I don't think that it is the case that "they're bad in IT", 'cos they are not, I think it's likely a question of priorities and the need that they feel in terms of improvement - just because we think it would be better one way doesn't necessarily make it so, and player development is likely a whole lot more complicated than simply being based on their potential ability rating...though I think you know that.

As for you knowing that SI have no idea about how to create flexible competition reps - well they have flexible reps for teams etc and the same model could be applied to competitions. Assuming that SI haven't implemented something already I would hope that it would be on their "to do" list, but to suggest they don't know how to do something like that is patently ridiculous!!!

But I agree, assuming it is that simple, with the idea of having 20-point ranges in the PA ratings for players. Looks good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following Premier League central midfielders have CAs in the region of Ramsey's PA (

150 (145-155)

):

Stiliyan Petrov

Anderson

Alberto Aquilani

Pablo Zabaleta

Jermaine Jenas

Wilson Palacios

Marouane Fellaini

Lucas

All solid players. If Ramsey gets a PA in this region he will be a solid player at his peak. There is nothing wrong with his current PA and nothing wrong with PA

-9

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for arguments sake let's just say that ramsey's PA is subjective. this thread however is about the idea of random PA with more intervalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with the suggestion, the point here is that a CA of 150 or even 140 can be enough to be in the first eleven of a world-beating side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that a minimum-maximum system is the way to go. It would simulate the fact that some players' futures aren't as sure as others; a talented yet unproven 16 year old could have a range of, say, 120-185, while a youngster who has shown a little more would have a smaller range. This would allow the researchers to personalize the prospects a little more, and it would presumably lead to a more unpredictable scene as those players mature. This really isn't a major issue, though; as it is, the current CA/PA system isn't bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that a minimum-maximum system is the way to go. It would simulate the fact that some players' futures aren't as sure as others; a talented yet unproven 16 year old could have a range of, say, 120-185, while a youngster who has shown a little more would have a smaller range. This would allow the researchers to personalize the prospects a little more, and it would presumably lead to a more unpredictable scene as those players mature. This really isn't a major issue, though; as it is, the current CA/PA system isn't bad.

This is actually quite a good idea. If you could assign youngsters a scale like that where there is huge room for shape and change, it would be a lot more realistic as the youngster could take multiple paths depending on how much they play/where they move to. This would be best suited to younger players, for example Romelu Lukaku. Once they get a bit older, to say 19 or 20 then their range could be a lot more defined. Definitely like this idea.

Of course, it might make for some strange viewing if you came back to this ten years ago and saw some player has turned out poorly due to the range when they are actually a star in real life, but I can't really see any other problems.

Great idea. :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is actually quite a good idea. If you could assign youngsters a scale like that where there is huge room for shape and change, it would be a lot more realistic as the youngster could take multiple paths depending on how much they play/where they move to. This would be best suited to younger players, for example Romelu Lukaku. Once they get a bit older, to say 19 or 20 then their range could be a lot more defined. Definitely like this idea.

Actually a player's PA is defined when the game is created. So their "path" would probably be defined at the game's start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.