Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mizta05

PA for youngsters (a proposal)

Recommended Posts

This train of though was initiated by discussion in the belgium research forum.

As it is now, to reflect the uncertainty of the development of young players SI has invented a system where instead of a fixed PA, a young player will be given a 'possible future ability rating' by giving him a number between -1 and -10, with for instance a -7 meaning that player X would potentially land somewhere between 110 and 140 for his PA. When a new game is started, the game would with the help of some, to me, unknown determiners designate a player with a fixed PA that would be different from game to game, that is in game 1, player X would get a PA of 132 and in game 2 the PA might be 119 (People are welcome to correct me if I am wrong!).

This idea has been discussed often as it seems to not be optimal, but is probably considered to be the lesser evil. Why is it not optimal? Well for one, it is often discussed if a player is a PA -8 or -9, with the basis being that the low range of PA -8 (130) is to low for the player but the high range of PA -9 (180) is too high. Some have proposed the addition of adding a .5 to the PA of youngsters.Well I think the idea of for instance -9.5 will narrow the scope for young players to much. The problem is that it is so difficult to predict how well a player will turn out. Therefore, a span of only 15 CA points is too small of a span to illustrate the uncertainty of a young players development, unless the point is that 9.5 is defined as for instance 160-190, which in that case would press the researchers to micromanager the PA too much (emagine the addidtional discussion that adding a decimal would bring to the research forums).

The second issue, the one I personally have with the system, is that it takes something out of the game in regards to youth development, and leaves you stuck, at times, with a bunch af talents that is predetermined to be inferior players. When it comes to youth development, there are countless examples of players with loads of potential who never reaches it and players, that with the right nurturing becomes superstars. This I would like to see implemented in FM. A case in point could be Athony Vanden Borre. I don't know what his PA was at its hight in FM, but I am guessing he was a -10 at some point. Now he has a PA of 155. Not to take anything away from his former and current clubs, but would he have reached his potential if he had gone to for instance an Ajax Amsterdam or Lyon, clubs adept at developing talents?

My proposal would be that while you would keep the -8,9,10s, the PA would be fluent until the player turned 21 or 22. The final PA would be based on training quality, injuries, playing time, etc. In this way, the game doesn't predetermine the PA for the talents, but rather the aforementioned determiners, so that when the player turns 21 or 22, a fixed PA for a -9 would be put somewhere in the range of 150-180 based on his 'development'. This would enable us, the managers, to become an active part of the development of each player. In fact, the -'s could be reduce to fewer possibilities, maybe from 1-6 or 1-8 to allow for an even more realistic development span. Now I have no suggestion as to how to implement this, but I am sure it could be done by the clever fellas at SI

Feel free to comment (it would be nice with comments from SI as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will most players not have reached the maximum CA they can by 21 or 22?? Which means that having a variable PA up to that point is pretty pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really follow you. As I understand how the system works now, a player usually peaks in the mid to late 20's, and therefor his CA and PA would be closest at that point. My whole point has more to do with determing what player X's will be in the future. It is dificult to predict how a 16 year old will turn out in real life. SI's response has been to give him a fluent PA value between fixed ranges, but once a game is started it will be fixed by the game. So basically, it is now predetermined how good that player will be. My proposal would give the manager (us players of the game) the possibility to influence how good he can become.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the current system is best available. Otherwise by signing all these -PAs to Arsenal, treating them right, then they will likely end up at the top end.

The Vanden Borre (or Franny Jeffers) style player is simply a guy who gets assigned a very high PA (eg 199) but just never reaches it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We already influence how good he can become by getting him close or further from reaching his PA.

Exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see it that way, as a number of factors would come into play. Say for instance Arsenal would have four left backs under 21, all have PA -9 but only one plays regularly, then the one who plays regularly will be able to reach somewhere in the vicinity of 180, whereas the rest would end up with PA's of somewhere in the vicinity of 150.

To turn it around, let me give you another example. The club I usually play in Denmark has a young leftback that is fairly talented. He is a -7, so in theory, he would end up with a PA of somewhere between 110 and 140. While 110 would see him struggle to hold on to a position in the first team, 140 would make him a star. As the game is now, I have never had him turn out good, and my coaches always advice me to get rid of him. This might just be me being unlucky that the game always makes him bad when I start up a game, or it may be that something is affecting how the game creates him (attributes, etc). What I would like to be able to do is have a hand in determining if he becomes 110'ish or 140'ish. As the game is now, I am stuck with him being crab...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, say we take your first example of the Arsenal 4.

They get generated with these PAs.

Arse 1 PA 180

Arse 2 PA 170

Arse 3 PA 160

Arse 4 PA 150

That determines their... 'natural talent'. However, Arse 1 doesn't have a very good personality, Wenger doesn't like him, and he never plays. He reaches a CA of 110, and gets sold to Scunthorpe where he struggles.

Arse 2 however is a wonderful guy, always hard working, gets picked a lot due to injuries to first choice, and he reaches 168 PA, staying in the Arsenal team for 10 years.

I don't see how your method improves on the current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that you, as a manager, have a hand in how good a player could possibly (potentially) become. It makes no sense to have a manager influence PA.

Interwolf's example is spot on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Arse 1, though he ends up at Scunthorpe, would still be able to reach 180, right, whereas Arse 4 would neve be able to be better than 150, though in another game he would be able to reach 175.

And of course a manager is not the sole reason a player becomes better, but as a manager you can influence alot of the surrounding that can encourage a player to become better. Like hirering coaches, petitioning the club to invest in youth development, etc. And of course pick him to play. I honestly believe, for instance, that Fabregas has become the player he is today because of Arsene Wenger. I think to some extend, we are talking by each other, as my main issue with the game is it does not in a sence allow for the full potentianl of a player to be exploited by fixing the PA.

Even so, we have different opinions so lets agree to dissagree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But Arse 1, though he ends up at Scunthorpe, would still be able to reach 180, right, whereas Arse 4 would neve be able to be better than 150, though in another game he would be able to reach 175.

And of course a manager is not the sole reason a player becomes better, but as a manager you can influence alot of the surrounding that can encourage a player to become better. Like hirering coaches, petitioning the club to invest in youth development, etc. And of course pick him to play. I honestly believe, for instance, that Fabregas has become the player he is today because of Arsene Wenger. I think to some extend, we are talking by each other, as my main issue with the game is it does not in a sence allow for the full potentianl of a player to be exploited by fixing the PA.

Even so, we have different opinions so lets agree to dissagree!

That's CA improvement and how to get there.

Fabregas is good because he is determined, has a lot of talent and is a professional through and through. Wenger helped him/is helping him reach his potential, not raise his potential. As you rightly say though, he's helped him become the player he is today = he's helped him reach his potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Club =/= 100% chance of turning a promising youngster into a world class player.

Negative PA for every youngster is the only way to replicate the unpredictability of players' developement.

Actually, I'd like to have broader overlapping intervals, so that in one save Player X would be a top profile, and in another one just an average EPL player.

We do however have a way to affect how close to his maximum PA every player will be: good training and regular football are the best way to have a player developing well.

Of course there also are the mental attributes, so if he has low professionalism and ambition, his potential will never be fulfilled.

Just like in real life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one change I'd make is to add 10 on to everyone's PA and make it that much less likely they reach their peak. Also have more very late developing players (ie some).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one change I'd make is to add 10 on to everyone's PA and make it that much less likely they reach their peak.

How would that help anything? What's wrong with players reaching their potential?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I get all of what you are saying and of course it is correct. I am not disputing that. My point is that as the game is now, you are in the game being limited by the game.

Sticking with the the example of Fabregas, if we say that he back in the days were designated a -9 player, he would from game to game range between being a 150 player, a good player but not a world class star, to being a 180 player, a world class star. In real life football, I agree that all players posses an amount of raw talent, some more than others. But I also believe that the way this is harnessed is very much due to how the player is moulded until he is around 21. At that age he either takes the next step or he doesn't. The next step is represented in my view basically of how high his PA number is. I agree that alot goes into getting the player to achieve that potential, but the time up until the age of 21 is vital in determining how good you will be able to become. As the game is now, it is pre-determined by the game how good that player can actually become, as it decides before hand if the players is a 150 potetnial or 180 potential. I belive that because Fabregas played for Wenger instead of maybe for Mourinho who is not as good at developing players, that is the reason why he turned out to be a 180 player and not a 150 player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with all these suggestions is that the current system works so there is no reason to change it :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if implemented right it could perhaps better the current system, which i think is really flawed.

Someone like Jack Wilshere has the potential to go on to become a world class player, so in theory his potential is 170-180, as if everything goes right for him, games, training, happiness etc. he will surely be a great player. The thing that irritates me is that Jack Wilshere has an immensely bright future ahead of him in football, if everything goes as planned, so I think it's almost unfair for Wilshere to be perhaps given a limited PA of 150, and this is the highest point he could reach even if everything goes perfectly. The only way Wilshere would be limited in this way is if his attitude is wrong and he doesn't develop at the rate expected because of lack of game time or not training hard enough.

Promising youngsters having a ceiling on their potential is very unrealistic in the world of football, so I think having a fluid potential in the way you describe could add a whole new dimension to the game, as they all have the potential to become great, but the ones that don't have bad attitudes or are overlooked by managers and don't reach their PA because of this.

Having a set PA for every player at the start of the game just seems like an easy option to me, as you can never guess the PA of a player, but I doubt SI will ever get rid of it in the near future, so at least ideas like this one are looking at how we can improve this flawed system.

EDIT:

I think one change I'd make is to add 10 on to everyone's PA and make it that much less likely they reach their peak. Also have more very late developing players (ie some).

I've thought about that one too, I think it is far too easy for player to reach their potential, so that idea could work well if implemented right. :thup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But unless you use Genie or something you don't know the set potential, and the scout/ coach reports fluctuate. If you play the game properly it appears pretty correct. It's difficult to tell a very talented young player, from a very talented young player with the potential to be a very talented first team player.

And my suggestion of adding around 10 to each (which they'd only very rarely reach) is to allow for sudden late developmers ie Jimmy Bullard, Michael Kightly etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a 180 player and not a 150 player.

I understand what you mean. The thing is that maybe we have a slightly different approach to the game. The way I see it is that every time I start a new game, I start a new world. Everything can be different. The way it turned out in real life is just one of the ways it could have turned out, so I don't get too hung up about what goes on in real life.

Also, I don't really care for knowing someone's PA. I don't use an editor, I don't use some scout genie or anything.

For me, in this way, everything works out just fine. I don't care if one of my youth players will not reach whatever the highest potential set by -9 is, o whatever the lowest is. I just take it as it comes :)

And again, the reason Fabregas turned out a "180 player" is a combination: Wenger played him, nurtured him etc., but he also has the raw talent. You could stick me in the Arsenal squad but I wouldn't get anything done, regardless of how much Mr. Wenger likes me. He always had the talent, he and Wenger just got it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But unless you use Genie or something you don't know the set potential, and the scout/ coach reports fluctuate. If you play the game properly it appears pretty correct. It's difficult to tell a very talented young player, from a very talented young player with the potential to be a very talented first team player.

And my suggestion of adding around 10 to each (which they'd only very rarely reach) is to allow for sudden late developmers ie Jimmy Bullard, Michael Kightly etc.

I agree with the first bit completely. It's the editor and the genie things that lead people to become obsessed with PA and CA and whatnot.

I wouldn't know if adding 10 to every PA would help. It seems a bit weird to me. Wouldn't they just develop a little faster and reach it around the same time anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you mean. The thing is that maybe we have a slightly different approach to the game. The way I see it is that every time I start a new game, I start a new world. Everything can be different. The way it turned out in real life is just one of the ways it could have turned out, so I don't get too hung up about what goes on in real life.

Also, I don't really care for knowing someone's PA. I don't use an editor, I don't use some scout genie or anything.

For me, in this way, everything works out just fine. I don't care if one of my youth players will not reach whatever the highest potential set by -9 is, o whatever the lowest is. I just take it as it comes :)

And again, the reason Fabregas turned out a "180 player" is a combination: Wenger played him, nurtured him etc., but he also has the raw talent. You could stick me in the Arsenal squad but I wouldn't get anything done, regardless of how much Mr. Wenger likes me. He always had the talent, he and Wenger just got it out.

Well I guess we do have different views of the game, so that is maybe it. Why I do not like the sytem as it is now, is that I am to an extent limited in my youth development, which is something that I really play the game for. I always buy players as young as possible and try to develop my own players. This is the most interesting part of the game for me.

When you talk about raw talent, what I believ that is, is illustrated by the -'s, thus if the player is a -1, the raw talent is extremely limited but with a -10, its a diamond in the ruff. What I feel is a shame is that when you start a new game, the game in some random fashion changes that rawtalent into a fixed number that you have no way of influencing. I know that you will be able to coach the player to fulfil that designated value, but to me it is unrealistic that that max value is desingnated for the player when he is 16,17,18 years old.

That is just one part of the game I would like to have improved...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not enough randomness for my liking. Arsenal have about 20 youngsters that could go on to be world class but giving them all super a high PA is unrealistic as it is unlikely they will all be fantastic. I think PA put in the database should only set a high probability of the in game PA to be within a certain range.

Example

PA 10

190+ 5%

180+ 10%

170+ 20%

160+ 30%

150+ 20%

140+ 10%

130+ 5%

PA 9

180+ 4%

170+ 10%

160+ 20%

150+ 30%

140+ 20%

130+ 10%

120+ 5%

PA 8

190+ 0.1%

180+ 0.9%

170+ 4%

160+ 10%

150+ 20%

140+ 30%

130+ 20%

120+ 10%

110+ 5%

PA 7

190+ 0.01%

180+ 0.09%

170+ 0.9%

160+ 4%

150+ 10%

140+ 20%

130+ 30%

120+ 20%

110+ 10%

100+ 5%

PA 6

190+ 0.001%

180+ 0.009%

170+ 0.09%

160+ 0.9%

150+ 4%

140+ 10%

130+ 20%

120+ 30%

110+ 20%

100+ 10%

90+ 5%

A great prospect would be given a 10 rating. 85% chance of a 150+ PA but nothing is certain. Who is to say that the great prospect has not already reached his level?

The majority of Premier league clubs very best youth players will be rated 7, about one in five will generate +150 ratings

Good but no exceptional youth players at premier league clubs get 6. Probably going to play championship level at best but one in twenty will make it to the top.

With this system I can fill Arsenal’s good youth team players with 6/7 ratings, Any one of which has a very small chance of being world class and likley to be at least good enough fo the Championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think one change I'd make is to add 10 on to everyone's PA and make it that much less likely they reach their peak. Also have more very late developing players (ie some).

I think this is spot on for a number of reasons (although I might increase the number to something like 20). Then the proper training, injuries, playing time, coaches, etc. keep only the very lucky/rare player from actually reaching his PA.

Actually, this would functionally be exactly the same as the OP's wish, albeit implemented a different way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not enough randomness for my liking. Arsenal have about 20 youngsters that could go on to be world class but giving them all super a high PA is unrealistic as it is unlikely they will all be fantastic. I think PA put in the database should only set a high probability of the in game PA to be within a certain range.

Example

PA 10

190+ 5%

180+ 10%

170+ 20%

160+ 30%

150+ 20%

140+ 10%

130+ 5%

PA 9

180+ 4%

170+ 10%

160+ 20%

150+ 30%

140+ 20%

130+ 10%

120+ 5%

PA 8

190+ 0.1%

180+ 0.9%

170+ 4%

160+ 10%

150+ 20%

140+ 30%

130+ 20%

120+ 10%

110+ 5%

PA 7

190+ 0.01%

180+ 0.09%

170+ 0.9%

160+ 4%

150+ 10%

140+ 20%

130+ 30%

120+ 20%

110+ 10%

100+ 5%

PA 6

190+ 0.001%

180+ 0.009%

170+ 0.09%

160+ 0.9%

150+ 4%

140+ 10%

130+ 20%

120+ 30%

110+ 20%

100+ 10%

90+ 5%

A great prospect would be given a 10 rating. 85% chance of a 150+ PA but nothing is certain. Who is to say that the great prospect has not already reached his level?

The majority of Premier league clubs very best youth players will be rated 7, about one in five will generate +150 ratings

Good but no exceptional youth players at premier league clubs get 6. Probably going to play championship level at best but one in twenty will make it to the top.

With this system I can fill Arsenal’s good youth team players with 6/7 ratings, Any one of which has a very small chance of being world class and likley to be at least good enough fo the Championship.

That's not a bad idea actually.

However we should also keep in mind a player is NOT always gonna reach his PA...

So in case you have a player with your PA 9, but with low anbition and skills, and he also falls in the lower end of the actual PA spectrum, you could as well end up with a PA of 130 which will NEVER get reached in the game due to other circumstances...

That way, a promising and semi-established youngster could become a Top Star at ManU, or a random guy at Wigan

So, while I think in theory your new system deserves a shot, I think it's done more with the CA in mind, as if any given PA would be reached de facto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some interesting bids in here, and it was also my intention to start a debate. Keep them coming! Hope SI will take notice and realize that maybe the current system could be modified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...