New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

[Cougar2010]

I do like this idea. I'm thinking if a player from accrington is signed by man utd then surely he will have a higher potential through the better coaches/training facilities at man utd??

PA should be based on (current stats for position + training facilities + coaches) not just random.

No, his potential would stay the same he would just have a better chance of reaching it if he were at Man Utd.

What would change would be the "Maximum Attainable CA"

[Kenco]

Sort of...

But not every player reaches his max PA in the game anyway, no matter how well you train them or how often you play them.

But I can't see a good reason for having a consistently solid player being stuck with the same attributes [e.g. max PA reached, no more improvement is possible] at age 24 just because the game "decided" that's the best level he'll ever reach.

On the same vein, why can't a former hot prospect who has "lost" a couple of seasons suddenly recapture his ancient form/skills?

Once the game decides the original PA can't be reached, a player will get a new "max CA"... so basically a former PA 180 can't now go higher than 130... And that makes no sense.

Wrong.

The PA doesn't drop, but the Highest Attainable CA drops indeed.

So the absurdity is: two bad seasons: Player won't ever reach the original PA anymore

two good seasons: Player won't ever exceed the original PA anyway

According to the FM dynamic, a player like Giovinco would be doomed already after two seasons as backup at Juventus at his age.

His original PA is gone, and even in the case of a stellar breakthrough next year, he would never be as good as he could have been had he played regularly.

That's not how it works in real football... A player can stagnate and then become a hit even after many years of mediocrity.

FM works on a one-way level only.

Basically it's a straight line from starting CA to the original PA, or to a new, lower, PA renegotiated according to in-game events.

What the game doesn't renegotiate is when things go BETTER than expected...

A player can turn out worse than he's supposed to, but not better.

I think you're not entirely getting our point

Lukaku can become 130, 170 or 195 depending on how the specific savegame goes.

Plenty of other players won't ever become better than 130 despite being consistently good, well trained and kept in high esteem by the human manager

I still think this has more to do with CA needing to be more flexible. It seems that players either progress young or not at all, so maybe the CA system needs to be improved to allow for these late bloomers.

I think you're not entirely getting what PA is. PA isn't what a player is supposed to get to, it is the MAXIMUM he will ever get, assuming everything goes perfect for him during his career.

[nick1408]

I don't like this idea. I would prefer it if many players had higher PA but much fewer players would reach their PA's. At the moment if a player doesn't get seriously injured and gets a reasonable amount of playing time when he is younger, there is a big chance he will come very close to reaching his PA. If less players actually come very close to their PA, we could raise the PA's of the original players in the db which would give us much more variety.

I like the basis of this idea. The thing that concerns me though is if a lot of players have high PA then any player from the lower leagues will be able to be signed by a higher club and trained into a world beater. We still need something to limit growth.

I believe PA should vary throughout a player's career. Players have good seasons, bad seasons, injuries.. it should be adjusting itself dynamically to reflect these events.

Perhaps have some tie in with form, better form gives the PA a chance to increase, poor form causes it to stall or drop. A good way this would work is if Drogba had an amazing breakthrough season, his PA would increase and could possibly increase to the top end of his designated PA scale. If he had a -9 then he could work his way up from the bottom end to the top end, depending how his career is going. I believe the PA brackets are the way forward.

I think this is pretty much the only way to go if PA was to change. You still need to be able to limit player growth. Not every player can go from being a league 2 star to being a premiership star. I think it is unrealistic to rely on CA to stop any player in the game from progressing beyond where they should. I know it does annoy people that some players seem to stop developing. I currently have a 24yo Alex Smithies at Everton who has won two premierships, a couple of minor trophies but has not grown in stats for three seasons.

If every player had a ranged PA then it allows the minor growth once a player peaks. This is all it should be too, minor growth, no major growth. The players mentioned earlier (Drogba, Di Natale etc), did they actually improve their skills when they moved clubs or only refine and learn their limitations? Did the new surroundings and tactics play to their natural abilities?

Is this reletive of a young player in real life? probably not, but on the other hand if there was no PA I could sign a Nicky Nobody, train him up and make him a world class keeper for my side. That is what the current PA system is stopping.

Another option would be to limit growth by club and facilities. Again I feel this is unfair to the player. A player like Tim Cahill would be playing at the same level at Everton or Arsenal but the difference would be the quality of ball to him, not the ability for him to grow as a player due to higher training facilities. On the other hand, I don't want to be able to sign a player from a lower league only to know he can only develop to a certain level, then if I sell him to a bigger club know he will develop to a higher level again. While this may be true in some cases in other cases it is very untrue.

The current system has it's faults but so does each system that has been put forward too.

[Chochip]

The only reason that this current fixed PA system works is that SI updates the database roughly every 3-9 months. Fixed PA would be a huge problem if they were never going to be updated regularly. But SI researchers change them every 3-9 months to reflect real life.

In terms of late bloomers, they do happen in FM. Players with high PA but low ambition/professionalism tend to develop slowly and reach close to maximum later in his career.

One thing to note. Even if you change the PA to be all -10, -9, -8 etc, you are just making it more random, not more accurate.

If Messi was given -10, then he could be stuck at 170.

Rewarding PA points for good training, cup experience etc is a good idea, but giving points for good performance could mean that only the already good players become extra better and the bad players stay bad.

[edgar555]

Wow, now there is good way and wrong way to play? I thought FM gave the freedom to its users to play how we wanted... guess I was wrong.

Typical (low)grade post.

You know full well what I mean. When the game was designed I'm sure that it wasn't in peoples minds that what we all wanted were 3rd party add ons allowing us to see and fiddle with HIDDEN stats. So as I'm sure you've seen my post before, yes people are allowed to play their game how they like. However there is clearly a 'proper' way.

Therefore the whole change the PA system argument is a waste of time, because people who don't dive into editors don't know and don't care what PA/CA are.

OK. Make sense? Probably not.

[RBKalle]

I think you're not entirely getting what PA is. PA isn't what a player is supposed to get to, it is the MAXIMUM he will ever get, assuming everything goes perfect for him during his career.

I know, but when something with the player's growth goes "wrong", the original PA has no real reason to be there, or to be taken into account.

Let's call the new, lower, Potential Ability (or Highest Attainable Ability) "pA" but the core of the issue doesn't change.

Ok, it's more like a matter of CA development, but there are two separate problems I'm addressing.

Late bloomers are impossible in the game because:

1) CA development is rigidly one-way: CA rises, but once the original PA is out of reach, it'll stay out of reach forever.

2) PA is fixed, so a player with relatively low PA will peak around 24 and not move from that level until he starts to get old.

Instead in real life we have tons of examples of players who were considered "lost" or "rubbish" suddenly turning into Top-Level stars.

(in FM language, they filled the gap between their pA and PA)

And players who had been a quiet career well into their 20s and then reached heights they were never "supposed" to be able to reach.

(in FM language, they went over their original PA)

You can see how neither scenario is possible on FM...

In terms of late bloomers, they do happen in FM. Players with high PA but low ambition/professionalism tend to develop slowly and reach close to maximum later in his career.

No...

A player with stellar PA but with poor mental attributes (or simply a player who has been lost in the shuffle for whatever reason) will NEVER reach close to his original PA

That kind of "late bloomers" will be lucky to land a contract for League One sides once the in-game scouts find out their maximum CA is laughably low compared to the original PA.

The AI scouts and managers just "read" the low "pA" and then avoid signing those players.

One thing to note. Even if you change the PA to be all -10, -9, -8 etc, you are just making it more random, not more accurate.

If Messi was given -10, then he could be stuck at 170.

Well, a scenario where Messi won't turn out as awesome [and 170 is still starting eleven material everywhere] is a possibility...

Rewarding PA points for good training, cup experience etc is a good idea, but giving points for good performance could mean that only the already good players become extra better and the bad players stay bad.

Indeed...

But we're just talking about a couple of extra points (possibly for role-related skills) to be weighed according to the original attributes etc...

Of course a Championship striker wouldn't suddenly get a truckload of extra points, becoming better than Rooney over time...

P.S. in my original FM10 savegame [started with 10.0] Lukaku ended up on free transfer and was so bad nobody signed him for months.

And there would be no reason to sign him, considering his CA is low and his pA is barely adequate for second-rate leagues.

That's how the CA-pA-PA system works

[x42bn6]

However there is clearly a 'proper' way.

Eh? It's a game, not a piece of coursework. There's no such thing as a "proper" or "right" way to play a game.

There's certainly things you can't do within Football Manager, such as capturing a flag in an FPS scenario, but it doesn't mean that there's a right way to do things.

Any game developer can expect their game to be hacked and modded - this is a given.

And even if the attributes are hidden it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a bit like saying the sinkhole beneath your house isn't a problem because you're not meant to smash a hole in your floor to see it.

[DaSilva9]

People focus too much on CA and PA when they can be really misleading. The scouting reports should really focus on how suitable a players attributes are to their role and position relative to players in their division. You can have one player that is 165 CA and another that is 150 CA. All your scouts and coaches will tell you that the 165 CA player is better even though the 150 CA has attributes that are perfect for their position and role while the 165 has CA points distributed in attributes that aren't as useful. We know SI has said that CA has zero impact on what happens on the pitch so the star rating system seems primarily useful for making judgments about possible player development but not necessarily useful for judgments about who to put in the lineup. So a players current star rating should be based purely on their attributes while their future star rating should be based on the difference between their PA and CA.

[pleming]

Just a thought, and I can't do this as I don't have my old versions of the game still, but...

What if we went back and tracked players CA/PA over the course of the game versions to use as a model on CA/PA development?

There's obviously some user error as we have people determining what the players CA/PA are, but that should balance out if we have a large enough sample size. For example- sometimes we are just wrong in a version on someone's CA/PA. We make up for it the next year. Like Drogba. We clearly had him wrong in CM01, he's fixed since then, I think.

Anyhow- you could use the resulting data to figure out how players develop IRL and use that to help in-game development.

That being said, I don't think the current system is wrong... the only error really is the system of who's determining what players CA/PA are. It's human error. Not game error.

* Future Stars (high CA, high PA, good hidden skills, formed at Top Clubs/Nations)

* Lost Stars (average CA, high PA, mediocre hidden skills, formed at poor clubs/nations)

* Average Players (adequate CA/PA for their nation/league)

This is shown in game... Remember, we don't know CA/PA, and aren't SUPPOSED to... PS- all the examples below are just from my experience with the game... I realize that with the -10, -9 PA's some of these guys may not have been good or rated highly for everyone

I look at the Future Stars as guys who are 18-20 and have CA about 110-125, PA 165+... guys that FM got right (from previous versions to this one) include Aaron Ramsey, Guiseppe Rossi, etc.)

I see the Lost Stars as guys who are 18-20 and have CA still only 80-100, with PA 165+ and never get over 140... guys that FM got right are Freddie Adu and Jose Baxter...

The Average players are guys who have CA's at 18-20 of 110-125, but CA's of less than 150... guys that FM got right are Jay Spearing, Michael Mancienne, Dave Nugent...

Anyhow. My $.02... I think FM has the development paths this thread claims they don't... the problem is that people want these paths to apply to specific guys on their teams...

I've seen late bloomers in the game. I bought a guy when managing Everton from Belgium with a CA/PA of 134/168 at the age of 25... When I sold him at age 30, he was a 158/168... still not maximizing his potential, but he certainly got a few classes better after the age of 25...

[pleming]

Also- I just had a rush of memory lane guys...

David Edgar @ Newcastle was a guy who had a way high PA and never realized it... he's another failed star, or fizzled star, whatever....

I remember playing with Clint Dempsey a few versions ago, and his CA/PA split was about 30 at the age of 24, and he maxed out completely...

I had Roger Johnson when with Cardiff and his PA was only in the 140's, but he was only in 120's... but he maxed out and got bought up by a EPL club from under me...

Joe Ledley, also Cardiff... had a big PA one version, but was -30 on CA at least... I ended up selling him to Arsenal, and if my memory is clear as I think, he fizzled out as the bust of the season that year...

[x42bn6]

That being said, I don't think the current system is wrong... the only error really is the system of who's determining what players CA/PA are. It's human error. Not game error.

It's not human error because, well, you don't know a player's PA, therefore you can't get it wrong.

Not being able to see something doesn't mean it's not a problem.

[pleming]

It's not human error because, well, you don't know a player's PA, therefore you can't get it wrong.

Not being able to see something doesn't mean it's not a problem.

Fair enough... good point.

[RBKalle]

CA and PA are figures that dictate how good/bad the attributes are or can/will be.

So, for the sake of stopping the usual "but you're not supposed to know CA and PA" objection, let's just put it that way:

players will hit a glass ceiling and their attributes won't EVER go beyond a certain point, regardless of training, first team football etc.

P.S. About the "late bloomers" some people claim to have seen, well a player who had high potential to begin with but stagnated for a while and then went on to achieve almost his full potential is NOT a late bloomer...

Should Freddy Adu suddenly become a world class striker, would you consider him a late bloomer? Someone who had been hinted as a possible Top Star when he was a teenager.

Now if Jason Scotland becomes Top Scorer next year in EPL, that could qualify as a late bloomer...

[Kenco]

CA and PA are figures that dictate how good/bad the attributes are or can/will be.

So, for the sake of stopping the usual "but you're not supposed to know CA and PA" objection, let's just put it that way:

players will hit a glass ceiling and their attributes won't EVER go beyond a certain point, regardless of training, first team football etc.

P.S. About the "late bloomers" some people claim to have seen, well a player who had high potential to begin with but stagnated for a while and then went on to achieve almost his full potential is NOT a late bloomer...

Should Freddy Adu suddenly become a world class striker, would you consider him a late bloomer? Someone who had been hinted as a possible Top Star when he was a teenager.

Now if Jason Scotland becomes Top Scorer next year in EPL, that could qualify as a late bloomer...

Freddy Adu would be a late bloomer, because he always had the potential but hasn't realised it yet.

Jason Scotland being top scorer in the EPL could happen without his attributes suddenly getting better. Chelsea could stick him up front all season, he is bound to score more than he does now without necessarily being a better player.

[edgar555]

Eh? It's a game, not a piece of coursework. There's no such thing as a "proper" or "right" way to play a game.

There's certainly things you can't do within Football Manager, such as capturing a flag in an FPS scenario, but it doesn't mean that there's a right way to do things.

Any game developer can expect their game to be hacked and modded - this is a given.

And even if the attributes are hidden it doesn't mean it's not a problem. It's a bit like saying the sinkhole beneath your house isn't a problem because you're not meant to smash a hole in your floor to see it.

Talk about twisting my words.

Maybe if I'd used 'pure' rather than 'proper' you might not get on your high horse. I and many others don't mess around with editors and don't care for CA/PA because I don't play it like that. Again I will say that people are welcome to do what they want with their games but to change something for the sake of those that 'mess' with the game is just plain wrong.

Your analogy sucks also. Again maybe because I've phrased something badly.

My point wasn't that because you can't see it, its that I don't believe the systems broken.

I'm currently in my 4th season in the EPL and I have a striker who's started 12 games, made 20 sub appearances (usually for only 10-15 minutes) he's topped 10 goals and 15 assists. I don't know his PA or CA and don't care to, but I would wager his CA is no more than 125 and a PA no more than 140. Still he can perform for a title winning side and get in the national squad. He could conceivably go on to be a world beater IRL and someone would cry that his PA will limit that in game, well I say no it won't because he's already achieving.

[Cikku]

I agree with the idea in principle, but with some thought you might come to realise that the game's system is not really that far off from what you all want.

If a player has 190 PA, it is only with certain conditions like injury, training, facilities etc that he can get to that level. So in truth the PA does vary as seasons flow by depending on the player's circumstances.

A few editions back, I remember having a belgian regen aged about 20. He seemed to be a brilliant prospect.....but he got serious year-long injury. When he came back he never ended up becoming the player he could have become, because the injury didn't let him evolve to his max, therefore it can be said that is PA was reduced.

I do agree with the negative number system since it randomises the potential of a player; SI can never know the real exact potential of a player, so it is wise to use the negative number method as it puts in the realistic element of chance of Potential Ability.

In the case of Drogba, I really cant blame SI. If any of us saw him 10 years ago, none of us would have ever come to believe that he was to become the player he is today. Using the negative number system would of helped in this regard, as it would have thrown his potential to chance to a certain extent. This would have left more possibilities to what he might have become in FM.

What I don't like in the game is the predictability of the development of players. Whilst most players develop in the same manner, as in FM, in truth there are other players who get there best years when they're 23 or when they're 33. In FM, it's always between 27 and 31. There should be more variation - players who have long years being crap, than having 3 great year between 30-33; players who who have 2 great years in their early 20s but spend the rest of their careers as weak players. These are occurrences which do occur in real life.

[AB-forever]

I like the basis of this idea. The thing that concerns me though is if a lot of players have high PA then any player from the lower leagues will be able to be signed by a higher club and trained into a world beater. We still need something to limit growth.

That's true and that's why we also need in-game scouts to focus a lot less on CA/PA and instead focus on performance and attributes. If a lot of players have high PA, while still having average CA, he probably wouldn't play that well and thus no bigger club should have an interest in buying him unless they were short of cash. There would be more chances of finding a late bloomer.

I know, but when something with the player's growth goes "wrong", the original PA has no real reason to be there, or to be taken into account.

Let's call the new, lower, Potential Ability (or Highest Attainable Ability) "pA" but the core of the issue doesn't change.

Ok, it's more like a matter of CA development, but there are two separate problems I'm addressing.

Late bloomers are impossible in the game because:

1) CA development is rigidly one-way: CA rises, but once the original PA is out of reach, it'll stay out of reach forever.

2) PA is fixed, so a player with relatively low PA will peak around 24 and not move from that level until he starts to get old.

Instead in real life we have tons of examples of players who were considered "lost" or "rubbish" suddenly turning into Top-Level stars.

(in FM language, they filled the gap between their pA and PA)

And players who had been a quiet career well into their 20s and then reached heights they were never "supposed" to be able to reach.

(in FM language, they went over their original PA)

You can see how neither scenario is possible on FM...

A player with stellar PA but with poor mental attributes (or simply a player who has been lost in the shuffle for whatever reason) will NEVER reach close to his original PA

That kind of "late bloomers" will be lucky to land a contract for League One sides once the in-game scouts find out their maximum CA is laughably low compared to the original PA.

The AI scouts and managers just "read" the low "pA" and then avoid signing those players.

P.S. in my original FM10 savegame [started with 10.0] Lukaku ended up on free transfer and was so bad nobody signed him for months.

And there would be no reason to sign him, considering his CA is low and his pA is barely adequate for second-rate leagues.

That's how the CA-pA-PA system works

I've never heard of this "highest attainable ability" before and if this is indeed in the game it needs to be removed.

And regarding late bloomers: Haven't you read the comments from people in this thread concerning a late bloomer? So they do exist in the game, which is what people want. I do agree though, that there should be slightly more of them, especially on a smaller scale ie. a player who is a decent League 2 squad player as a 23-year-old who becomes a regular in the Championship when he is 29.

And people do focus too much on CA and PA. If a player plays well with his attributes what is your problem? It might be down to your tactics (if a player has sub-standard attributes tactics are probably the reason) and thus if he moves to another club or his current club appoints a new manager he probably won't be as good, which is how it works IRL.

[x42bn6]

Talk about twisting my words.

Maybe if I'd used 'pure' rather than 'proper' you might not get on your high horse. I and many others don't mess around with editors and don't care for CA/PA because I don't play it like that. Again I will say that people are welcome to do what they want with their games but to change something for the sake of those that 'mess' with the game is just plain wrong.

SI certainly do not think that way because in the past they have helped editors before not to mention the Editors' Forum.

If something shouldn't be seen it doesn't mean there is absolutely no problem with it, simple.

The problem with PA is that there's a lost "tail" probability that comes as a result of a hard ceiling - i.e. the probability of going 1 CA above your PA is zero compared with the probability of not getting within 20 CA of your PA. For example, you are less likely to reach 141/140 than 119/140 at your peak. I personally do not believe this is quite true because the player irregardless of how he plays and trains will smack into this brick wall.

Your analogy sucks also. Again maybe because I've phrased something badly.

My point wasn't that because you can't see it, its that I don't believe the systems broken.

Your quote:

You know full well what I mean. When the game was designed I'm sure that it wasn't in peoples minds that what we all wanted were 3rd party add ons allowing us to see and fiddle with HIDDEN stats. So as I'm sure you've seen my post before, yes people are allowed to play their game how they like. However there is clearly a 'proper' way.

And I disagree that there is a "proper" way, see above.

I'm currently in my 4th season in the EPL and I have a striker who's started 12 games, made 20 sub appearances (usually for only 10-15 minutes) he's topped 10 goals and 15 assists. I don't know his PA or CA and don't care to, but I would wager his CA is no more than 125 and a PA no more than 140. Still he can perform for a title winning side and get in the national squad. He could conceivably go on to be a world beater IRL and someone would cry that his PA will limit that in game, well I say no it won't because he's already achieving.

Reputation somewhat compensates for the above but a striker that consistently scores will always be considered for a move upwards and possibly "unlocks" a hidden "potential level" by moving upwards (and of course they are more likely to be found out as a rubbish striker in-form, but that's not the case all the time).

Take Carlton Cole - without researchers updating his PA with every data update if you get him to play effectively consistently like he did early-on in the season in real-life he wouldn't be linked with various clubs - he'll just be an effective goalscorer.

If you win the Premier League with a rather average team all those players will get linked with bigger moves yet despite the fact all have comfortably punched above their weight they're always limited by how their "hard-coded" PA is.

----

My solution is rather simple: Soft ceilings and movable PA with a "talent level".

Soft ceilings

Let players break their PA but slowly, so they can continue to develop but it will be hard work. But a player that consistently gets high 7s and has a good attitude will be able to, say, go 10-15 CA higher than their PA and sustain it, so it allows for him to play and develop differently (not just better) should he make a higher career move.

Talent level

When a player develops, instead of testing if they have reached their PA ceiling, test if they have reached some number p such that p is a function of (i.e. generated from) talent level, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, etc. Therefore if a player makes a huge career move (non-League to Premier League, say), the training facilities statistic will increase substantially and therefore his p-value will also increase, possibly substantially. If he gets tutored by Hatem Ben Arfa his professionalism will plummet and therefore his p-value will also drop.

The p-value is essentially a probability distribution possibly like a Normal distribution or negative Weibull distribution with mean/peak the talent level of the player. So if a researcher sets a player to have PA 120, instead they set Talent level to 120 and their true peak CA will be somewhere in this region - not just below it - but on average will be 120. This way it lets peak CA vary not just less-than-or-equal to PA, but slightly greater-than-or-equal to as well.

This way a player is always somewhat constrained by his natural talent but if he finds some niche and has the correct attitude as well as delivering performances on the pitch, he can find a home at a top team, possibly in a limited-yet-effective-within-these-limitations role, which his talent level (i.e. PA) never let him achieve in the first place.

This way players are allowed to overperform (i.e. go above PA) in the same way that they are allowed to fail (i.e. get nowhere near PA), thus completing in some way the "tail" probabilities that are not available as a hard ceiling.

[AB-forever]

We just need the AI teams (and scouts working for human teams) to buy and recommend players based on performances rather than CA/PA/reputation. If that happens I don't think we need to change the CA/PA-system. AI teams use reputation (as well as CA and PA) to decide who to buy and if good performances are rewarded with a bigger reputation increase, the game should behave more realistically.

[x42bn6]

Not really, Chelsea (spit) certainly didn't sign Verón based on performances.

Form is temporary, class is permanent - but form is a funny thing.

[impirion]

My 2 pence on this.

I have seen this very often, and I think the main problem in this is that the Maximum attainable CA seems to only be able to drop, not rise.

Yes there are mistakes, such as Drogba, but I would argue that the system would allow for regens to be late bloomers if the Maximum Attainable CA were to be allowed to increase (up to the PA) as well as drop.

The fact of life is that people can only get as good as a certain level. For example, put me in training at Man United, or Barcelona, and I may improve, but no way will I ever be Blue Square premier standard, let alone Premiership . I will however be able to reach my PA, that glass ceiling which my genes have determined. That is the reason I believe there should be a PA, because it does exist in real life.

In terms of late bloomers, if Maximum CA were to be allowed to rise as well as drop, then it could be represented by someone who has an AP of say 170 and CA of 90, but starts off at a lower league club with poor facilities, and for several years, that CA doesn't go up much due to not very good training facilities and maybe some poor performances resulting in him not playing much. This lowers his Maximum CA to 140 say.

After a few years, the player moves to another club, and with a new start gets a good amount of games and starts playing well, raising his CA to its ceiling.

This is where I believe there's a problem. The player now, having found a place to develop should (with hard work) be able to recover some of that lost CA, but it can't because he has reached his maximum attainable CA. If the maximum attainable CA were allowed to rise again (up to his PA) due to good performances at a high level, then I believe this would mirror what one could term a "late bloomer".

Imp

[pleming]

My solution is rather simple: Soft ceilings and movable PA with a "talent level".

Soft ceilings

Let players break their PA but slowly, so they can continue to develop but it will be hard work. But a player that consistently gets high 7s and has a good attitude will be able to, say, go 10-15 CA higher than their PA and sustain it, so it allows for him to play and develop differently (not just better) should he make a higher career move.

Talent level

When a player develops, instead of testing if they have reached their PA ceiling, test if they have reached some number p such that p is a function of (i.e. generated from) talent level, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, etc. Therefore if a player makes a huge career move (non-League to Premier League, say), the training facilities statistic will increase substantially and therefore his p-value will also increase, possibly substantially. If he gets tutored by Hatem Ben Arfa his professionalism will plummet and therefore his p-value will also drop.

The p-value is essentially a probability distribution possibly like a Normal distribution or negative Weibull distribution with mean/peak the talent level of the player. So if a researcher sets a player to have PA 120, instead they set Talent level to 120 and their true peak CA will be somewhere in this region - not just below it - but on average will be 120. This way it lets peak CA vary not just less-than-or-equal to PA, but slightly greater-than-or-equal to as well.

This way a player is always somewhat constrained by his natural talent but if he finds some niche and has the correct attitude as well as delivering performances on the pitch, he can find a home at a top team, possibly in a limited-yet-effective-within-these-limitations role, which his talent level (i.e. PA) never let him achieve in the first place.

This way players are allowed to overperform (i.e. go above PA) in the same way that they are allowed to fail (i.e. get nowhere near PA), thus completing in some way the "tail" probabilities that are not available as a hard ceiling.

Hammer. Meet Head of Nail.

OK, I love this idea... I use Landon Donovan as an example... Let's say in game he's got a PA of 158 at the start of the 2009 season, at LA Galaxy. Let's also assume he's at a CA of around 156 (forgive if I'm off a few points, I'm not near my game. On the road with laptop)... He's not young anymore, he's unlikely to develop unless he... drumroll... moves to Europe and gets coached by better coaches, trains at a better facility, is exposed to better tactics, is playing against better competition.... That his CA could only go up 2 points with such a drastic change in surrounding influences is silly... so if his PA could also go up due to these outside factors he'd be able to grow as a player...

think of it this way... he's learning new things that he's never exposed himself to, and would never see at LA Galaxy and MLS... if he hit his 'ceiling' at LA Galaxy, he'd be no better despite all these new outside factors. that's not realistic...

Also, Dempsey is another example. I know a few versions ago, he was a CA/PA of 140/145-ish... now, he's up into the 150/155-ish range... why? He left MLS and NE Revolution for Fulham! Better league, better training, better coaching, better teammates, better everything (well, except for weather, but that shouldn't affect CA/PA).

I could name a bunch of Yanks that this is true for--- Bocanegra, Guzan... a few years ago, we'd all have agreed that Guzan was capable of only so much as an MLS goalkeeper... now he's in a bigger league, learning from better teammates and viola! He's suddenly got more CA/PA...

Now, I realize that this is all scouting on SI's part, but i think it's proving the point of the poster I quoted above... It certainly seems to explain Drogba. He wasn't going to be 'Drogba' as we know him if he stayed where he was and never came to Chelsea...

[x42bn6]

Donovan is a poor example in some ways as he's barely been in Europe and his first stint was disappointing as he couldn't adapt.

Personally I feel that players at that age will never really develop much - so their "PA" will increase but there's not much point really as they'll gain very little.

The PA jumps also work backwards. Got a talented player with a shocking attitude? His PA will be relatively high but will fall through the leagues quickly if he doesn't change his attitude till the extent that the training facilities and reputation attributes are so poor his PA will be low. But his talent will always be apparent and one day perhaps another manager will give him a chance at a higher level to make up for it. This case, of course, is somewhat covered in the PA/reputation system at present. It's the "reverse case" which isn't.

[thebluesigns]

Hi guys,

The best case of a average player turning into a world class player would no doubt be Didier Drogba. An average player (if not even under average) during his time before Marseille. Even then, and when he first joined Chelsea, he was possibly just a 'good' player at best. But his coming to form in his third season really shot him up and his name was thrown around as one of the best strikers in the world. Once again this season he has done the same. But if we were playing an early version of FM/CM, before he had established himself at Marseille or moved to Chelsea, he would be, no doubt, a crap footballer to have in your team. I know this for a fact, i tried to recreate the Chelsea 2006/07 squad back in CM3 and Drogba was rubbish.

I think Drogba being rubbish in earlier incarnations of the game is more to do with researchers rather than statistical fact. A more than healthy return of goals in the French top flight for a smaller club (Guingamp) and a similar haul for one of the countries biggest sides who boast a demanding set of fans. Personally, I wouldn't constitute that as being an "under average player". Surely this is just an example of players not being thought of as being any good until they play in England.

Without a doubt, Drogba has achieved more recognition later in his career than he did earlier, but it doesn't mean he was an "average" player in France.

[Fraggle497]

I usually play without the use of editors/genie scouts until I grow bored of a save, then I open them up and take a look and see what I have code wise. I can agree with the chance of players maybe getting better than what they could ideally attain, but at the same time, stats can drop and come back up again so maybe this could be called "late blooming" ?

The potential ability thing doesn't really bother me. If a player is slapped with 120 and thats the highest he'll ever reach then its tough luck for him, but if he plays incredibly when hitting his max, then I won't complain, he does what I wanted him to do - perform at his highest level. I had a regen on one of my saves, he was a Czech AML who had fairly average stats for playing in the brundesliga, but in the 2nd and 3rd tiers of German football he was a god. Though he seemed average for the brundesliga, he netted 20 goals in the season we won the cup. It turned out he had a CA of 130 and PA of 135 (at this point he was 23). He wasn't going to improve any better than what he was, but the fact was he played at the top of his game and tore apart the league. If he would have had a higher PA then, to me it would seem like his best could have still come BUT would he get better than what he is? Personally I think he wouldnt. The PA thing to me is a signpost saying in a perfect game where he wasn't injured at all and had the best possible factors around his development, he'll hit this and be this good.

Its probably been said lots in different ways, but to me, the whole scouting issue on these coded things would work better if it was to act like this:

Under 18 - scouted on PA

18-23 - Scouted on PA and CA

24+ - scouted on CA, possibly on PA if there was room for improvement

To set something like that up though could require too much complexity in the coding or what not (I'm not tech savvy so I don't get the programming part) but generally, if you're looking to sign someone who has passed their prime development phase, you'd want them to be playing near the top of their game or hitting the top of it. Steven pienaar has been fantastic at everton this season, but to me it is because he has adapted to the situation he is in - he has good support from leighton baines on the left and with the absence of Arteta, he has been given more of a run in the team. he didn't play as well last season for me till arteta was out then he was given a chance to shine. As someone mentioned before, players may always have the skill but they seem to refine them with age - Ryan Giggs was awful in the middle of the park as a youngster but now he's older and doesn't have the stamina to play on the wing all game, he's refined himself as a central midfielder so he can play.

Also with players, reputation can be a factor. IRL, a team coming up against Barca will try their best to isolate Messi because of how good he is, but playing against a defensive team, Messi isn't that effective (See Inter/Barca CL matches, he had some moments but was pretty much out of it). Rooney and Drogba are no exception - They have a huge reputation and players will either try to raise their game to stop them or they'll simply let themselves be blown away (I think FM does this if games aren't simmed on full detail, hence why a team with a "fluke" world cup win (Switzerland in my experience) can suddenly become world beaters)

if i've missed the point completely then I'm a tool who just likes rambling on, but i feel that this system is fine, maybe its just the scouting which could be changed slightly to adapt for specific needs

[Kenco]

Has Drogba actually got miles better as a player since he was at Chelsea? Or was he always a big fish in a small pond that went unnoticed at his previous club, and now he is at Chelsea he is getting the goals and recognition because he is supported by a better midfield?

[SCIAG]

He's got miles better in his time at Chelsea, though he may not have improved immediately after his move. The Drogba of the last 3-4 years is far better than the Drogba who played for Chelsea before that, wasted a lot of chances, scored around 10 goals a season, wasn't guaranteed a start, and so forth, but that may be form, adaption and such.

[J.W.]

Just been reading and a bell rang in my head of the FIFA game a few years ago, where each player was either early, standard or late bloomer. (there were a few more options but i cant remember them all) and this worked really well as it was realistic!!

i also think that player's attribute and PA decrease should be more realistic. Long term injuries and lack of playing time should have more of an affect on attributes. e.g. 5 years ago Michael Owen would have been among the best strikers in the game, now hes crap. there is no way in which the game can simulate this. same with ronaldinho and countless others that have fallen by the wayside. maybe attitude should influence it too

[thebluesigns]

He's got miles better in his time at Chelsea, though he may not have improved immediately after his move. The Drogba of the last 3-4 years is far better than the Drogba who played for Chelsea before that, wasted a lot of chances, scored around 10 goals a season, wasn't guaranteed a start, and so forth, but that may be form, adaption and such.

Wasn't guaranteed a start? Scored around 10 goals a season?

20 goals from 45 appearances for Guingamp in the French top flight (a small team remember), followed by 19 in 35 for Marseille. That's a goal every other game, coincidentally the same record he has at Chelsea. Since joining Chelsea, he's played on average around 30 games a season. Hmmm, it seems that he is just as much a regular in the starting line up now as he was in France.

Remember, Chelsea paid over £20 for him. He already had pedigree.

[Iñaki]

Agree with the OP. A real life example, Pastore was in second or third division in Argentina, nobody knew about him, was bought by Huracan and ended being Champion, after that year he went to Palermo and now is going to the WC. All in 2-3 years from being nobody to playing in a WC.

[Kenco]

Agree with the OP. A real life example, Pastore was in second or third division in Argentina, nobody knew about him, was bought by Huracan and ended being Champion, after that year he went to Palermo and now is going to the WC. All in 2-3 years from being nobody to playing in a WC.

Playing in the World Cup doesn't have anything to do with his PA.

[RBKalle]

I feel we just need three little-big adjustments:

1) Soft ceiling for PA

2) original PA can always be reached

3) CA should fluctuate (up AND down) more

Let's see how:

1) Under special and relatively rare circumstances a player should be allowed to exceed his original PA by a certain range.

Let's say a +10% for players <140 and +5-8% for players 140-170. Players >170 don't really need a boost I think.

This is more for competent players who, despite playing well and consistently find themselves "trapped", with no chance to improve while their contribution to the game might say otherwise.

And also for real "late bloomers", those who weren't considered future stars from the beginning. Think of the typical Tier 2 striker who finally gets his chance in Tier 1 and manages to keep an impressive scoring form among the big boys.

2) That's quite easy... Currently the game has an hidden "max attainable PA" [pA from now on], which at the beginning (and until 21 or so) is equal to the db PA.

But over time, due to poor mental skills, lack of first team football, poor training, poor league standard etc, the gap bets bigger and bigger.

So it's not unusial finding some free agents who have/had stellar potential, but said potential is gone forever.

Instead I see no reason for that happening... With a transfer to the right place, a "fizzled star" can recapture most of his talent.

Clearly the longer he flounders in lower leagues, the harder it will get, but at least a fair chance should be given to him and to the human manager

3) As far as I can tell, CA can either go up or freeze, but the occurrence of it going noticeably DOWN after a terrible season is rare (if it exist at all... someone can confirm it?)

As my 19yo youngster will improve a lot after some first team football, why can't my 24yo fullback get dramatically worse after one season of awful performances and much benchwarming?

Just to bounce back in style the following season?

So far it looks to me like CA mainly works as a straight line, going up [with varying steepness, even flatlining] UP before hitting the peak and going straight down from there.

We need more up-and-downs

With those three (simple?) changes we can just keep the negative PA while getting more variety and unpredictability.

And the game wouldn't be a constant chase for the next Wonderkid, because even a 27yo player could become a Star for a couple of years.

[RBKalle]

About "late bloomers", this is THE guy who embodies my idea of late bloomer, and something that I don't think it's possible to see in FM as it is now.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_H%C3%BCbner

Debuted in Tier 2 aged 25 and established himself as a solid goalscorer there

Debuted in Serie A aged 30 and became Topscorer at age 35...

That requires, in FM language, at least TWO huge boosts in terms of CA/PA/attributes.

1st: a player who by age 24 has just player lower league football is unlikely to have an high, unfulfilled, PA

2nd: a player who by age 30 hasn't played at the highest level is unlikely to have adequate CA, and likely has peaked already

3rd: a 35 years old who wasn't a WorldClass striker, won't ever be topscorer at top level

So Mr. Hubner here had an odd curve...

CA 110ish at 22

CA 130ish at 27

CA 140ish at 30

CA 150ish at 35

Totally possible in FM

[Kenco]

About "late bloomers", this is THE guy who embodies my idea of late bloomer, and something that I don't think it's possible to see in FM as it is now.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dario_H%C3%BCbner

Debuted in Tier 2 aged 25 and established himself as a solid goalscorer there

Debuted in Serie A aged 30 and became Topscorer at age 35...

That requires, in FM language, at least TWO huge boosts in terms of CA/PA/attributes.

1st: a player who by age 24 has just player lower league football is unlikely to have an high, unfulfilled, PA

2nd: a player who by age 30 hasn't played at the highest level is unlikely to have adequate CA, and likely has peaked already

3rd: a 35 years old who wasn't a WorldClass striker, won't ever be topscorer at top level

So Mr. Hubner here had an odd curve...

CA 110ish at 22

CA 130ish at 27

CA 140ish at 30

CA 150ish at 35

Totally possible in FM

I disagree that just because he went up a division and scored more goals that his attributes have to go up as well. It is entirely possible for him to be of equal ability, just playing in a better team under different tactics, that he was able to score more goals.

[x42bn6]

Not that I know how good (or bad) Serie A in general was back then but I do think it's quite a large jump; we're talking solid goalscorer in two tiers over a long period of time. He "peaked" at 35 rather than 27-28 as is usual for a striker. Static PA wouldn't have let that happen.

[Lankylars]

I will agree with those calling for some changes to how CA is attained over time, and the need for different growth paths for players (reaching their peak early, mid, or late career). But a change to PA is unnecessary and unrealistic. Although the idea of a total PA "capping" someone's abilities seems a little abstract, it's completely true and realistic. If I started playing football today for Liverpool, say, it doesn't matter how good the trainers are, how much mentoring Gerrard gives me, how many games I start, etc etc. There are limits to what I can physically and mentally achieve, and this hard limit (though truly impossible for us to know) exists. My muscles will never grow unendingly, allowing me to sprint faster than Walcott. My concentration will never reach that of Raul's, say. I may perform well if I am in the company of other superstars, but this doesn't mean that somehow these innate limits to my abilities have changed.

I think people are somewhat downhearted that a player they favor is "hindered" by a set PA that they can never get beyond. I think that if SI tweaked the CA system, people would not find these issues. Plus, those saying that a flexible PA adjustment system would only move PA up, say, a maximum of five points total over someone's career need to realize that it's the same as having the original PA value set five points higher. A fixed limit has to exist, and PA does this fine as is. The researchers correct their errors in CA/PA evaluations to the best of their abilities.

[x42bn6]

The very reason a cap isn't required is the same way if you were in the game we wouldn't cap your Pace and Acceleration. You may never be as fast as Walcott so we could in theory cap Lankylars's "Potential Pace" and "Potential Acceleration" as, say, 16 and 16.

Of course we don't need to do that. Quite simply in-game the development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development.

Then why can a similar argument not apply for PA? In practice a Blue Square North player will never become the next Lionel Messi but do you need a PA cap to do that, or do you trust your development model and entrust it to ensure that the odds of a Blue Square North player becoming the next Lionel Messi are simply extremely low?

Quite simply there is no need to consider PA as a ceiling but as some sort of measure of "talent". A talented player will in general be better than a less-talented player but we don't need a "cap" to ensure it will happen. We can simply say, "Player A is more talented so the development model will on average ensure Player A will turn out better". And of course such a model will let Player B be even better than Player A on average despite being less talented - such a model doesn't work with a hard PA.

[Lankylars]

I would argue that PA currently serves as both a measure of talent and as a ceiling. Are you stating that FM already has some development model in place that would prevent unrestricted PA growth, or are you suggesting SI needs to add one? PA is a system that, too me, seems relatively simple to work with, which I imagine is quite important when dealing with a database containing thousands of players.

The growth model you're advocating still deals with a PA (unless you are imagining something far different than any model before it). If the player's growth were to be graphed as a line with CA over time, there would still be a maximum it could achieve by the end of his career, even given all "modifiers" to the growth equation, such as training facilities, mentors, playing time, league, etc.

PA always exists, in some form, as a cap, and you even say that the "in-game development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development." PA is simply reflecting the graphical maximum of whatever development model is being used. If people argue that this "max" is reached all too often, then perhaps I'd agree and suggest, as some have, that SI make it harder for a player to finally reach their PA. Regardless, some hard limit always exists.

[TurkzZ]

here here, i agree, the PA/CA system is slightly outdated now, iv long been of the view it needs a revamp

[x42bn6]

I would argue that PA currently serves as both a measure of talent and as a ceiling. Are you stating that FM already has some development model in place that would prevent unrestricted PA growth, or are you suggesting SI needs to add one? PA is a system that, too me, seems relatively simple to work with, which I imagine is quite important when dealing with a database containing thousands of players.

It may not have a system to stop unlimited growth but what's to stop SI from making one?

"Talent level" is even easier to work with because researchers no longer need to worry about small increments or decrements - just a rough idea of where they will end up and letting the game deal with where they actually end up, be it plus or minus some value around the talent level assigned.

The growth model you're advocating still deals with a PA (unless you are imagining something far different than any model before it). If the player's growth were to be graphed as a line with CA over time, there would still be a maximum it could achieve by the end of his career, even given all "modifiers" to the growth equation, such as training facilities, mentors, playing time, league, etc.

I'm not disputing there's a maximum CA value obtained throughout a player's career. I'm saying it makes no sense to assign such a value at the start of a career given that in drastic circumstance shifts because the entire circumstance changes and the player may never fall back to a level lower than before to "balance" it out.

Take Chris Smalling - from non-league to Premier League. Unless he suffers an extremely serious injury it's safe to say he'll be in professional football for the rest of his career. His circumstances at the start of his non-league career which gave him a PA value no longer apply to his current set of circumstances.

PA always exists, in some form, as a cap, and you even say that the "in-game development model will never let you develop to become as fast as Walcott as a limitation in player development." PA is simply reflecting the graphical maximum of whatever development model is being used. If people argue that this "max" is reached all too often, then perhaps I'd agree and suggest, as some have, that SI make it harder for a player to finally reach their PA. Regardless, some hard limit always exists.

There exists some limit but again does it make sense to consider it from the start of someone's career?

Fixing a hard cap loses the tail probabilities on the other side of PA.

Consider this: The probability of a 90/150 player having CA 100 at his peak is not zero (low perhaps, but still nonzero) - but the probability of him being 1 CA above his PA (i.e. 151/150) is zero. Does that really make sense? In fact, the probability of him being 1/150 is greater than 151/150.

If a car can't go more than 100 mph you don't stick a limiter in "to prove it can't". The car will simply never go beyond 100 mph barring noise (i.e. going downhill, clean brakes, etc.). The manufacturers simply make a car and test it and show that in normal circumstances the car will never exceed 100 mph.

A hard cap allows players to fail but never exceed expectations by biasing one tail.

So to conclude:

- There is obviously a peak CA which will be reached during a player's career

- It makes no sense to consider it solely based on the player's original circumstances

- Circumstances can drastically change and some changes can be permanent (i.e. Chris Smalling), throwing into doubt the idea that tail probabilities are insignificant

- A "talent level" will allow players on average to have a peak roughly around this talent level but allowing them to have a true peak CA distributed with noise about this level - without hard-coding anything in

Or mathematically:

PA = E(f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...))

Talent level = f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...)

E(Talent level) = PA

Of course, E isn't an average in this case but some metric which denotes perhaps the 99% percentile (as we can never be 100% sure about anything).

Does this mean that a Blue Square Premier player can become the next Messi? In theory yes but you are more likely to win the Euromillions in consecutive years for the rest of your life, ignoring development limits.

If the development model is improved hard-coded limits are not required - we simply trust the model.

[Lankylars]

It may not have a system to stop unlimited growth but what's to stop SI from making one?

"Talent level" is even easier to work with because researchers no longer need to worry about small increments or decrements - just a rough idea of where they will end up and letting the game deal with where they actually end up, be it plus or minus some value around the talent level assigned.

I'm not disputing there's a maximum CA value obtained throughout a player's career. I'm saying it makes no sense to assign such a value at the start of a career given that in drastic circumstance shifts because the entire circumstance changes and the player may never fall back to a level lower than before to "balance" it out.

Take Chris Smalling - from non-league to Premier League. Unless he suffers an extremely serious injury it's safe to say he'll be in professional football for the rest of his career. His circumstances at the start of his non-league career which gave him a PA value no longer apply to his current set of circumstances.

There exists some limit but again does it make sense to consider it from the start of someone's career?

Fixing a hard cap loses the tail probabilities on the other side of PA.

Consider this: The probability of a 90/150 player having CA 100 at his peak is not zero (low perhaps, but still nonzero) - but the probability of him being 1 CA above his PA (i.e. 151/150) is zero. Does that really make sense? In fact, the probability of him being 1/150 is greater than 151/150.

If a car can't go more than 100 mph you don't stick a limiter in "to prove it can't". The car will simply never go beyond 100 mph barring noise (i.e. going downhill, clean brakes, etc.). The manufacturers simply make a car and test it and show that in normal circumstances the car will never exceed 100 mph.

A hard cap allows players to fail but never exceed expectations by biasing one tail.

So to conclude:

- There is obviously a peak CA which will be reached during a player's career

- It makes no sense to consider it solely based on the player's original circumstances

- Circumstances can drastically change and some changes can be permanent (i.e. Chris Smalling), throwing into doubt the idea that tail probabilities are insignificant

- A "talent level" will allow players on average to have a peak roughly around this talent level but allowing them to have a true peak CA distributed with noise about this level - without hard-coding anything in

Or mathematically:

PA = E(f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...))

Talent level = f(talent, ambition, professionalism, training facilities, ...)

E(Talent level) = PA

Of course, E isn't an average in this case but some metric which denotes perhaps the 99% percentile (as we can never be 100% sure about anything).

Does this mean that a Blue Square Premier player can become the next Messi? In theory yes but you are more likely to win the Euromillions in consecutive years for the rest of your life, ignoring development limits.

If the development model is improved hard-coded limits are not required - we simply trust the model.

I understand your thinking, but I think what you are looking for would be better served by SI making it harder to gain CA points as a player draws nearer and nearer to their PA, sort of an asymptote. I should really stop referring back to math - something that boring deserves no mention alongside football. Anyway, your example of the car isn't the best, in my opinion, because it reinforces my earlier point of a hard, physical limit existing to what that car can do - regardless of who drives or what motor oil they use in the engine.

Your probability example does make PA sound, in a way, absurd, by immediately cutting the chance of a player reaching one point higher. But this is why I would advocate a retweaking of the way in which a player nears their max PA - even if it means adjusting some players' PAs higher for this reason. Then, it would not be "biasing one tail", because the the upper limit of the probability distribution would fall right at PA.

So to conclude:

-I believe that we both would like to see the same thing, but see different ways of achieving it.

-I think that PA serves (or should serve) as a useful 'stat', shall I say, of the 99th percentile of that CA probability distribution, again tying into your car example and my earlier athlete example.

-This set limit is useful because, in the absence of real life properties that govern an athlete or a car, a program needs something to define impossible - everything beyond PA.

-I will agree, and concede, that the current growth and/or 'talent' model may not best serve our, or realism's, interests, and thus could use refining. My argument is that a hard-coded PA will always have some use in the game world.

I will also add that perhaps you are looking for the current negative PA system to be applied in-game? As in, that -10 PA player will carry that rating throughout the game with him. In this instance, there is still an absolute maximum (200), however the player's local max can vary.

If I recall, you were the one doing all of the statistical calculations in the headers vs. CB ratings thread? I must say that your logical approach and supported arguments are a welcome read (and debate) instead of most other stuff people fight about on here .

[chob]

I think the current system is good. The fact that I and others now know about CA and PA has spoilt the game for us. Knowing that we can just check PAs using an editor kind of spoils the game and if im honest i was better off not knowing.

These days i tend to check out PAs but before I did I used to but players on form etc.

I even went back to 1 of my old games I played on FM07 (before I knew of scouts/editors) and checked out my greatest performers PA and CA and was very suprised to see that my top goalscorer for many seasons has CA 165 PA 166. This was with my Milan team.

Now due to my knowledge of the game I won't consider buying anyone below PA 175 which has spoilt it because my above sentence proves that players with lower CA/PA can perform.

[x42bn6]

I will also add that perhaps you are looking for the current negative PA system to be applied in-game? As in, that -10 PA player will carry that rating throughout the game with him. In this instance, there is still an absolute maximum (200), however the player's local max can vary.

Negative PA is used to account for unknown factors for youngsters (or youngsters that make a huge break - sometimes going from a fixed PA to a negative one), rather than a varied-about-development sort of model. How I would use the negative PA idea is as follows: Take -9 which has midpoint PA 165 - instead of fixing a PA at the start, the player has an unknown (not even the game knows) peak CA centred (or maybe skewed, more players miss the boat than get on early) about 165, with 99% of the time falling in the range 150-180. I think that's a better explanation, should use these more often.

Hard limits are of course sometimes useful. But CA and PA are essentially weighted averages and therefore you can actually remove them as long as these limits can be "computed" in a computer program. In fact, I think CA and PA will vanish from the game within 5 years (bold prediction perhaps? ) as I believe it's simply a computing simplification - CA is a useful computation to have to compare players roughly in the game engine itself. Removing CA would allow managers to personally assign "CA" values to players - Wenger has no love for Samba-like defenders but would like a Vermaelen-like defender, while Big Sam would prefer Samba over Vermaelen. Therefore you could argue that Wenger's "CA" rating for Vermaelen is higher, while for Big Sam it's the other way round. And other various things too.

The reason I don't like negative PAs is nothing to do with that though; it's just that it's not granular enough. Several players in the database could be considered "-8.5" or "-9.5", for example - too good for -8 but not good enough for -9. The other problem is that the ranges are too wide - 30 points is too wide for relatively smaller leagues like Eastern European and Scandinavian leagues. Custom PA ranges for me are the easiest way to fix it - instead of sampling from a predefined range, sample from the range given in the database.

[2000AD]

Don't forget that CA/PA isn't the be all and end all, they limit the total amount of stat points the player will have but which stats those points go into is also just as, if not more important. In my 'cheating' game, where I use FMRTE to find all the best players, I've had 2 190+ PA players fail to develope into effective players due to poor mental and hidden stats, and could have a 3rd on the way with my 197 PA striker having good tech and mental stats, but not a single physical stat over 13, including pace and aceleration both on 9.

On the flip side I have a 170 PA winger regularly providing just as many goals and assists as my 2 190+ wingers, because although he has a lower PA he has developed the vital stats for his role.

With focused training, players which may be just 'good' can become 'world class' in the current system.

[Menion]

I think the main problem here is that the researchers can't really predict PA for players. Unless a player bursts onto the scene at 17/18, it takes years for the researchers to get the PA right. Now this is no fault of the researchers. How can they predict that a player who was average until he was 25/26 will all of a sudden become a world class player. This is why fixed PAs do not work in long term games. Researchers cannot accurately predict how players will turn out.

[tottivillarossi]

I think the fixed pa should be scrapped completely and a player's potential should be instead determined by professionalism/form/etcetcetc.

[x42bn6]

I think the fixed pa should be scrapped completely and a player's potential should be instead determined by professionalism/form/etcetcetc.

Not true, otherwise Dirk Kuyt would be as good as Lionel Messi.

[Lankylars]

Not true, otherwise Dirk Kuyt would be as good as Lionel Messi.

Don't I wish that were true this past season...

Anyway, I agree with your assessment of a custom PA system and think that, if implemented correctly, it would be an improvement.

[SCIAG]

I think the main problem here is that the researchers can't really predict PA for players. Unless a player bursts onto the scene at 17/18, it takes years for the researchers to get the PA right. Now this is no fault of the researchers. How can they predict that a player who was average until he was 25/26 will all of a sudden become a world class player. This is why fixed PAs do not work in long term games. Researchers cannot accurately predict how players will turn out.

Often, when they do make such mistakes, it is perfectly possible for a player to have become that good anyway.

Let's say Fletcher, next season, sets up twenty goals, starts dribbling really well, pinging passes about, and really dominating the midfield. He's a very good player, but there's no way in game he could become a 20 dribbling or even 20 passing player. However, I reckon he could perform as well as one.

Performances>>attributes>>>>CA. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to view it the other way around.

[Brian Shanahan]

Often, when they do make such mistakes, it is perfectly possible for a player to have become that good anyway.

Let's say Fletcher, next season, sets up twenty goals, starts dribbling really well, pinging passes about, and really dominating the midfield. He's a very good player, but there's no way in game he could become a 20 dribbling or even 20 passing player. However, I reckon he could perform as well as one.

Performances>>attributes>>>>CA. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to view it the other way around.

I second this, one of my more important players is on a CA/PA of 141/148, good ratings but at the level I'm at (challenging La Liga) some of the posters here wouldn't even bother. He's got the stat distribution I want though (except he's a small bit slow). I generally buy high PA players, but it is only when they're at their peak (I know when I see their stats yo-yo for a few months and then settle) that I check.