New Idea - Scrap Fixed PA

[edgar555]

he went out of his way to 'back up' that he was right, but showed he was wrong? it was childish, for going out of his way to get a list of players when that isnt the issue, ie childish, and its not fact when it is wrong. unless the first team was wholly changed you wouldnt be correct and it wasnt.

Really? Strange that you read it like that and no one else has? Could it be even slightly possible that its you thats wrong?

[edgar555]

THAT is why you cant win in GD, because you have to be RIGHT before you can win.

Just going to follow your lead and double post, sorry everyone else.

I believe you can't win in GD because its full of people like you who can't admit when they are wrong.

Anyway a wise man once told me not to argue with an idiot, they'd drag me down to their level and beat me with experience.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Judgmental much? (the bolded part, also fantastic use of the English language)

I really don't care for Stoke, your brand of football is not appealing, but you have had 'success' fair play.

I am looking at the list Cougar has put up and if the dates are correct (you'd obviously know better than me) then 19 out of 25 joined you in 2008 or later (my football knowledge is good enough to know that a good proportion of those 2008 signings were summer ones) which means that 76% of them have joined since gaining promotion.

Seriously mate, argue how you want, those numbers do not lie. You'll probably tell me I'm wrong though, and judging by this thread this afternoon, you'll take 3 posts to do so.

my bad with the posts.

i made a point that a team that gained promotion didnt wholesale change the squad. in the pre season from championship to premiership. no more than a few players joined. simple. not a whole team. and that was my point. so how am i wrong? my point being in reference to the game as in fm you would have to change far more players if you wanted great ambitions as that, etc.

if i really have to, i'll get a definitive list of the players who made the change for the champsionhip stoke to prem team. if i must. then we'll see how many players i must be missing out thinking of.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Really? Strange that you read it like that and no one else has? Could it be even slightly possible that its you thats wrong?

yes its me thats wrong. they changed their whole team for the prem, sorry.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Just going to follow your lead and double post, sorry everyone else.

I believe you can't win in GD because its full of people like you who can't admit when they are wrong.

Anyway a wise man once told me not to argue with an idiot, they'd drag me down to their level and beat me with experience.

this is the pot calling the kettle black!

**** me sideways!

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

ive just checked and they signed FOUR players. hardly squad re-haul. (also, alot of the players you'd listed as signing at a certain date were incorrect).

edit: one of the four was kitson who played a few games then got loaned out, didnt score and wasnt to the good of the cause of getting them where they were.

i was right. but i knew it.

[Cougar2010]

hard facts?

you listed players who they signed after they were in the prem and performed to the mid table level. they didnt sign more than a few players in pre season from championship to prem. full stop.

I don't even know why I'm bothering.

This season 19 Stoke players have more than 10 appearances but I'll also disregard Pugh who has made 13 appearances (Mainly sub or in the Cups) leaving the following 18. They can be broken down as follows:

Signed after promotion to the Prem (After June 2008)

Tuncay

Huth

Whitehead

Collins

Kitson

Sorensen

Faye

Higginbotham

Etherington

Beattie

Signed January 2008 when Stoke were battling up the top of the Championship

Whelan

Shawcross

That leaves these six players: Lawrence, Fuller, Sidibe, Diao, Delap, Wilkinson

Lawrence, Diao & Delap all joined in 2007 having had Premiership experience. They were arguably the start of the rebuilding to compete in the Premiership and had Stoke not made it they would have probably moved on.

Fuller joined earlier but likewise would probably have been sold to a Premiership club had Stoke not achieved promotion.

With Wilkinson being a youth player who has progressed that only leaves Sidibe from the squad that were an "average" Championship side and he is probably a little out of his depth in the Premiership.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

*in the transfer window betwen championship and premiership.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

why have you listed players signed after the first transfer window from championship to premier?

we're talking about a squad re haul as you would have to do to achieve the mid table feat in fm as real life. they signed, four or five players, not even half a starting team.

why ARE you bothering losing on the fact thing?

jees

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

WHERE the hell you got these 'facts' from?! higginbotham joined stoke in 06! ha!

[edgar555]

WHERE the hell you got these 'facts' from?! higginbotham joined stoke in 06! ha!

Surely your facts will tell you that he was re-signed in 2008 after a year with the Mackems. You know the same 2008 when you got promoted.

Maybe you should get yourself a programme after all.

Cougar is providing factual information, you are not.

Bring me the facts that refute his points and I for one will hold my hand up and say I was wrong, until then keep whistling in the wind my friend.

[Cougar2010]

ive just checked and they signed FOUR players. hardly squad re-haul. (also, alot of the players you'd listed as signing at a certain date were incorrect).

edit: one of the four was kitson who played a few games then got loaned out, didnt score and wasnt to the good of the cause of getting them where they were.

i was right. but i knew it.

why have you listed players signed after the first transfer window from championship to premier?

we're talking about a squad re haul as you would have to do to achieve the mid table feat in fm as real life. they signed, four or five players, not even half a starting team.

why ARE you bothering losing on the fact thing?

jees

You need to check your facts, Summer 2008 they signed ten players although only six were main first teamers. January 2009 they also added Etherington & Beattie who heavily featured in the second half of the season.

[Cougar2010]

Anyway we are moving away from your point of having to overhaul your squad.

You claim you need to sign a whole new team when moving up a division but the point in RL is that this is done over the course of a few seasons (Some before and some after promotion) not in one transfer window.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

so you're trying to say he didnt played first team football already for stoke? his 40 odd appearances before they were promoted, and playing at that level doesnt count? i think not. im right on that one. yeah he went then came back, which isnt the case. he'd already had a full first team playing season there. before promotion. and why do you think this cougars bogus 'facts' are true?

you two are the idiots you find on here.

edit: yeah, my point of overhauling, and im not moving away from it you are, ive been proved right on signing four/five players and thats not a overhaul. tell someone who cares, and fight against someone whos wrong

[Cougar2010]

so you're trying to say he didnt played first team football already for stoke? his 40 odd appearances before they were promoted, and playing at that level doesnt count? i think not. im right on that one. yeah he went then came back, which isnt the case. he'd already had a full first team playing season there. before promotion. and why do you think this cougars bogus 'facts' are true?

you two are the idiots you find on here.

First, don't call people idiots just because they don't agree with you. Behave like an adult and argue your point constructively.

Higginbotham is a bit of an odd case but he started at Man Utd of course before moving to Derby who were in the Premiership. After a couple of seasons they got relegated he moved back to the Premiership with Southampton. A couple of seasons later they got relegated and after a season in the Championship he moved to Stoke.

He stayed a season, they didn't get promotion and he demanded a move, joining Sunderland in the Premiership before moving back to Stoke when they were promoted.

Overall he is a proven, experienced Premiership player who has always pushed to play in the top division only playing odd seasons in the Championship. He is far from a player who has grown with the club.

[edgar555]

so you're trying to say he didnt played first team football already for stoke? his 40 odd appearances before they were promoted, and playing at that level doesnt count? i think not. im right on that one. yeah he went then came back, which isnt the case. he'd already had a full first team playing season there. before promotion. and why do you think this cougars bogus 'facts' are true?

you two are the idiots you find on here.

edit: yeah, my point of overhauling, and im not moving away from it you are, ive been proved right on signing four/five players and thats not a overhaul. tell someone who cares, and fight against someone whos wrong

Where did I say he hadn't played for Stoke at chumpionship level? Nowhere, so don't put words in my mouth. Yes he played for you, then left and then when you were in the Prem he came back. He still counts as a 'signing' though. Unless my understanding of that word is wrong (you'll probably think it is, but you've already proved to be clueless, so you know, whatever).

I'm not sure Cougars facts are true but the couple I've checked out, seem concrete and in light of you providing absolutely nothing then I'll stick with them for now.

Don't call me an idiot either. Jog on.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

First, don't call people idiots just because they don't agree with you. Behave like an adult and argue your point constructively.

Higginbotham is a bit of an odd case but he started at Man Utd of course before moving to Derby who were in the Premiership. After a couple of seasons they got relegated he moved back to the Premiership with Southampton. A couple of seasons later they got relegated and after a season in the Championship he moved to Stoke.

He stayed a season, they didn't get promotion and he demanded a move, joining Sunderland in the Premiership before moving back to Stoke when they were promoted.

Overall he is a proven, experienced Premiership player who has always pushed to play in the top division only playing odd seasons in the Championship. He is far from a player who has grown with the club.

dont agree with me? you got facts wrong and facts arent 'agreeing' or disagreeing.

i never mentioned growing with a club either. so that points thrown out. you can hardly call a player who was bought from a championship club who spent half his career in the championship a prem player; and neither was he a 'new' signing as stated, being the same player bought back.

look whos going off track?

[grade]

Guys, please settle down.

Let's have a proper discussion or this thread will be closed.

It was going on nice and then all of the sudden goes quickly off the tracks.

[arsenal fan 123]

WOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

Only started this as a idea and now its a war please calm down its only a game in the end

[Cougar2010]

dont agree with me? you got facts wrong and facts arent 'agreeing' or disagreeing.

i never mentioned growing with a club either. so that points thrown out. you can hardly call a player who was bought from a championship club who septn half his career in the championship a prem player; and neither was he a 'new' signing as stated, being the same player bought back.

look whos going off track?

None of my facts are wrong as far as I'm aware, if you have evidence that proves otherwise then provide it.

Perhaps at this stage it would also be beneficial if you restated clearly what your point was/is.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

Where did I say he hadn't played for Stoke at chumpionship level? Nowhere, so don't put words in my mouth. Yes he played for you, then left and then when you were in the Prem he came back. He still counts as a 'signing' though. Unless my understanding of that word is wrong (you'll probably think it is, but you've already proved to be clueless, so you know, whatever).

I'm not sure Cougars facts are true but the couple I've checked out, seem concrete and in light of you providing absolutely nothing then I'll stick with them for now.

Don't call me an idiot either. Jog on.

i will call someone an idiot if i will, for not looking at the actual real facts and the so called 'argument'.

yeah that one player may be judged to be a signing, that still accounts for five players. that is not a re haul as you made out. one of the other players was loaned out after not scoring so hardly a difference to the final position either.

(and hey, they must have something, seeing as they beat spurs at britannia)

so, if you've checked his facts, im sure you'll find only five players came in to change the team, out of 25? wtf was this 76% you mentioned? random figures here huh.

it was one fifth of the first team squad. 20%

no overhaul. facts are with me boys.

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

None of my facts are wrong as far as I'm aware, if you have evidence that proves otherwise then provide it.

Perhaps at this stage it would also be beneficial if you restated clearly what your point was/is.

actually, at this stage, itd be nice if you stated what YOUR point is.

because you have none it seems.

[Cougar2010]

actually, at this stage, itd be nice if you stated what YOUR point is.

because you have none it seems.

I didn't have a point originally, I was just refuting yours (see post 109)

To which you responded in post 111:

no, alot of the stoke players are still there, in the first squad. several players at least, playing large roles they wouldnt ever have done in fm because their stats would have been so low to have done such a feat.

Since then much of the discussion has been about which players joined when.

I have also attempted to clarify your point and it seems to be:

In RL clubs don't overhaul their squad during one transfer window following promotion but you are forced to in FM because players don't "grow" with their clubs (PA restricts them)

In response I would say:

A) Teams in RL do overhaul their squads but they do it over a period of two-three seasons, partly before & partly after promotion.

B) Few players grow with their clubs in RL. I've given examples of Wilkinson & possibly Sidibe. Other players that were brought in already had a higher PA as shown by their Premiership experience with other clubs.

[SCIAG]

Conshaldo, you really should stop now. edgar and Cougar are probably the two best users still posting reguarly in GD, and they've thoroughly beaten you. You're refusing to see that they are right.

Joined 2010

Begovic

Joined 2009

Huth- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Beattie- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Whitehead- signed for first team, in and out

Tuncay- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Collins- I can't pin down who this is. Neill Collins?

Etherington- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Joined 2008

Griffin- signed for first team, went straight to first team (since out of side, shipped out on loan)

Higginbotham- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Whelan- signed for first team, went straight to first team

Soares- signed as squad member, in and out, now gone

Kitson- signed for first team, in and out when Pulis discovered he was actually good at football

Pugh- signed for first team squad

Shawcross- signed for first team, straight to first team

Davies- squad member

Tonge- squad member

Faye- signed for first team, went straight

Sorensen- signed for first team, straight

Sonko- first team, straight, dropped, loaned

Joined 2007- all first team, now out (except Delap)

Lawrence

Diao

Delap

That's an overhaul.

Let's compare with Reading, the last team to finish mid-table in their first season (prior to this season):

Signings after promotion:

Seol- squad member, played at first due to injury to first choice winger. Dropped, never made it back.

Sam Sodje- barely played

Ulises de la Cruz- squad member

Andre Bikey- squad member, long spell in the side when Sonko got injured. Eventually established himself.

Peter Mate- two games, one goal.

January:

Oliver Bozanic- kid, never played, recently released

Michael Duberry- squad member, never a first teamer, handy cover.

Mikkel Andersen- kid, yet to play in the league.

Greg Halford- signed for first team, never made it.

Horrible feeling I've missed someone. That's the best ever Championship side, and they needed 7 signings (discounting the two kids), three of whom barely played. When three key players didn't recover from injury, another got attitude problems and another left, Reading were relegated.

Squad reinforcement is key, which debunks your "PA is stupid because players can't rise through the leagues" argument.

Incidentally, I finished 6th with that Reading squad on FM, and won the league the next season with a handful of (very good, admittedly) signings.

[Cougar2010]

Collins- I can't pin down who this is. Neill Collins?

This one is Danny Collins, Welsh International defender signed from Sunderland at the beginning of this season.

[keeper tom]

Yep i hate the fixed PA aswell. I hope they change this for FM 11 like you said and a player who is dong well can actually improve

[SCIAG]

This one is Danny Collins, Welsh International defender signed from Sunderland at the beginning of this season.

For some reason, I had him mixed up with Villa's Collins.

[LSS]

things not going like this. when a player reacher maximum of his PA he can never improve even he breaks all of the records.

so i am aggre with these rewards and records must effect players

Why should the rewards and records affect his PA? Apparently by winning all those rewards he has been playing well enough with the attributes he has. Why should he get even better? A lot of things affect how a player performs, it's not just about his own ability. Maybe Drogba would be mediocre if he was playing for some other team?

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

You hit the nail on the head.

[looknohands]

Why should the rewards and records affect his PA? Apparently by winning all those rewards he has been playing well enough with the attributes he has. Why should he get even better? A lot of things affect how a player performs, it's not just about his own ability. Maybe Drogba would be mediocre if he was playing for some other team?

You hit the nail on the head.

1. Because that's exactly what happens in the DB with each new version. A player performing well = an increase to his CA/PA. Seriously, when Drogba broke out in the EPL, do you think people simply nod their heads and said "Well, he's getting the utmost of his limited ability,"? Of course not...his PA was changed to reflect his standing as a star.

2. I view it as "some researcher's opinion of how talented a player is shouldn't be the sole factor in determining how good a player can be." Seriously, if any of the researchers were able to accurately predict (even with a 30 point range for some) how good a player can be they'd be working as scouts for a club, not helping out with a videogame.

[Brian Shanahan]

1. Because that's exactly what happens in the DB with each new version. A player performing well = an increase to his CA/PA. Seriously, when Drogba broke out in the EPL, do you think people simply nod their heads and said "Well, he's getting the utmost of his limited ability,"? Of course not...his PA was changed to reflect his standing as a star.

2. I view it as "some researcher's opinion of how talented a player is shouldn't be the sole factor in determining how good a player can be." Seriously, if any of the researchers were able to accurately predict (even with a 30 point range for some) how good a player can be they'd be working as scouts for a club, not helping out with a videogame.

1) Personally I reckon over the years most players have not changed much in their PA ratings. For example IIRC when Messi first came into the game in FM05 he was a -10 (top range player) the only thing that has changed since is that his PA has firmed up to 195. Most players who have had their PA changed would be those who have had it reduced due to them not actually being as good as their early perfomances have suggested, like Franny Jeffers.

2) Most judgements of players can be incredibly biased, whether they are coming from a scout or from a game researcher. Can any scout accurately predict how good a player will be. The most pertinent example here I can think of is Agbonlahor. I read in an Observer article at the start of the season that the only recommendation given when Villa signed him as a schoolboy was that he was the fastest the scout ever saw, and that the scout also said he'd no technique. Apart from pace I'd bet my parent's house that scout would not have predicted how good Agbonlahor could be.

Everybody who's advocating dropping PA seem to be citing Drogba as an example of a player who's been served badly by the mechanism. They should really look at his past history (it's in the game). Drogba was a player who barely featured in French football until 02-03 where he got 1 goal every second game for the provincial club Guingamp. He then went to l'OM for a season where he kept the ratio, moving on to Chelsea where his next season of similar goal per game ratio was in his third season with 20 in 36. Frankly in all this time I never felt that Drogba was under-rated in the game, in fact in FM05 I thought he was over-rated, and even now I think he is so high profile because of his media reputation as for his skills.

The only players that it could be argued the CA/PA system fails are the once a generation maestros who are impossible to quantify except for in terms of wow. This would include only Pele, Garrincha, Maradonna, Best and Puskas in my books.

[Guest markyosullivan]

TC, Drogba was one of the top goalscorers in France before he joined Chelsea..

[Brian Shanahan]

TC, Drogba was one of the top goalscorers in France before he joined Chelsea..

Only for a season or two, if you look at his history he wasn't scoring anything for his first four seasons there so he wasn't a regular top scorer. Also at the time when he was in France the league was at a very low ebb, all the good players were either at Lyon or playing for a foreign club. In his whole league career he has had only 4 seasons where he's scored 1 in 2 or better, as shown by his wiki page.

[SCIAG]

Drogba didn't sign for Chelsea by accident. Mourinho rated him anyway, and actually demanded Drogba ahead of several bigger name strikers.

[Brian Shanahan]

Drogba didn't sign for Chelsea by accident. Mourinho rated him anyway, and actually demanded Drogba ahead of several bigger name strikers.

Personally I think he was wrong (and I wouldn't rate him the best judge of players anyway), but the point I was making with Drogba was that the CA/PA system didn't fail him, in fact it is probably the opposite that he would be a perfect example of how to model a player under the system (I may have been too opaque).

[conshaldo_bonaldo]

I didn't have a point originally, I was just refuting yours (see post 109)

To which you responded in post 111:

Since then much of the discussion has been about which players joined when.

I have also attempted to clarify your point and it seems to be:

In response I would say:

A) Teams in RL do overhaul their squads but they do it over a period of two-three seasons, partly before & partly after promotion.

B) Few players grow with their clubs in RL. I've given examples of Wilkinson & possibly Sidibe. Other players that were brought in already had a higher PA as shown by their Premiership experience with other clubs.

but isnt that half the point? the fact that once a player/s have proven themselves in the prem, their stats go up - even if they are an old player, who everyone would not think had it in them, and shown on the game. thats all im saying; the fact the researchers dont allow for most players to suddenly prove themselves, particularly older ones, who on the game may have a higher PA than their CA but will not improve if they do get on well in-game because the game says a player of a certain age cant get better, when clearly in RL its been proved by a few players over the last few versions of the game players stats suddenly increasing. thats the kind of unpredictable increase im thinking of that should happen during a game.

[midlothian]

Originally Posted by LSS

Why should the rewards and records affect his PA? Apparently by winning all those rewards he has been playing well enough with the attributes he has. Why should he get even better? A lot of things affect how a player performs, it's not just about his own ability. Maybe Drogba would be mediocre if he was playing for some other team?

Absolutely. No amount of coaching would make me a Messi; no matter how many goals I scored or trophies I won I still would not be a superstar (I would say my PA is about 30, my CA is 5 ) Yeah, in earlier versions the researchers got Drogba's potential ability wrong. Big deal, it happens.

Players do have a limit to their natural talent and the game should reflect this. Talking about Stoke and Birmingham players progressed after promotion is missing the point: they improved but they have a ceiling. Stoke have done well in the Prem but you can't see United, Arsenal and co. vying for the services of their players, same for Birmingham. Their players improved to their natural level.

Yes, players in real life can actually play better than their abilities would suggest and that there are late bloomers. The first happens in FM as well, at least for me it does: in my current save, I have an absolutely brilliant striker who just happens to score a lot less than his less talented colleague. But I could cite other examples when a player of mine defied his attributes to perform brilliantly while supposedly great footballers failed, just like they do in real life. But regardless of that, their "talent level" did not increase as it does not in real life, either. Ivica Olic will never be a world-class striker but he performed better at Bayern than Mario Gomez who, I'd say, has more potential. Probably will never reach it though.

Late bloomers should be in the game, yes, but that is a matter of player development, i.e. how fast and when they reach their maximum potential. So CA development should be a little more flexible but other than that it's fine as it is, especially if you, like me, never look at CAs and PAs... attributes, scout ratings and performance are the only things that matter.

[Brose]

I was reading another thread and there was this discussion about this game being too easy for human players over long careers as we are able to basically cherry pick future stars with pretty much accuracy from young. Much of this has to do with the accuracy of our scouts determining their PA. If we change the way the scouts generate reports, do you think it would be better.

Like from saying that this 16 yr old kid will be a leading premiership star in future, to a comment like, this kid still has lots of room for improvement. Since it is pretty hard how you can gauge how a 15 yr old can become a superstar like 9 yrs down the road.

As for the CA/PA discussion. The PA could be adjusted in a way so it isn't a hard ceiling. But a soft one with either a normal distribution or probably some sort of graph with the tail end dropping down sharply after the mean. So that the CA can reach the PA (under optimal situations), but have the potential to exceed it slightly. There is probably a chance for a player with low PA to have a high superstar CA but the possibility is so low maybe you will see one in 10 yrs or so.

[Dave C]

PA is a valuable part of the development model, and it's still far better to have a set PA than any of the alternatives dicussed in here, or in the countless previous threads where it's been brought up. The fact is, everybody is "capped". No matter how hard the vast majority of players work, no matter where they are, they will never be world class. Their genetics just don't allow it. Anybody who doesn't accept that needs to just give up now, because you'll always lose that argument with SI.

What we are talking about here, as always, is development. Not actually the PA, And this is where the FM model needs work. Scrapping PA will not solve these problems. Fxing ranges still gives you a cap, so that doesn't solve problems.

Where real players are concerned, researchers have a problem. We can't assess a player on the basis of the best he might ever be, because in FM as it stands he'd have a high chance of making that, swelling the game with too many good players. So we assess how good we think he is likely to be. It bothers me a little.

What's needed is a more dynamic development model, where various factors impinge on the ability of the player to reach his PA. That's how you get the variation in developmental rates, and all the other stuff people are asking for, but also maintain the entirely realistic element that players are basically capped.

In effect, it's like you'd have an "effective PA" in-game. So let's say our mystery player at 18 has CA 70, PA 150. But he's at a lower league club, he's not putting the effort in, the coaches aren't great etc. So his effective PA may only be 90. And any scouts, coaches etc would see that (or maybe, rarely, one or two would see past that).

He moves about a bit, until, at 22, he gets a kick up the ****, and so he starts working much harder. So while facilities aren't great still, his effective PA goes to 110. And he starts playing well and getting more attention. He gets a transfer to a better club at 25. Now, with his passion raised, good coaches, a higher standard of football, better facilities, his PA rises again, to 130. He reaches 127 at his peak.

With that sort of model, researchers could cast a more optimistic eye to the future too.

I'm confident SI won't scrap PA. It works well for it's purpose. People can keep suggesting it, it won't make a difference. I strongly suggest people instead move on to discussing improvements to the player development model, within the CA/PA system.

[x42bn6]

Variation in one direction has its limitations though. Without a cap researchers won't have to worry about exact figures - just a rough estimate with the knowledge that, say, 99% of the time the player will have a peak CA in the region assigned, occasionally allowing them to have a peak CA beyond this region - but perhaps exceeding it rather than just failing abysmally.

To me, having an uncertainty about whether a player will exceed expectations based upon a figure at the very start of his career (assigned PA) makes sense.

For your 70/150 player, you could say that he has a "talent level" of, say, 110, reflecting the fact that on average he may have a peak CA in the region of 100-120 95% of the time. It also allows him to exceed this region in circumstances where a talent level of 110 is not applicable (i.e. making a big career move with much better facilities). The "150" never comes into play as it's not needed. This makes "talent" a pure function not bound nor affected by things like ambition and training facilities.

Basically it will turn "This player will never become a Premier League player" into "This player will never become a Premier League player 99% of the time" realising that there's a chance that he could make a big career move or change his ways dramatically to become a Premier League player, although he will still always be limited by his "talent" which by itself is not a Premier League player's level of talent.

[RBKalle]

1)

Everybody who's advocating dropping PA seem to be citing Drogba as an example of a player who's been served badly by the mechanism.

I've brought up some other players up too, but since they sort of disproven the whole "PA works well as it is, we do have late bloomers in the game already" point, nobody really cared...

Also, I'm not saying SI need to get rid of the PA altogether, just that PA needs a soft ceiling [in order not having the CA curve hitting a brick wall at a given number] and a better and more dynamic developement.

Let's go through this once more:

PA is now a hard ceiling the players attributes will hit sooner or later, and then nothing will ever change until the decline around age 30.

As high the PA can be, the developement of the CA could lead to a player's growth slowing down or halting way below its original level. Also from there, there's no way up.

Basically it's a one-way road, and the slightest bump will cause the finish line to be a little more out of reach.

Starting CA-------------------pA-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxOriginal PA

How realistic is THAT?!

Want a couple of names that proved a capped "potential" can be wrong?

* Antonio Di Natale, 2009/10 Serie A topscorer, debuted at the highest level at age 25, and had his real breakthrough at age 30. His career before that had been unremarkable.

* Luca Toni, debuted in Serie A aged 23 and it took him four years to establish himself. From "just another mediocre lumbering striker" to "international goal machine"...

* Amauri. He scored 18 goals in FIVE seasons when he arrived in Italy... Then he had two "lucky" seasons where he scored every other game, at age 26.

* Julio Sergio Bertagnoli. Oh this is funny... former journeyman keeper in Brazil, ends up as AS Roma's third choice at age 28. Then thanks to injuries and coincidences he becomes the first choice and turns out to be very very good. So good he can go to the World Cup...

* Dario Hubner: top scorer in Tier 3 at 25, in tier 2 at 29, debuted in Serie A aged 30 and won top scorer there too at age 35...

* Christian Riganò, former construction worker, played in Tier 6 until age 24, then at age 28 he signed for Fiorentina in Tier 4 and made it all the way to Serie A, and at age 32 even manage to score 19 goals in 27 apps for modest Messina.

And the list of former Tier 2/3 players who had a successful spell at the highest domestic level could go on for a while...

How do you justify that in FM terms?

A 24 years old who's playing in League One or Two has probably a CA/PA around 100, and odds are the researchers will label him as "fully developed" (or "done").

So in the game you just CAN'T have said players "pulling an Amauri", much less becoming an adequate Premier league player around the age the decline is supposed to start, after a lifelong career of lower league mediocrity.

I mean, take Julio Sergio's example and then imagine how well your FM career would be if, say, at Liverpool you had to mount a serious title challenge with Cavalieri or Itandje in goal...

Or try to survive in EPL with a League One striker as your main offensive weapon...

Flexible PA isn't about wanting every player to become a wonderkid, it's about wanting more variety and chances of developing players in different ways

[redDevil89]

This is the way I see this whole situation. Say you are Man Utd, for example. You have a 3 star CM who is 22 years old and has good potential. He has not entirely reached his potential yet. You also have a 22 year old striker. He is however, only 2 stars, with a very limited potential, and his CA matches his PA, so no growth can happen. You end up doing well for 2 consecutive seasons, winning the treble both times. Your 2 star, low PA striker plays out of his skin and scores 30 goals in both of the seasons, averaging a 7.6 in both. Your 22 year old CM prodigy however, has two shocker seasons and averages a mere 6.7 for both. Both players played all the games.

At the end of the seasons, transfer window comes, and Real Madrid make a big money bid for one of your players. This is where the problem comes in, as they will never bid for the low PA striker who just had an amazing season, they will rather bid for the high PA CM who had a shocking two season. Now irl this would not happen. Surely most scouts would see that the striker actually does have more potential than what they first thought when they assessed him a year ago. Therefore there should be some rise or something that changes within the system to show this rise. The CM however would have to have a drop in something to show that he is not the player that your scouts thought he could be...

I understand that with the CM, his CA could just drop lower, but then if he is scouted, the report would still say that he can be a leading CM, although it is clear he cannot. A change in his PA (or something of the sort) must occur to show that this player does not the potential to be a world class player. This might be an attitude problem or something or the sort, but that too should affect his PA.

The striker however should definitely undergo an increase in PA(or something of the sort) because it's clear he has the potential to be great. He was not just a one hit wonder, and he can cut it at the top level. Although he has a low CA, which is maxed out, and equal to his PA, he still performs at the top level. This however isn't the problem. The problem is that he might continue scoring goals for fun at the top level, but he will never be classified as world class. His description will never show that he is the best player in the world. Thus, he might get slightly lower avg ratings, thus never be noted for Ballon d'Or or other awards. He will probably also never get noticed by the bigger clubs although he is doing exceptionally, it's just that bigger clubs won't want such a low PA player. He might be too much of a risk.

To me, that is the problem with the current system...

[RBKalle]

I understand that with the CM, his CA could just drop lower

As far as I can tell, CA never drops until the player starts to decline due to aging.

However the original PA stays the same while the pA [maximum potential ability he can now reach] drops.

So let's say your CM was originally CA 120/PA 180.

After two disappointing years his CA will be, say, 129, his PA still 180 but now he won't be able to reach it anymore and his "new" PA [pA] is 160.

but then if he is scouted, the report would still say that he can be a leading CM, although it is clear he cannot. A change in his PA (or something of the sort) must occur to show that this player does not the potential to be a world class player. This might be an attitude problem or something or the sort, but that too should affect his PA.

Unless I'm mistaken, the scouts DO notice the drop in pA.

In my career I found Lukaku on free transfer after a crappy spell at Real Madrid, and he was classified as 2.5* for Rosenborg...

I suppose his original PA was now well out of his reach if he was rated as barely adequate to play in Norway

[Brian Shanahan]

I've brought up some other players up too, but since they sort of disproven the whole "PA works well as it is, we do have late bloomers in the game already" point, nobody really cared...

Also, I'm not saying SI need to get rid of the PA altogether, just that PA needs a soft ceiling [in order not having the CA curve hitting a brick wall at a given number] and a better and more dynamic developement.

Let's go through this once more:

PA is now a hard ceiling the players attributes will hit sooner or later, and then nothing will ever change until the decline around age 30.

As high the PA can be, the developement of the CA could lead to a player's growth slowing down or halting way below its original level. Also from there, there's no way up.

Basically it's a one-way road, and the slightest bump will cause the finish line to be a little more out of reach.

Starting CA-------------------pA-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxOriginal PA

How realistic is THAT?!

Want a couple of names that proved a capped "potential" can be wrong?

* Antonio Di Natale, 2009/10 Serie A topscorer, debuted at the highest level at age 25, and had his real breakthrough at age 30. His career before that had been unremarkable.

* Luca Toni, debuted in Serie A aged 23 and it took him four years to establish himself. From "just another mediocre lumbering striker" to "international goal machine"...

* Amauri. He scored 18 goals in FIVE seasons when he arrived in Italy... Then he had two "lucky" seasons where he scored every other game, at age 26.

* Julio Sergio Bertagnoli. Oh this is funny... former journeyman keeper in Brazil, ends up as AS Roma's third choice at age 28. Then thanks to injuries and coincidences he becomes the first choice and turns out to be very very good. So good he can go to the World Cup...

* Dario Hubner: top scorer in Tier 3 at 25, in tier 2 at 29, debuted in Serie A aged 30 and won top scorer there too at age 35...

* Christian Riganò, former construction worker, played in Tier 6 until age 24, then at age 28 he signed for Fiorentina in Tier 4 and made it all the way to Serie A, and at age 32 even manage to score 19 goals in 27 apps for modest Messina.

And the list of former Tier 2/3 players who had a successful spell at the highest domestic level could go on for a while...

How do you justify that in FM terms?

A 24 years old who's playing in League One or Two has probably a CA/PA around 100, and odds are the researchers will label him as "fully developed" (or "done").

So in the game you just CAN'T have said players "pulling an Amauri", much less becoming an adequate Premier league player around the age the decline is supposed to start, after a lifelong career of lower league mediocrity.

I mean, take Julio Sergio's example and then imagine how well your FM career would be if, say, at Liverpool you had to mount a serious title challenge with Cavalieri or Itandje in goal...

Or try to survive in EPL with a League One striker as your main offensive weapon...

Flexible PA isn't about wanting every player to become a wonderkid, it's about wanting more variety and chances of developing players in different ways

A soft ceiling will do nothing for the problems you perceive within the system. The only actual problem with the whole CA/PA system discussed in this topic is the fact that every player seems to develop in too strict a fashion, i.e. they develop fastest to 24 and then tail off until 30-32 and then decline after that. This problem is solveable, but is the solution going to have a detrimental knock-on effect. As I don't know coding I haven't a clue.

All a soft ceiling will do is allow a player at age 24 to exceed his listed PA by a few points, it will do nothing to change development patterns.

Having a fixed potential is completely realistic in my opinion for 99.99% of all professional footballers past, present or future. What PA is given is another matter.

Your examples cited have nothing to do with whether PA should be fixed, soft or non-existant, they only highlight the inadequacies of the model used in game to get there. I have no doubt that SI are working their posteriors off to build a better, more realistic and more variable system of player development, and tying it into the game properly.

Finally the more I thought about your soft PA, the more I considered that unless a ceiling was in place the more convinced I became that the system would be broken. A soft PA system with no ceiling would mean that you could bring any player to Arsenal or Man Utd, and turn them into a 200 CA/PA in a matter of years with your facilities, provided they were young enough to develop. Frankly such a situation would be more broken than CM's set-piece creator.

The only way you could implement a soft system is by putting a ceiling on it. Whether this would be a % or absolute ceiling, the fact of the matter would be that such a system would be a hard system in all but name.

Sorry for the wall of text I got carried away.

Oh yeah and even looking at the examples given to explain your point about development levels, 6 is nowhere near enough especially given the population being sampled. Most coaches could tell you by the age of 12 whether a player will make it, and give a good stab at how good they'll be, but there'll always be a few that fall through the cracks.

[AB-forever]

I've brought up some other players up too, but since they sort of disproven the whole "PA works well as it is, we do have late bloomers in the game already" point, nobody really cared...

Also, I'm not saying SI need to get rid of the PA altogether, just that PA needs a soft ceiling [in order not having the CA curve hitting a brick wall at a given number] and a better and more dynamic developement.

Let's go through this once more:

PA is now a hard ceiling the players attributes will hit sooner or later, and then nothing will ever change until the decline around age 30.

As high the PA can be, the developement of the CA could lead to a player's growth slowing down or halting way below its original level. Also from there, there's no way up.

Basically it's a one-way road, and the slightest bump will cause the finish line to be a little more out of reach.

Starting CA-------------------pA-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxOriginal PA

How realistic is THAT?!

Want a couple of names that proved a capped "potential" can be wrong?

* Antonio Di Natale, 2009/10 Serie A topscorer, debuted at the highest level at age 25, and had his real breakthrough at age 30. His career before that had been unremarkable.

* Luca Toni, debuted in Serie A aged 23 and it took him four years to establish himself. From "just another mediocre lumbering striker" to "international goal machine"...

* Amauri. He scored 18 goals in FIVE seasons when he arrived in Italy... Then he had two "lucky" seasons where he scored every other game, at age 26.

* Julio Sergio Bertagnoli. Oh this is funny... former journeyman keeper in Brazil, ends up as AS Roma's third choice at age 28. Then thanks to injuries and coincidences he becomes the first choice and turns out to be very very good. So good he can go to the World Cup...

* Dario Hubner: top scorer in Tier 3 at 25, in tier 2 at 29, debuted in Serie A aged 30 and won top scorer there too at age 35...

* Christian Riganò, former construction worker, played in Tier 6 until age 24, then at age 28 he signed for Fiorentina in Tier 4 and made it all the way to Serie A, and at age 32 even manage to score 19 goals in 27 apps for modest Messina.

And the list of former Tier 2/3 players who had a successful spell at the highest domestic level could go on for a while...

How do you justify that in FM terms?

A 24 years old who's playing in League One or Two has probably a CA/PA around 100, and odds are the researchers will label him as "fully developed" (or "done").

So in the game you just CAN'T have said players "pulling an Amauri", much less becoming an adequate Premier league player around the age the decline is supposed to start, after a lifelong career of lower league mediocrity.

I mean, take Julio Sergio's example and then imagine how well your FM career would be if, say, at Liverpool you had to mount a serious title challenge with Cavalieri or Itandje in goal...

Or try to survive in EPL with a League One striker as your main offensive weapon...

Flexible PA isn't about wanting every player to become a wonderkid, it's about wanting more variety and chances of developing players in different ways

What's your source for this thing you call pA? Sounds very strange that SI would introduce such a thing to the game. I don't seeing it mentioned anywhere else...

This is the way I see this whole situation. Say you are Man Utd, for example. You have a 3 star CM who is 22 years old and has good potential. He has not entirely reached his potential yet. You also have a 22 year old striker. He is however, only 2 stars, with a very limited potential, and his CA matches his PA, so no growth can happen. You end up doing well for 2 consecutive seasons, winning the treble both times. Your 2 star, low PA striker plays out of his skin and scores 30 goals in both of the seasons, averaging a 7.6 in both. Your 22 year old CM prodigy however, has two shocker seasons and averages a mere 6.7 for both. Both players played all the games.

At the end of the seasons, transfer window comes, and Real Madrid make a big money bid for one of your players. This is where the problem comes in, as they will never bid for the low PA striker who just had an amazing season, they will rather bid for the high PA CM who had a shocking two season. Now irl this would not happen. Surely most scouts would see that the striker actually does have more potential than what they first thought when they assessed him a year ago. Therefore there should be some rise or something that changes within the system to show this rise. The CM however would have to have a drop in something to show that he is not the player that your scouts thought he could be...

I understand that with the CM, his CA could just drop lower, but then if he is scouted, the report would still say that he can be a leading CM, although it is clear he cannot. A change in his PA (or something of the sort) must occur to show that this player does not the potential to be a world class player. This might be an attitude problem or something or the sort, but that too should affect his PA.

The striker however should definitely undergo an increase in PA(or something of the sort) because it's clear he has the potential to be great. He was not just a one hit wonder, and he can cut it at the top level. Although he has a low CA, which is maxed out, and equal to his PA, he still performs at the top level. This however isn't the problem. The problem is that he might continue scoring goals for fun at the top level, but he will never be classified as world class. His description will never show that he is the best player in the world. Thus, he might get slightly lower avg ratings, thus never be noted for Ballon d'Or or other awards. He will probably also never get noticed by the bigger clubs although he is doing exceptionally, it's just that bigger clubs won't want such a low PA player. He might be too much of a risk.

To me, that is the problem with the current system...

To me it seems clear that no change is needed in the CA/PA system. What needs to change is the way the AI judges a player. It should be based more on performance. Well, actually performances should have a much bigger impact on a player's reputation since that it what the AI currently uses to judge players.

EDIT: Wow, some huge quotes there

[neutral]

Yeah, it's unrealistic that all players do not have 200 PA! Abolish this PA, so I can easily build an all-20-attribute-player team!

[Dave C]

I've brought up some other players up too, but since they sort of disproven the whole "PA works well as it is, we do have late bloomers in the game already" point, nobody really cared...

Also, I'm not saying SI need to get rid of the PA altogether, just that PA needs a soft ceiling [in order not having the CA curve hitting a brick wall at a given number] and a better and more dynamic developement.

Let's go through this once more:

PA is now a hard ceiling the players attributes will hit sooner or later, and then nothing will ever change until the decline around age 30.

As high the PA can be, the developement of the CA could lead to a player's growth slowing down or halting way below its original level. Also from there, there's no way up.

Basically it's a one-way road, and the slightest bump will cause the finish line to be a little more out of reach.

Starting CA-------------------pA-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxOriginal PA

How realistic is THAT?!

Want a couple of names that proved a capped "potential" can be wrong?

* Antonio Di Natale, 2009/10 Serie A topscorer, debuted at the highest level at age 25, and had his real breakthrough at age 30. His career before that had been unremarkable.

* Luca Toni, debuted in Serie A aged 23 and it took him four years to establish himself. From "just another mediocre lumbering striker" to "international goal machine"...

* Amauri. He scored 18 goals in FIVE seasons when he arrived in Italy... Then he had two "lucky" seasons where he scored every other game, at age 26.

* Julio Sergio Bertagnoli. Oh this is funny... former journeyman keeper in Brazil, ends up as AS Roma's third choice at age 28. Then thanks to injuries and coincidences he becomes the first choice and turns out to be very very good. So good he can go to the World Cup...

* Dario Hubner: top scorer in Tier 3 at 25, in tier 2 at 29, debuted in Serie A aged 30 and won top scorer there too at age 35...

* Christian Riganò, former construction worker, played in Tier 6 until age 24, then at age 28 he signed for Fiorentina in Tier 4 and made it all the way to Serie A, and at age 32 even manage to score 19 goals in 27 apps for modest Messina.

And the list of former Tier 2/3 players who had a successful spell at the highest domestic level could go on for a while...

How do you justify that in FM terms?

A 24 years old who's playing in League One or Two has probably a CA/PA around 100, and odds are the researchers will label him as "fully developed" (or "done").

So in the game you just CAN'T have said players "pulling an Amauri", much less becoming an adequate Premier league player around the age the decline is supposed to start, after a lifelong career of lower league mediocrity.

I mean, take Julio Sergio's example and then imagine how well your FM career would be if, say, at Liverpool you had to mount a serious title challenge with Cavalieri or Itandje in goal...

Or try to survive in EPL with a League One striker as your main offensive weapon...

Flexible PA isn't about wanting every player to become a wonderkid, it's about wanting more variety and chances of developing players in different ways

But that's all about the development model. Scrapping PA, or making it "soft" won't make a difference.

To get variable development rates, it's the development model that needs work. Not PA.

[x42bn6]

A change in development model doesn't imply PA needs to exist. In fact, maybe soft PA is easier to work with ("Instead of varying the rate of development, vary how PA moves").

[bigdunk]

A change in development model doesn't imply PA needs to exist. In fact, maybe soft PA is easier to work with ("Instead of varying the rate of development, vary how PA moves").

You've still got to have a development model that works though, whether it's regulating CA against a fixed PA or varying a 'soft' PA. It makes little difference in terms of complexity, but having a fixed PA makes it much easier to regulate long-term games and database balance etc.

[x42bn6]

Well not really, as things like attributes (not capped, no such thing as "Potential passing") work perfectly fine with regards to balance. In addition if the idea of a floating PA is taken a little more "dramatically" then the logic in moving the PA around is partly-determined by the development model - meaning relaxing the requirement of a solid PA could make the development model improvements easier to develop.

The only thing PA provides is a guarantee on an upper limit but I personally am not convinced that's truly necessary (see above).

[RBKalle]

@ Brian and Dave:

I do know it's mainly an issue about predictable, straight-line CA developement and that a soft PA ceiling wouldn't fix it.

My long post with lots of name throwing was made to disprove the whole "it's just about Drogba" thingy. And to prove that ACTUAL late bloomers aren't former wonderkids who just lost themselves for a while before making it big.

Then I agree a soft ceiling wouldn't help to create such "extreme" cases of late bloomers, but at least it would help mixing things up a bit, instead of having most players peaking around age 24 or so.

I'm not wishing every League One schmuck you sign for Man U or Chelsea to turn into Rooney or Gerrard, and I doubt that would happen anyway, unless the "new" no-PA system is coded by drunken monkeys...

But would it be so terrible giving the chance to, say, a 130/130 player to go the extra mile under special circumstances and having some sort of "new beginning" if things go very well for him?

@ AB

The pA is evident in FM Genie Scout.

There's plenty of players who have a PA they won't be able to reach, and instead they get a maximum CA.

So pA is the highest a player can go once his original PA has been deemed as out of reach.

Unless the creator of Genie Scout got something wrong, that's the pattern the game follows: CA --> pA. Where pA=PA until a certain age or under certain circumstances, then the gap begins to open itself