Elsu

Potential Ability

339 posts in this topic

Hi,

am I the only one thinking the PA system is a bit too unflexible.

I've seen players that haven't improved after their 22nd year while being a first team player, and playing CL for the next 10 years. Only with age, as their body gets weaker, their mental skills improve, but I don't really see the point in this. Mental skills shouldn't be limited by physical ability.

Why shouldn't the player improve a little bit further, not much. Perhaps increasing his PA by 5 - 10% in the 10 years. Hell even Messi says he's still getting better with experience.

In my opinion PA should further be divided in physical, mental and technical. There are just some players that simply aren't fast, and in FM it's possible to dramaticaly raise the quickness with training.

Any opinions on this?

Regards,

Elsu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i see your point and i also struggle with that sometimes as i usually sell any player before he turns 29/30 years old when their mental attributes reach the top, i don't think that we should see a PA increase tho', for mental attributes = experience imo, so with more play there should be an increase to the rate the mental attributes grow but not an increase on that player's PA, i don't think dividing pa into 3 categories would help at all, imo think it would be kinda messy and hard to actually recognize good players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont confuse PA with CA. The PA figure is the maximum that it is felt that the player can attain with good trainIng and opportunity and is set at the start of a new game The CA figure is his current rating and will improve with time, age, training and game time but will not exceed the PA figure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not FrazT, but I only think its not realistic that if a played reaches 150CA with having 150PA, that he isn't going to improve anymore in his career. Even if he reaches is at 22.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i would like to see the PA system completely taken out

makes no sense for a 21-22 year old to be playing at their peak already

everybody should have an unlimited potential with the main factor of a player's development being the club's training facility, player performance, playing time, and perhaps the "professionalism" hidden attribute. perhaps we can even randomize the "professionalism" attribute for some players in the same way they randomize a PA for wonderkids in FM.

i don't think the lack of a PA system will flood the game with superstars. if you buy a so-called "wonderkid" who sits on the bench all the time or keeps getting loaned out, he shouldn't be allowed to develop as quickly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here we go again...

And most useful comment of the year goes to...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact is there are loads of examples of footballers reaching their peak at a variety of ages.

Every player has a limit, both in real life and in FM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A player's maximum (not limit) can only be measured in hindsight.

It is not possible to measure a player's limit, assuming one exists, because it implies you can see into the future.

The sensible thing, therefore, for realism purposes, is to remove PA because it is a prediction on behalf of the researcher (for a real player) or a sample from a random variable (for a regen).

PA fails to take into account that it itself is an estimate and can therefore be underestimated. PA also fails to take into account that this underestimation occurs because future events can revise expected PA over time (i.e. FM07, player A has PA 140; FM08, he now has PA 150).

Do players have a maximum? Certainly - for any finite list of numbers, there exists a maximum (and CA is just a list of numbers over time). Does this mean we actually need a limit? No. We can actually treat PA as it is supposed to be treated - as an estimate - that can be both overestimated and underestimated.

This will result in a more accurate simulation and more interesting results for outliers - and best of all, it can be explained (i.e. player A, never rated as a youngster, outperforms as a reserve, leading to further games, leading to an accelerated curve and turning into a world-class player).

Things won't go crazy without a limit. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm looking at man utd reserves. they all have "average" PA so i never get them developed into first teams because they are not goo enough on CA and have PA that is "not going to be as good as" even players highly rated in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A player's maximum (not limit) can only be measured in hindsight.

It is not possible to measure a player's limit, assuming one exists, because it implies you can see into the future.

The sensible thing, therefore, for realism purposes, is to remove PA because it is a prediction on behalf of the researcher (for a real player) or a sample from a random variable (for a regen).

PA fails to take into account that it itself is an estimate and can therefore be underestimated. PA also fails to take into account that this underestimation occurs because future events can revise expected PA over time (i.e. FM07, player A has PA 140; FM08, he now has PA 150).

Do players have a maximum? Certainly - for any finite list of numbers, there exists a maximum (and CA is just a list of numbers over time). Does this mean we actually need a limit? No. We can actually treat PA as it is supposed to be treated - as an estimate - that can be both overestimated and underestimated.

This will result in a more accurate simulation and more interesting results for outliers - and best of all, it can be explained (i.e. player A, never rated as a youngster, outperforms as a reserve, leading to further games, leading to an accelerated curve and turning into a world-class player).

Things won't go crazy without a limit. That is a slippery slope fallacy.

You've been told time & time again x42 in every thread like this.

The game is God and can see into the future, therefore it can set a limit.

Of course researchers can't see into the future but for the most part that doesn't matter as by the time we realise that player X isn't the world star we thought he was at 18 we'll be playing FM22 and his PA will have been reduced over several releases of FM.

You don't have a problem accepting that players have limits, you just have an issue with the researchers & the game setting those limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've been told time & time again x42 in every thread like this.

The game is God and can see into the future, therefore it can set a limit.

Let's not pretend it can. A researcher can raise a player's PA over time, therefore the game cannot see into the future.
Of course researchers can't see into the future but for the most part that doesn't matter as by the time we realise that player X isn't the world star we thought he was at 18 we'll be playing FM22 and his PA will have been reduced over several releases of FM.

That does not help a single save in a single version.

There are circumstances that make a researcher change his or her opinion on a player's PA. Wouldn't it be cool if FM simulated that? i.e. if these same circumstances happened in a player's game, then the game would raise this player's PA in the same way?

You don't have a problem accepting that players have limits, you just have an issue with the researchers & the game setting those limits.
I have a problem with both. The very notion of a limit is very iffy and vague (what is the ultimate footballer, anyway? Players X and Y could be the best in the world but be very different players - imagine if X is a goalkeeper!).

I believe - actually, know - that players have a "maximum" - where "maximum" is "the maximum CA obtained by a player throughout his entire career" - i.e. if we recorded a player's daily CA for the rest of his life, there would be a maximum. It is not the same as PA, since a player might, say, never live up to their hype (i.e. Gazza).

In addition, the limit in-game isn't really the limit in reality, with perhaps the exception of retired players. At 16, the PA is really just an estimate. At 40, it is a "definite" figure with hindsight. Which is why I have a problem with "limit" as defined by FM (but not necessarily "limit" in reality, except for the "iffy" statement above) - it is satisfying two purposes when it should only satisfy one.

Things like negative potentials somewhat help but a researcher can still be spectacularly wrong and vastly underestimate a player where their "40-year-old PA" is still above the maximum in that PA range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not pretend it can. A researcher can raise a player's PA over time, therefore the game cannot see into the future.

So the researcher was wrong with their estimate but the game is never wrong as it creates the newgen and knows their PA - Just like "God" knows a real players PA.

Your fairly intelligent, how you cannot understand this is beyond me.

That does not help a single save in a single version.

But it makes no difference, an 18yo potential superstar on FM12 is being talked about now. If he turns out not to be then so what, 99% of people will be playing a newer version of FM where his PA has been reduced and he has been forgotten about - Freddie Adu for example is a good example of this over the last few versions.

There are circumstances that make a researcher change his or her opinion on a player's PA. Wouldn't it be cool if FM simulated that? i.e. if these same circumstances happened in a player's game, then the game would raise this player's PA in the same way?

There is no reason to.

A researcher raises or lowers a players PA because they can't see into the future and know how a player turns out - With newgens the game does know 100% and therefore has no reason to change it.

EDIT

FYI I won't be replying again as there are literally 100s of pages in any number of these threads where you have stated your opinion and others have stated theirs.

I have no intention of going over this ground again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact is there are loads of examples of footballers reaching their peak at a variety of ages.

Every player has a limit, both in real life and in FM.

No-one, not even the players themselves, know what that limit is and that is why people disagree. It is a difficult one to get right though and you can't have every player capable of being world class if trained properly.

Maybe players could keep a -10/-9 until they are 21 or something and then a set PA could be calculated from their CA, match ratings and personality. At the minute their PA is calculated as soon as they enter the game at 15/16 and I think that is a bit too black and white. It would be nice to have a youth intake where I couldn't tell who was worth keeping with one coach report. The same with scouting, it seems crazy being able to see a pretty accurate star rating for how good a 16 year old player will be with a single scout report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the flip side by removing PA you are implying every single player has limitless ability, the implications are therefore with the correct facilities, coaches and game time, you could take ANY player in the database and turn them into the best in the world. This is quite evidently not the case in real life. If it was why do top clubs pay well into their millions on certain young players. Without a fixed upper limit of how good a player could be Man Utd could simply purchase any 17 year old player from Stockport and turn him into the next Wayne Rooney. This isn't the case and if it were particularly in game there would be far too many exploits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No-one, not even the players themselves, know what that limit is and that is why people disagree. It is a difficult one to get right though and you can't have every player capable of being world class if trained properly.

In terms of real players I would be quite happy for the game to use the negative numbers to determine a fixed PA when you start a save within a range. This would help add a little bit of random to each save and make the researchers job easier.

In terms of newgens it makes no difference as the game creates the player.

Maybe players could keep a -10/-9 until they are 21 or something and then a set PA could be calculated from their CA, match ratings and personality. At the minute their PA is calculated as soon as they enter the game at 15/16 and I think that is a bit too black and white. It would be nice to have a youth intake where I couldn't tell who was worth keeping with one coach report. The same with scouting, it seems crazy being able to see a pretty accurate star rating for how good a 16 year old player will be with a single scout report.

The problem here isn't the CA/PA system its the accuracy of the scouts/coaches at judging it.

Even with 20/20 JPA/JPP it should be difficult to judge young players, atm they are far too accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe players could keep a -10/-9 until they are 21 or something and then a set PA could be calculated from their CA, match ratings and personality. At the minute their PA is calculated as soon as they enter the game at 15/16 and I think that is a bit too black and white. It would be nice to have a youth intake where I couldn't tell who was worth keeping with one coach report.

Think this is a good idea, much better than whats in place at the moment. Would balance both arguments to the PA being necessary or not, and would add more reason to developing youngsters for a particular style of play.

This would be because a player with more versatility in stat improvement, could say have his passing improved more in a Barcelona style youth system, or mental stats such as agression for your old Wimbledon? As it is youth players are set pretty securely in how they can be developed, meening no matter your efforts in training your promising youngsters will develope almost identically to other teams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the player's attributes only dictating how good he is?

I realise that the 1-20 score in each area I broken down further, but maybe we need a departure from the long-standing 1-20 scale?

I see players with 16 & 17 for creativity & passing, but who are never really good enough for the Premiership, I think developing these attributes should give an accurate picture as to which level the player is currently at.

It doesn't have to be over-complicated (KISS) :)

Judging a youth player's PA should be done via plenty of scout reports over a sustained period (perhaps a 'tracking' option), and via stats derived from matches played, many managers/coaches use Pro-Zone to breakdown a player's contributions, so can we.

Some attribute scores are character-based (determination/professionalism) and should perhaps be harder to improve/decrease(?) and should be used to set the PA ceiling.

Much of this is done already, I realise, but I do feel that the attribute scores can be undermined by the PA/CA scores. We shouldn't really be seeing a striker with 10 for finishing bagging 30 goals a season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the researcher was wrong with their estimate but the game is never wrong as it creates the newgen and knows their PA - Just like "God" knows a real players PA.

Your fairly intelligent, how you cannot understand this is beyond me.

The game produces results that do not match reality, because of bad input. If the game was correct, it would be able to retrospectively fix the researcher's input.

But it makes no difference, an 18yo potential superstar on FM12 is being talked about now. If he turns out not to be then so what, 99% of people will be playing a newer version of FM where his PA has been reduced and he has been forgotten about - Freddie Adu for example is a good example of this over the last few versions.

What about if an 18-year-old is rated as being rubbish, but in a future version he is now a wonderkid?

PA works for overestimated players like Adu - it doesn't work for severely underestimated players.

There is no reason to.

Why not? Wouldn't that make a more realistic (and hence better) game?

A researcher raises or lowers a players PA because they can't see into the future and know how a player turns out - With newgens the game does know 100% and therefore has no reason to change it.

Not really.

For real players, there exists some real circumstances (call these C) leading a researcher to upgrade a player's PA. Things like "I've learnt more about the player" or "the coaches have discovered he is actually outstanding in a different position".

For real players, I'd argue that the game should do something similar, where C' happens (which is a direct 1-1 mapping to C) and the player's PA is raised in a similar way.

Therefore for regen players, if C' happens, then these players' PA should rise as well.

The game is basically assuming the impossible. To me, that doesn't make the game right or God - it makes it a stupid and unrealistic assumption. You may as well justify the game by saying, "The game assumes 2 + 2 = 5, so it is correct". The game isn't God - it's making an assumption.

On the flip side by removing PA you are implying every single player has limitless ability, the implications are therefore with the correct facilities, coaches and game time, you could take ANY player in the database and turn them into the best in the world. This is quite evidently not the case in real life. If it was why do top clubs pay well into their millions on certain young players. Without a fixed upper limit of how good a player could be Man Utd could simply purchase any 17 year old player from Stockport and turn him into the next Wayne Rooney. This isn't the case and if it were particularly in game there would be far too many exploits.

Two chefs of equal ability exist. Both are tasked with making the same dish, but the first chef has to use poorer quality ingredients and rubbish cooking utensils.

It is obvious that the first chef will struggle to beat the second chef. However, it is not out of the question if the first chef has a good day and the second chef does not.

However, if you asked them both retrospectively which scenario they would prefer, they would prefer having good ingredients and good cooking utensils.

How is this relevant? The game will always favour good-quality youngsters to begin with. You can take rubbish youngsters (poor ingredients) and turn them into a great player, but you will always prefer good youngsters (good ingredients). It will be extremely difficult to force rubbish youngsters to develop and luck might simply not be on your side.

As an example - playing good first-team football is a requirement for youngsters to develop. A rubbish youngster will not get into the first-team because there are many youngsters in front of him, and that youngster is unlikely to play well because he's rubbish. However, if this rubbish youngster actually does play well in the first-team in a save (i.e. first chef beats second chef), then why shouldn't he turn out well?

Part of the reason why we don't see it happen in reality is because managers always pick their most promising youngsters, not Joe Rubbish. But I think it is an interesting open question if Joe Rubbish was indeed picked as a morbid money-wasting experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is you are not supposed to be able to see the PA of a player. If you play the game with the tools that it gives you it works.

One thing that might be better is the rate of growth in a player. From my experience most players in the game develop at a pretty steady rate. Some players (maybe it does happen, but i have never noticed it) should have sharper development curves, which would give the effect of the 'late bloomers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is you are not supposed to be able to see the PA of a player. If you play the game with the tools that it gives you it works.
Bad argument. The difficulty bug was discovered partly using FMRTE.

The black box can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your fairly intelligent, how you cannot understand this is beyond me.

Why bother? You know exactly how this is going to pan out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game produces results that do not match reality, because of bad input. If the game was correct, it would be able to retrospectively fix the researcher's input.

But how will your system produce results that match reality? All I see is many arguments stating that they CAN match reality, not that they WILL. Under a system without potential ability, a player who's real life potential is 170 (to put it into FM terms, for the sake of argument) can end up as a world beater with 200 ability, or a name soon forgotten in League 1 with 80 ability. Under the current system, a player who's real life potential is 170 may be missed by the researcher and only given a potential of 80. Or he may be overvalued by the researchers and given a PA of 200. The key difference is that the researchers makes the estimate, not your facilities and player development skills. And as much as researchers makes mistakes, they will always be better than letting every man develop based on the way he is treated in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But how will your system produce results that match reality?

By relaxing the notion that PA is a limit, it becomes "more correct". How it happens is an open question and needs a lot of thought, of course.

Something like analysing researcher behaviour could be one idea. For example, let's take Jordan Rhodes. SI could try to calculate what his in-game FM average rating could be (based on number of goals and assists per game), and then measure what his PA rise would be (if any) by the researcher. By doing the same thing for many players, they might be able to deduce some mechanism for in-game PA recalculation.

Alternatively, they could scrap PA altogether and come up with another system.

There are lots of ideas.

All I see is many arguments stating that they CAN match reality, not that they WILL. Under a system without potential ability, a player who's real life potential is 170 (to put it into FM terms, for the sake of argument) can end up as a world beater with 200 ability, or a name soon forgotten in League 1 with 80 ability. Under the current system, a player who's real life potential is 170 may be missed by the researcher and only given a potential of 80. Or he may be overvalued by the researchers and given a PA of 200. The key difference is that the researchers makes the estimate, not your facilities and player development skills. And as much as researchers makes mistakes, they will always be better than letting every man develop based on the way he is treated in-game.
Just to make it clear, I'm not suggesting PA is scrapped and the system is then left unchanged. It's fairly obvious that scrapping PA is only going to be half the solution if this route is pursued.

What I would like to see is a system where this player is given an "expected maximum CA" of 170, but where the game lets the player hit CA 200 if he absolutely deserves it in-game, or lets the player flop at CA 80 if he ends up being mentored by Mario Balotelli. The researcher inputs "expected maximum CA" 170 as his opinion and lets him distinguish between from a "lesser-talented" player with "expected maximum CA" 120.

The reason this isn't PA is because "expected maximum CA" isn't a limit. The researcher thinks that this player will only be CA 170 at his peak on average - but he could be wrong - both in the 200 and 80 case.

Of course, this is a different way of thinking about a player - the average maximum ("expected maximum CA") and the, well, "maximum maximum" (PA). So it is entirely possible that the researcher will need to give him "expected maximum CA" of 150, say, because the average (150) is less than or equal to the maximum (170).

And, of course, we have to ensure that the "expected maximum CA" is actually the expected maximum CA in-game. This can be accomplished using soak tests to ensure that the average maximum CA of a player is actually equal to "expected maximum CA". If it's not, then the game needs to be rebalanced - and then more soak testing.

This is better all round as the game doesn't have to make silly assumptions and researchers are under less pressure to get things "right". It also makes things interesting from a gameplay perspective because the implication is that every player is a relatively plain canvas (albeit of different quality) and it is down to you to develop players. If you develop a player well, what the researcher expected of that player should become immaterial. It's an opinion; a starting point: but since the game and researcher accept they may be wrong, and this is reflected in-game, it is then up to you, the user, to develop a player.

This is opposed to the fairly predictable system today where if a player has a sensible personality and doesn't hit too many injuries, hitting their PA is almost a foregone conclusion. A PA-less system simply relaxes the limit and lets the odd rare and unexpected happen. And by "unexpected", I mean that a researcher underestimates a player. Which, shock and horror, actually happens!

This also applies to regens. A regen's PA is nothing more than some sample from a random variable likely based on things like youth facilities and coaching quality. Under this system, a regen's "expected maximum CA" is generated, which will be slightly less than PA, and the regens are thrown to the wolves. Any regen who exceeds this expectation can turn into a very good player, whether or not the expectation is high or low. Because that's what it is - an expectation - that can be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think having a fixed PA is realistic at all. Sure there's a limit to how good a player can be but this limit is down to all sorts of factors that can be determined in the game without the need for an artificial cap on player ability. Joe Useless playing in the Scottish second division can't be as good as Cristiano Ronaldo because he isn't nearly as physically dominant, determined and skilled to begin with. Not having a set PA in the game does not mean you could take poor old Joe to Real Madrid and develop him into a Ballon D'or winner - he doesn't have the attributes necessary for such extreme improvement. But a young player with a lot of ability and the right mental state should be able to keep improving if all the circumstances are right. This young player should not hit a brick wall in his development just because there is a fixed cap on his ability. Getting all the circumstances right should be the challenge - one that takes a lot of effort and luck to pull off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It baffles me that some people can't accept that there is an absolute limit as to how good any given player can become. I think the CA/PA system does a good job of reflecting the fact that, even in the absolute best of circumstances, some players have a higher ceiling than others. It pains me when I read that players should be able to exceed their PA if everything works out perfectly for them, when that is precisely the only scenario in which a player should reach their PA.

It is also absolutely the case that some people reach their potential early and fail to progress further, or even regress. If anything, I feel we should see more of this in the game.

Obviously, researchers may inaccurately predict a player's PA (the paid employees of football clubs do this all the time), but as has been said, with PA being updated database by database, this really shouldn't bother anyone. Sportsgames of all genres have this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The issue isn't that there shouldn't be a limit to how good a player can become, but that the limit shouldn't be so rigid. I've seen decent, young players perform well beyond their attributes for extended periods of time, only to have them drop b/c they reached the magical PA limit. The PA system just makes it easier to find and horde elite prospects.

CA should be based based on form and PA should be variable or allowed to be exceeded. Why should a young player with a PA of 140 be capped at that if he is top goal scorer in the EPL and CL? It doesn't make sense. Just as researchers adjust their PA predictions the game should be able to as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of people are missing the point. The issue isn't that there shouldn't be a limit to how good a player can become, but that the limit shouldn't be so rigid. I've seen decent, young players perform well beyond their attributes for extended periods of time, only to have them drop b/c they reached the magical PA limit. The PA system just makes it easier to find and horde elite prospects.

CA should be based based on form and PA should be variable or allowed to be exceeded. Why should a young player with a PA of 140 be capped at that if he is top goal scorer in the EPL and CL? It doesn't make sense. Just as researchers adjust their PA predictions the game should be able to as well.

A player's absolute limit, by definition, should be rigid. That is what PA is. Just because a young player top scores in the EPL, doesn't mean he should be allowed to run faster than his genetics allow, be more technically gifted than his natural coordination would dictate, and become a mental giant. The problem, from my point of view, is that players are able to reach their absolute ability far too easily, which then has people questioning why they are unable to develop further.

Also, the idea that form should determine current ability is odd. If a player hit a rough patch, went 10 games without scoring, are you suggesting that his finishing should become a 2 or a 5 or something equally poor? Attributes themself would become meaningless. It is their sum after all that determines CA.

I'm not a huge football follower in real life, but the same principles hold true in all sport. Take Tyreke Evans of the NBA for example, in his rookie season he put up numbers (performed to a level) that only three people had done before in the history of the NBA - Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Lebron James (I suspect that most people will recognise at least the last two). This would suggest that he was en route to becoming an all-time great, and using the logic of some people in this thread, that is exactly what should have happened. Instead, his performances have declined each subsequent season. He peaked in his rookie year. It happens.

Finally, I agree that it is too easy to horde elite prospects. That is not at all a fault of the PA system (unless you're using a third-party program), but the scouting system - this has also already been mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It baffles me that some people can't accept that there is an absolute limit as to how good any given player can become.

This is true, but I doubt any player reaches their ultimate level (what is the "ultimate footballer, anyway"), and even if we assume this is true and there exists a limit, it does not always make sense to hardcode it.

It would be like producing a racing game and manually hardcoding the real-life top speeds of cars. Hardcoding it is less flexible in unusual scenarios (i.e. the car is hit from behind very quickly by a faster car). The best racing game engines don't assume the top speed is the top speed but their game engine is so awesome the top speed of a car in ideal conditions matches that of reality.

I think the CA/PA system does a good job of reflecting the fact that, even in the absolute best of circumstances, some players have a higher ceiling than others. It pains me when I read that players should be able to exceed their PA if everything works out perfectly for them, when that is precisely the only scenario in which a player should reach their PA.

Players should be able to exceed the PA that a researcher thinks is appropriate. Not their ultimate theoretical limit, if one exists. The two are different.

It is also absolutely the case that some people reach their potential early and fail to progress further, or even regress. If anything, I feel we should see more of this in the game.

It is also absolutely the case that a researcher sometimes underestimates a player and they actually reach a higher PA than was predicted.

Obviously, researchers may inaccurately predict a player's PA (the paid employees of football clubs do this all the time), but as has been said, with PA being updated database by database, this really shouldn't bother anyone. Sportsgames of all genres have this problem.

It does matter since if a player who is, say, 100/100 starts getting average ratings of around 8.50 in a top league, he will be stuck at 100/100. On the other hand, in reality, if such a player starts averaging "8.50" (defined by some sensible metric akin to SI's rating system), then a researcher will raise his PA. Therefore reality and game do not match - this is not correct.

A player's absolute limit, by definition, should be rigid. That is what PA is. Just because a young player top scores in the EPL, doesn't mean he should be allowed to run faster than his genetics allow, be more technically gifted than his natural coordination would dictate, and become a mental giant. The problem, from my point of view, is that players are able to reach their absolute ability far too easily, which then has people questioning why they are unable to develop further.

How do you know when a player has reached their limit? You only ever know in hindsight.

Because we don't know what that limit is nor will be during a player's career prior to him declining (and factoring in late-bloomers), does it make sense to assume a limit X at the start?

PA isn't the limit - it's the researcher's opinion of the limit (and there is a direct mapping for regens - just that real players are easier to understand).

Also, the idea that form should determine current ability is odd. If a player hit a rough patch, went 10 games without scoring, are you suggesting that his finishing should become a 2 or a 5 or something equally poor? Attributes themself would become meaningless. It is their sum after all that determines CA.

This does happen in the database anyway - players who run into a sustained poor run have their CA dropped (and possibly PA to match the drop).

I'm not a huge football follower in real life, but the same principles hold true in all sport. Take Tyreke Evans of the NBA for example, in his rookie season he put up numbers (performed to a level) that only three people had done before in the history of the NBA - Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Lebron James (I suspect that most people will recognise at least the last two). This would suggest that he was en route to becoming an all-time great, and using the logic of some people in this thread, that is exactly what should have happened. Instead, his performances have declined each subsequent season. He peaked in his rookie year. It happens.

Nope - Evans simply didn't sustain the hype, but he was of course still naturally developing as a youngster. So his starting "CA" would have been high, but his growth would have been lower than, say, James.

Finally, I agree that it is too easy to horde elite prospects. That is not at all a fault of the PA system (unless you're using a third-party program), but the scouting system - this has also already been mentioned.

It is, partly, since PA is too strong an assumption. It's not the root cause, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A player's absolute limit, by definition, should be rigid. That is what PA is. Just because a young player top scores in the EPL, doesn't mean he should be allowed to run faster than his genetics allow, be more technically gifted than his natural coordination would dictate, and become a mental giant. The problem, from my point of view, is that players are able to reach their absolute ability far too easily, which then has people questioning why they are unable to develop further.

Nobody said his attributes across the board should jump, but his attributes should match his production (in this case you would expect to finishing, composure, and/or off the ball to reflect the fact that he is top goal scorer for an entire season).

Also, the idea that form should determine current ability is odd. If a player hit a rough patch, went 10 games without scoring, are you suggesting that his finishing should become a 2 or a 5 or something equally poor? Attributes themself would become meaningless. It is their sum after all that determines CA

I clearly said extended periods of time. Look at what a half season did for Demba Ba's attributes in real life. Would never happen in FM.

I'm not a huge football follower in real life, but the same principles hold true in all sport. Take Tyreke Evans of the NBA for example, in his rookie season he put up numbers (performed to a level) that only three people had done before in the history of the NBA - Oscar Robertson, Michael Jordan and Lebron James (I suspect that most people will recognise at least the last two). This would suggest that he was en route to becoming an all-time great, and using the logic of some people in this thread, that is exactly what should have happened. Instead, his performances have declined each subsequent season. He peaked in his rookie year. It happens.

This isn't a good example. I think everyone accepts that players don't pan out in FM. A better example would be Kobe Bryant. Under the FM system he could never be the player he is b/c he was drafted in the middle of the first round. How many youngsters with less than 3 star potential have you ever seen become world class? I haven't seen any, and this is the problem.

Finally, I agree that it is too easy to horde elite prospects. That is not at all a fault of the PA system (unless you're using a third-party program), but the scouting system - this has also already been mentioned.

The scouting system and CA/PA system are connected. If I have/hire scouts with judge player ability and potential at 16 or better they can accurately tell me who the best youngsters are in the world. Why? Because by looking at their attributes and the difference between there CA and PA I accurately gauge how good they can be. The only other question is if they are injury prone. I had a PSG save where I pimped the system so badly that I was raking in $9M/month in transfer fees b/c I got all the prospects I wanted, trained them for a few years, and sold them back at 4-5 times their original value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of people are missing the point. The issue isn't that there shouldn't be a limit to how good a player can become, but that the limit shouldn't be so rigid. I've seen decent, young players perform well beyond their attributes for extended periods of time, only to have them drop b/c they reached the magical PA limit. The PA system just makes it easier to find and horde elite prospects.

CA should be based based on form and PA should be variable or allowed to be exceeded. Why should a young player with a PA of 140 be capped at that if he is top goal scorer in the EPL and CL? It doesn't make sense. Just as researchers adjust their PA predictions the game should be able to as well.

Becasue he is already at his peak? It happens throughout all sports not just football. Players come in early do well but dont develop any further. James Beattie, Michael Ricketts, Marcus Stewart etc. And if the player is doing well then whats the problem? He's an average player who is still succeeding despite his limitations!

Nobody is going to steadily develop until they reach 200CA. There has to be a cut off point (the players PA).

I still say that if you play the game the right way without being able to see a players CA/PA then this wouldnt be an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are circumstances that make a researcher change his or her opinion on a player's PA. Wouldn't it be cool if FM simulated that? .

This is already happening in the game. In real life nobody knows the exact potential of a young player, people just guess, and over the years it gets revealed. But every athlete does have a limit, determined by his genes and personality, education, etc.

Players in the game have limited PA as well. The game knows it, but we don't, unless we use FMRTE and such. Just like in real life, we see an estimation of players' PA, through scouts and coaches. They can overestimate or underestimate. I've seen different examples. I've seen a player whose CA and PA was 2.5 star, at the age of 25, naturally I thought he reached his potential, but he kept developping in the next two seasons, and ended up being a 3.5 star player for my team, by the time he reached 27. And my roster didn't get any weaker during that period, so it's not like this player actually stayed the same, but his star rating improved because it is relativce to the talent level in your team. His attributes were continuously improving. I have also seen many times a player with 4-5 star potential ended up getting stuck at 2-2.5 star, never making it to my first team.

I think the game simulates real life very good in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still say that if you play the game the right way without being able to see a players CA/PA then this wouldnt be an issue.

Exactly this!

If you don't use an editor, you won't see the PA values, and with a young high potential player in your squad you can always hope he will keep developing, and it may happen or it may not, just like in real life. The PA estimations made by your scouts and coaches are sometimes accurate, sometimes not. Very accurate simulation of real life imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is already happening in the game. In real life nobody knows the exact potential of a young player, people just guess, and over the years it gets revealed. But every athlete does have a limit, determined by his genes and personality, education, etc.

They have a limit, but this does not mean we actually have to hard-code it!

We will never know if a player has really ever reached their limit - the very notion of a limit is vague enough. We will only ever know a player's maximum (i.e. peak CA) with hindsight. As a result, it does not make sense to assume we know the limit (when we can't tell the future) and stick it in as an explicit limit before it is reached.

Players in the game have limited PA as well. The game knows it, but we don't, unless we use FMRTE and such. Just like in real life, we see an estimation of players' PA, through scouts and coaches. They can overestimate or underestimate. I've seen different examples. I've seen a player whose CA and PA was 2.5 star, at the age of 25, naturally I thought he reached his potential, but he kept developping in the next two seasons, and ended up being a 3.5 star player for my team, by the time he reached 27. And my roster didn't get any weaker during that period, so it's not like this player actually stayed the same, but his star rating improved because it is relativce to the talent level in your team. His attributes were continuously improving. I have also seen many times a player with 4-5 star potential ended up getting stuck at 2-2.5 star, never making it to my first team.

I think the game simulates real life very good in this area.

Exactly this!

If you don't use an editor, you won't see the PA values, and with a young high potential player in your squad you can always hope he will keep developing, and it may happen or it may not, just like in real life. The PA estimations made by your scouts and coaches are sometimes accurate, sometimes not. Very accurate simulation of real life imo.

"Not knowing" doesn't make it right. The black box can be wrong. The difficulty issue was revealed partly using FMRTE, using data we "shouldn't have seen".

The game doesn't "know" the limit. The limit is "defined" - the game does not perform some complex processing to discover the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be prepared (if it already hasnt happened) to be told something along the lines of "just because you cant see the fault in the engine or somthing about a black box, doesnt mean the problem isnt there". I cant read all the posts in this thread but im 100% sure if it hasnt been said already it will be. :D

All that is being said has been said over and over and over, im with you two above, a player has his limits, not every player is able to become a superstar because of genetics, otherwise there would be no point scouting anyone, you would just make sure everyone recieved the correct training and you would always be onto a winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All that is being said has been said over and over and over, im with you two above, a player has his limits, not every player is able to become a superstar because of genetics, otherwise there would be no point scouting anyone, you would just make sure everyone recieved the correct training and you would always be onto a winner.
And be prepared to actually read the thread where I say "They have a limit, but this does not mean we actually have to hard-code it!" or something to that effect, again and again.

And genetics is not necessarily the end of all things for a complex sport like football. Certainly, for sprinting, it's extremely important. But look at Lionel Messi, who loses loads of genetic lotteries (short, birth defect requiring medication, etc.) - yet he's the best player in the world. By comparison, the extremely physical Ronaldo is an inferior player despite smashing Messi to bits in the genetic area.

In football, we all know that physical and technical attributes are just part of the picture - mental attributes are a big part too, and not all of that is genetic. Saying genetics is all that matters is like saying an F1 car is better than a normal road car because it's quicker - but a normal road car can be driven on a normal road, which satisfies 99.9% of the population, which makes it better for 99.9% of people.

Lastly, just because PA is removed doesn't mean that every player can turn out brilliant with the same effort. Some players will simply need to work harder than others and/or have more luck. This does not mean that we need to have an explicit limit, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game doesn't "know" the limit. The limit is "defined" - the game does not perform some complex processing to discover the limit.

Yes, the limit is defined, and the game knows it, and we simply don't, right? How is this any different in real life, tell me then.

Is Rooney's limit defined (by his genes and all)? Yes.

If there is a God, does he know it? Yes.

Do we know it? Did we know it when he was 16? No.

Unless you have different answers to my questions above, whatever you will say won't have much meaning to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the limit is defined, and the game knows it, and we simply don't, right? How is this any different in real life, tell me then.

Is Rooney's limit defined (by his genes and all)? Yes.

If there is a God, does he know it? Yes.

Do we know it? Did we know it when he was 16? No.

Unless you have different answers to my questions above, whatever you will say won't have much meaning to be honest.

Thats my opinion on it, well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becasue he is already at his peak? It happens throughout all sports not just football. Players come in early do well but dont develop any further. James Beattie, Michael Ricketts, Marcus Stewart etc. And if the player is doing well then whats the problem? He's an average player who is still succeeding despite his limitations!

You still aren't getting it. If I have a striker who's finishing and composure are 13 and 14 respectively and he scores 50 goals in all competitions for a big club what do you think should happen to his rating? Under the current system, if he's reached his PA limit neither of these attributes will match his production. In real life and in FM2013 (or whatever the next version is), his attribute would reflect that. Why? B/c there isn't an imaginary PA wall.

Nobody is going to steadily develop until they reach 200CA. There has to be a cut off point (the players PA).

Why do people keep repeating this? Nobody is saying everyone should have unlimited potential. I'm only saying that PA shouldn't be so rigid.

I still say that if you play the game the right way without being able to see a players CA/PA then this wouldnt be an issue.

I'm guessing you did read my post right above you. It has nothing to do with the actual numbers and everything to do with the ease in which you can predict a 17 year old's future CA b/c PA is rigid. The formula is simple:

1. Get a scout with a judge player ability and potential over 16.

2. Scout a player

3. Look at the PA level and difference between scouts CA and PA.

That's really all it takes. I would say I have a 85-90% success rate (probably even higher) in getting the best young prospects. In my old PSG, my first 5-6 youth signings all became world class players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the limit is defined, and the game knows it, and we simply don't, right? How is this any different in real life, tell me then.

A limit exists, but it is impossible to find out at any point in time. The maximum is only known with hindsight.

As a result, the limit is unknown, and therefore cannot be defined.

Is Rooney's limit defined (by his genes and all)? Yes.

If there is a God, does he know it? Yes.

Do we know it? Did we know it when he was 16? No.

Unless you have different answers to my questions above, whatever you will say won't have much meaning to be honest.

The game is not God. Say a researcher assigns PA 140 to a player in FM07, and PA 150 in FM08. The God in FM07 has got that player's limit wrong! Therefore the game doesn't know it. The game just knows some value (140) that is the researcher's best guess of the limit. So all this God knows is the mortal, imperfect knowledge of the researchers. This seems like a rather pathetic deity to me.

Let's not assume the game is perfect (God) in a justification for the game's correctness. This is circular reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You still aren't getting it. If I have a striker who's finishing and composure are 13 and 14 respectively and he scores 50 goals in all competitions for a big club what do you think should happen to his rating? Under the current system, if he's reached his PA limit neither of these attributes will match his production. In real life and in FM2013 (or whatever the next version is), his attribute would reflect that. Why? B/c there isn't an imaginary PA wall.

If he is scoring 50 goals with finishing 13, why does it need to increase? How many more goals does the player need to score? What would be the benefit of a player with finishing 13, and that kind of scoring record having his attributes increase further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, the limit is defined, and the game knows it, and we simply don't, right? How is this any different in real life, tell me then.

Is Rooney's limit defined (by his genes and all)? Yes.

If there is a God, does he know it? Yes.

Do we know it? Did we know it when he was 16? No.

This more or less covers my feelings on PA & how it works in FM, irl every player has an absolute limit at which they will no longer improve as a player, form will fluctuate but it will only play a minor role in a player's development.

A limit exists, but it is impossible to find out at any point in time. The maximum is only known with hindsight.

As a result, the limit is unknown, and therefore cannot be defined.

In the game we all know that that players also have an absolute limit, the difference is that by using 3rd party tools the user can find out this value & then cherry pick the best players. Using in-game scouting alone does not afford this ability, I've had more 4/5* potential players fail to realise their early promise than those who have & likewise I've also had a few 2.5/3* players far exceed the expectations of my scouting/coaching team.

The game is not God. Say a researcher assigns PA 140 to a player in FM07, and PA 150 in FM08. The God in FM07 has got that player's limit wrong! Therefore the game doesn't know it. The game just knows some value (140) that is the researcher's best guess of the limit. So all this God knows is the mortal, imperfect knowledge of the researchers. This seems like a rather pathetic deity to me..

That is the price we have to pay for a game that has its initial data based around the opinion of a small group of researchers, the current system is not flawed, it's not perfect either but IMO the fixed upper PA value is not part of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the game we all know that that players also have an absolute limit, the difference is that by using 3rd party tools the user can find out this value & then cherry pick the best players. Using in-game scouting alone does not afford this ability, I've had more 4/5* potential players fail to realise their early promise than those who have & likewise I've also had a few 2.5/3* players far exceed the expectations of my scouting/coaching team.

As I've said time and time again, the black box can be wrong. We're looking at the black box.

If, say, Jordan Rhodes had CA/PA 120/120 at the start of this season, he would never develop the way he has this season in reality. So his PA is wrong, and you would see that in your game (an outstanding young striker who apparently has learnt nothing despite opponents throwing everying and the kitchen sink at him to try and stop him).

Wouldn't it be cool if the game realised that it is possible that his PA is wrong, and fixed it?

That is the price we have to pay for a game that has its initial data based around the opinion of a small group of researchers, the current system is not flawed, it's not perfect either but IMO the fixed upper PA value is not part of the problem.

The bold bit is a contradiction.

The upper PA value is part of the larger issue around rubbish scouting, but it is part of the issue nevertheless. The idea that a researcher guesses an upper limit and the game takes it as gospel, ignoring the fact that nurture is important to a player's limit alongside nature, taking this guess as an absolute fact that cannot possibly be underestimated.

If it's uncertain, we should treat it at uncertain. It leads to a more accurate game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Exactly this!

If you don't use an editor, you won't see the PA values, and with a young high potential player in your squad you can always hope he will keep developing, and it may happen or it may not, just like in real life. The PA estimations made by your scouts and coaches are sometimes accurate, sometimes not. Very accurate simulation of real life imo.

The report cards are extremely accurate and the only guessing part is whether or not a player can reach that potential. As an example if my 1st choice keeper has 3 1/2 star CA and PA and I scout a youngster with 2 star CA and a 5 star PA with a half decent personality then he will be better provided his progress is not stalled by injury or poor training. If I scout a youngster of the same age and personality type with the same CA but only 2 1/2 star potential he will not make the grade and I can tell that with one scout report and I use attribute masking.

The same goes for the youth intake where I can tell straight away that most won't even be professional footballers in a year or two let alone at any decent level. I then discard most if not all of my intake. I understand that unlimited PA is unrealistic and I understand that dynamic PA is probably very difficult to achieve and may end up producing too many top players. If the current model is the best and most realistic that can be achieved thats fine but maybe we could have PA ratings removed, at least for players that are say under 21. The number would still exist but be hidden from the player and AI meaning that not all high PA youngsters would be spotted so easily and will move to top clubs later when their CA has increased to a reasonable level. If you have a bit of money and a good scouting knowledge you can fill your reserve and youth teams with awesome youngsters pretty quickly as it stands.

A scout report with no PA rating could then tell you a player has 1 star CA with the ability to improve considerably along with strengths and weaknesses and then you make choices based on personality and match ratings. There would be a much larger chance for transfer mistakes involving youngsters then. It would also stop top AI teams snatching quality youngsters and never giving them football and, ultimately, ruining them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A limit exists, but it is impossible to find out at any point in time. The maximum is only known with hindsight.

As a result, the limit is unknown, and therefore cannot be defined.

Even if you don't explicitly set a limit and define it as some kind of function of a players determination/training/facilities/playing experience/form etc, there is still a hard limit there in the background, even if it's not explicitly set by the researcher. All you are doing is masking the hard PA limit behind a mess of calculations that makes it harder to balance the database and harder to set research guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there are highly sophisticated chess AI's & awesome racing game engines (not sure they cater for unexpected real world performance differentials or (un)successful vehicle development either). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if you don't explicitly set a limit and define it as some kind of function of a players determination/training/facilities/playing experience/form etc, there is still a hard limit there in the background, even if it's not explicitly set by the researcher.

Nope, there doesn't have to be an explicit limit in the same way that a good racing engine doesn't hard-code the top speeds of its cars.

All you are doing is masking the hard PA limit behind a mess of calculations that makes it harder to balance the database and harder to set research guidelines.

It actually makes it easier for reseachers since they are never put on the spot to be absolutely correct.

All they would need to do is take a guess, and it is up to us users as football managers to develop talent. Where they turn out is anyone's guess but best of all, it is up to us.

Do they think a player will be a top-tier Premier League player? Stick an estimated average of 165. Heskey's weaker foot? 45. Did we overestimate it? It matters less because the number is just a guideline for the game to follow. Did we underestimate it? It doesn't matter, as it's just a guideline for the game to follow. There's a common theme here, by the way...

Someone complains that player X has a low average? Tell them it's just an average, and if X performs really well in game, he will turn out just as well as he does in reality anyway. And raise it slightly for the next research phase if it is warranted. Someone complains that player X has a high average? Tell them it's just an average, and if X performs really badly in game, he will turn out just as poorlyas he does in reality anyway. And lower it slightly for the next research phase if it is warranted. Again, there's a common theme here...

I think it's easier to think in terms of averages than maximums, anyway. The maximum begs the question about what the ultimate development curve could be, while the average is just a vague line in the sand. Researchers only need to consider typical scenarios for the average, and not far-fetched scenarios for the maximum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But there are highly sophisticated chess AI's & awesome racing game engines (not sure they cater for unexpected real world performance differentials or (un)successful vehicle development either). ;)
So we should demand sophisticated player development engines too, no?

Most racing simulators cater for unexpected scenarios. Imagine a Golf GTI being hit from behind by an F1 car in Gran Turismo. The Golf GTI's speed will doubtless increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont most researches use negative PA's for players now unless they have a very good idea of the player? So there is already a random element to most PA's in the starting database. From that point onwards in regards to regens, FM is god, it cant be wrong, it makes the players, so it already knows exactly how good they can be. I've always said this is more of an issue with the starting database, for regen players the system works almost perfectly. Scouting is the bigger issue, its too easy to know too much about a player very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.