Potential Ability debate

[Kilmarnock]

Hi Guys,

I have been thinking about potential ability recently and I think its time for Si to revaluate how potential ability is calculated.

I might be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but my current understand of potential ability is that it is randomly generated if a player has ability of -7, -8 -9 etc. However as soon as the game is loaded up it changes the -x to a actual number. Then it is about his development to reach this potential.

My problem with that is it breaks down, totally.

Potential ability is unknown and should be based on form, training, personality and attributes.

Potential ability should not be a figure at all. Current ability yes.

If we look at a couple of examples:

Chris Smalling is now about 160 plus in the game, however would you be able to find any non-league player with much potential in the game? No.

Gareth Bale - He changed position and is now one of the best players in the world. Does FM have the ability to do this? No. Yes he might of been a -9 at left back in previous games but never as a left winger. In fact, when he had that horrible stat when he played at Tottenham as a left back, when the team never won when he played there, his ability in that game, that year, would of been low and his potential too.

Demba Ba - I think most people can get the just of what I am trying to say.

Zaha: in the current game his potential ability is (I don't know how to do a spoiler warning so I won't state) however if someone knows his potential ability I am sure you would agree, with the right move in real life and the right development his Potential Ability should be different, however with the wrong move he could be another Macheda.

I could go on with examples, however my point is that a players potential calculation should be changed for future Football Manager releases and should be based on form, training, personality and outstanding attributes. I have no idea how hard his would be to do to be workable in the game, however I do believe that this system has been in the game for years and it might be time to change this over. I also believe that player interaction needs to be much more indepth, talking to a player about performances, team meetings should be more indepth etc, however this is probably for another day.

I think all of us "Football Managers" love developing players and making them into stars, however I think it would be even better to pick up a player who has been performing averagely and a making him into a star or at least a better player.

I work for a club myself and I know how hard it is to judge a players potential, so maybe it is a big ask. However I do believe it is something for Si to consider.

Discuss:

[Matthew Le God]

There is no guarantee any player in FM will fulfil their potential ability rating, the game already uses many of the factors you listed.

[Kilmarnock]

Hi Matthew,

I understand that.

My point is that Potential ability should not be given or randomised, it should depend on the aspects I have listed. I don't think you have got my point, or I haven't explained it properly.

Example would be:

Player: x

Current Ability: 130

Potential Ability: No number just a formula of (performance + training + personality + outstanding attributes)

I am not saying that players should fulfil there potential, I am saying potential should be re-worked as a formula.

[manreaction]

Couldn't anyone then become a Messi?

[dafuge]

The only problems arise when you look at those numbers using external tools. If you use the in-game tools (scouts/coaches) then it works as intended.

[Kilmarnock]

No, I wouldn't want this as this would obviously ruin the game.

As I say I don't have the formula, however players especially at ages between 16-19 shouldn't have any potential ability, because you don't know how they are going to develop.

External tools: No, If your scouts are good enough they can easily define the potential and you end up trying to find the 5 star players. However my point isn't about buying the best players or making the best players. It is about potential being developed by the aspects. Every player in the game has a point he cant progress by, because the game says so, is this right? I don't believe so.

[Matthew Le God]

Hi Matthew,

I understand that.

My point is that Potential ability should not be given or randomised, it should depend on the aspects I have listed. I don't think you have got my point, or I haven't explained it properly.

Example would be:

Player: x

Current Ability: 130

Potential Ability: No number just a formula of (performance + training + personality + outstanding attributes)

I am not saying that players should fulfil there potential, I am saying potential should be re-worked as a formula.

So you are saying any player could in theory reach 200 CA?

I don't see how that is realistic, no matter what coaching I had or how hard I trained it would be impossible for me to be as good as Messi or Ronaldo. Genetics play a role in setting the PA, nurture (coaching etc) plays a role in how likely it is the PA will be reached and CA is the point at which the player is today on that journey towards their PA or the decline back from the peak.

[lonestar190]

No, I wouldn't want this as this would obviously ruin the game.

As I say I don't have the formula, however players especially at ages between 16-19 shouldn't have any potential ability, because you don't know how they are going to develop.

External tools: No, If your scouts are good enough they can easily define the potential and you end up trying to find the 5 star players. However my point isn't about buying the best players or making the best players. It is about potential being developed by the aspects. Every player in the game has a point he cant progress by, because the game says so, is this right? I don't believe so.

Just because you don't know the potential ability doesn't mean that there isn't one. This debate has been done many times, and the consensus in the professional sports and medicine fields is that there are physical and mental limitations to people and thus the idea of a fixed potential is correct. How it is implemented (and its ability to be seen by the player) has a long way to go however.

[Kilmarnock]

This debate has been done many times, and the consensus in the professional sports and medicine fields is that there are physical and mental limitations to people and thus the idea of a fixed potential is correct.

I am sorry but working in football myself, I can say that there is no consensus like this. The top example of this is Messi himself, if anyone knows anything about his mental state when he was a young boy in Spain and his Physical state this alone quashes this theory.

It is the same 1990's theory which held back UK players for years. FACT

Furthermore to say there isn't a potential ability is just wrong and proves your statement as rubbish, every player, ever person has potential, however defining it is the point I am making.

[Tom Laskowski]

Chris Smalling was an ex England youth/schoolboy player and fell away to Maidstone United when I was doing research. He did have a high PA in the old FM games.

[Kilmarnock]

Chris Smalling was an ex England youth/schoolboy player and fell away to Maidstone United when I was doing research. He did have a high PA in the old FM games.

Okay, as I said I didn't have the games to do the research, What was his PA in the old games?

[kazm]

PA should exist. Its should just be more dynamic.

Best ever example is Dirk Kuijt.

Youth: nothing special, played at amateurs Katwij, when he was 18 FC Utrecht gives him a contract. Never really seeing him as a big talent. Within a few years he is their big star, scores 20 or more and wins the dutch cup. He then moves to Feyenoord and scores 20-29 each season. He is then sold to Liverpool while also already being a regular for the dutch squad.

Irl no one ever knew his PA, including himself. Would he have made it if he was contracted by Liverpool on his 18th? I think thats is highly unlikely, as in around 1%. He just kept improving everywhere.

In FM at Katwijk he wouldve had a PA of 20 or something which makes complete sense but might be too rigid. I am not saying every amateur should be able to become the new Messi but it would be interesting if players could gain small amounts of PA.

It could be like this:

Only players aged 15-27, only for players with a PA of 140 or less.

1-3 pa for huge performances in important matches (cup semis, beating Man Utd as a championship club, performing above expectation for a longer time etc)

5-10 pa for a promotion (only once per level)

A maximum of 25 pa added to a player over his lifetime.

These are just made up numbers but the idea isnt that unrealistic imo. Also you can actually have league 2 youngsters grow with your team into the premier league. In the end they still wont be world beaters but 99.9% of them shouldnt be anyway.

I wrote this on my phone, sorry for any errors etc.

[Kilmarnock]

PA should exist. Its should just be more dynamic.

Best ever example is Dirk Kuijt.

Youth: nothing special, played at amateurs Katwij, when he was 18 FC Utrecht gives him a contract. Never really seeing him as a big talent. Within a few years he is their big star, scores 20 or more and wins the dutch cup. He then moves to Feyenoord and scores 20-29 each season. He is then sold to Liverpool while also already being a regular for the dutch squad.

Irl no one ever knew his PA, including himself. Would he have made it if he was contracted by Liverpool on his 18th? I think thats is highly unlikely, as in around 1%. He just kept improving everywhere.

In FM at Katwijk he wouldve had a PA of 20 or something which makes complete sense but might be too rigid. I am not saying every amateur should be able to become the new Messi but it would be interesting if players could gain small amounts of PA.

It could be like this:

Only players aged 15-27, only for players with a PA of 140 or less.

1-3 pa for huge performances in important matches (cup semis, beating Man Utd as a championship club, performing above expectation for a longer time etc)

5-10 pa for a promotion (only once per level)

A maximum of 25 pa added to a player over his lifetime.

These are just made up numbers but the idea isnt that unrealistic imo. Also you can actually have league 2 youngsters grow with your team into the premier league. In the end they still wont be world beaters but 99.9% of them shouldnt be anyway.

I wrote this on my phone, sorry for any errors etc.

Dynamic is the word and Kazm has maybe explained what I am trying to say better.

For example I know for a fact that big clubs in England are looking at players for the club I work for, however in the game they have a PA of -4 or 50/60. This is totally unrealistic, however I am also aware that it is unrealistic for FM to get nearer to these players PA because of human resources and simply down to football development.

[dafuge]

Perceived PA is dynamic though, it is just the hidden value that is fixed.

[treble_yell_:-)]

I dunno if the CA/PA system is the problem, or the fact that AI and players can almost certainly tell who is going to be a Messi after 1 quick report on a regen.

The game does do a really crappy job of simulating late development though.

[Welshace]

Indeed, people are confusing development with potential I feel.

You aren't really meant to know the PA of a player... you can only go by what your scout says initially and what you think, all based on his current abilities... which is how it is irl and in game.

How the player will develop will depend on his reaction to your training and his experience of playing etc, again.. just like real life.

This is an old argument but if it was dynamic for each and every player you'd end up with very very mediocre players becoming world beaters with the correct training formula.. there will ALWAYS need to be hardcoded roof on a player, which will ALWAYS come from an opinion on the player.

[TOUGHGUY]

Not a fan of the current system but I don't really have an answer or a clearly better and easily implemented alternative either. The more I think about PA the more I realize the problem does not lie in having a fixed value - as welshace said you do need to have a ceiling somewhere - but how you reach that maximum potential. The answer to which is 'way too easily' and has been for years now.

Maybe have some sort of negative PA/max PA range/or just the current PA system for every player, but at the same time make it much, much harder to reach the maximum value. Like, unless he is an extremely hard working professional, he won't go past the lower range of a variable PA (or anywhere near his maximum PA in the current system) at a club with mediocre coaches, facilities and the like.

That way you could have a player actually 'reach their potential' in real life terms at a smaller club. But he will be able to develop beyond that and show he can be even better if a bigger club came and gave him a chance and appropriate training. You could even go deeper and incorporate things like pressure and other hidden stats, meaning a talented but mentally unstable player might simply not make it at the highest level, but a change of pace will see him prosper and grow elsewhere (and earn him a move to a big club once again - and fail there - unless tutored and made a real man and not a wimp! see how it all fits together...).

Long story short, right now it feels like every single player can reach their max PA if you just play them all the time. Which is something that should only happen if many things align - from his personality over to training and playing time and other factors.

[BiggusD]

Not a fan of the current system but I don't really have an answer or a clearly better and easily implemented alternative either. The more I think about PA the more I realize the problem does not lie in having a fixed value - as welshace said you do need to have a ceiling somewhere - but how you reach that maximum potential. The answer to which is 'way too easily' and has been for years now.

Maybe have some sort of negative PA/max PA range/or just the current PA system for every player, but at the same time make it much, much harder to reach the maximum value. Like, unless he is an extremely hard working professional, he won't go past the lower range of a variable PA (or anywhere near his maximum PA in the current system) at a club with mediocre coaches, facilities and the like.

That way you could have a player actually 'reach their potential' in real life terms at a smaller club. But he will be able to develop beyond that and show he can be even better if a bigger club came and gave him a chance and appropriate training. You could even go deeper and incorporate things like pressure and other hidden stats, meaning a talented but mentally unstable player might simply not make it at the highest level, but a change of pace will see him prosper and grow elsewhere (and earn him a move to a big club once again - and fail there - unless tutored and made a real man and not a wimp! see how it all fits together...).

Long story short, right now it feels like every single player can reach their max PA if you just play them all the time. Which is something that should only happen if many things align - from his personality over to training and playing time and other factors.

That is incorrect. Every single player with good enough Ambition and Professionalism will reach close to max PA if they get enough competitive match experience and avoid injuries. Those are enough IFs in my opinion. Without high Ambition, the player won't get enough CA, without high Professionalism there will be too many bad training periods, if the level of football is too low he won't gain enough CA and if he is injured he is losing months if not years of development.

If you know what you're doing, it is easy to find the players who are likely to reach their potential, though. That is also an IF.

The AI is clueless about all those IFs, and that is a bigger problem in my opinion. The level of football is decreasing worldwide season by season in all versions of FM up to and including FM12. I haven't played FM13 long enough to see if it is improved here, but I doubt it.

I agree that PA is only a "philosophical problem" as long as you know it exists. If you ignore it, what you say in the penultimate paragraph is actually happening in the game but is realized by him not reaching his true potential, which is semi-known, rather than him having a different PA for each league he is playing in. In FM the PA is semi-known through scout reports, but if potential was totally unknown by scouts, the game would function exactly as in real life; scouts would have to determine potential based on age, current performances and rate of development only. THAT would be a huge improvement.

[kazm]

Indeed, people are confusing development with potential I feel.

You aren't really meant to know the PA of a player... you can only go by what your scout says initially and what you think, all based on his current abilities... which is how it is irl and in game.

How the player will develop will depend on his reaction to your training and his experience of playing etc, again.. just like real life.

This is an old argument but if it was dynamic for each and every player you'd end up with very very mediocre players becoming world beaters with the correct training formula.. there will ALWAYS need to be hardcoded roof on a player, which will ALWAYS come from an opinion on the player.

So then what you think of my post? Why can't there be a middle ground?

The fact that it is an old argument is irrelevant. I don't see a reason why that hardcoded roof can't be dynamic within boundaries.

Edit: its not about the PA number, it's about it being COMPLETELY impossible to have cases like Kuijt in FM. Amateurclubs can get high PA regen but imo Kuijt was not a high pa player ever. If SI had sent 10 scouts to his amateurclub Katwijk at that time for a whole season he still would never have gotten a pa that would make it possible for him to reach the dutch top, dutch squad and EPL.

Another reason imo, though maybe less important: it adds to the story. Getting a 2nd div club to the EPL and actually having some homegrown players still improving to a decent enough level is more fun and realistic than buying 15 brasilian 4,5 star potential players because they have a 1m€ release clause. It adds to the 'roleplaying' part of the game.

[viridisknight]

PA should exist. Its should just be more dynamic.

Best ever example is Dirk Kuijt.

Youth: nothing special, played at amateurs Katwij, when he was 18 FC Utrecht gives him a contract. Never really seeing him as a big talent. Within a few years he is their big star, scores 20 or more and wins the dutch cup. He then moves to Feyenoord and scores 20-29 each season. He is then sold to Liverpool while also already being a regular for the dutch squad.

Irl no one ever knew his PA, including himself. Would he have made it if he was contracted by Liverpool on his 18th? I think thats is highly unlikely, as in around 1%. He just kept improving everywhere.

In FM at Katwijk he wouldve had a PA of 20 or something which makes complete sense but might be too rigid. I am not saying every amateur should be able to become the new Messi but it would be interesting if players could gain small amounts of PA.

It could be like this:

Only players aged 15-27, only for players with a PA of 140 or less.

1-3 pa for huge performances in important matches (cup semis, beating Man Utd as a championship club, performing above expectation for a longer time etc)

5-10 pa for a promotion (only once per level)

A maximum of 25 pa added to a player over his lifetime.

These are just made up numbers but the idea isnt that unrealistic imo. Also you can actually have league 2 youngsters grow with your team into the premier league. In the end they still wont be world beaters but 99.9% of them shouldnt be anyway.

I wrote this on my phone, sorry for any errors etc.

But if world is fantasy setting represented in the game, he would have PA of 160-170 from the day one, only would take a bit of time to reach it.

If you play long enough in the future you will see many regens having similar developement paths. Start in some obscure team, develop slowly, then move to semi-obscure team and do decent-to-well but develop attributes good enough only to at age of 23-27 go to some top club and become class players.

Only change to PA that I would do is to kind of enable late bloomers. That is, if player have high PA but have failed to reach it by the age of 25-28, and at that point get in good form, he could have super-fast developement to reach attributes his form and PA deserve. But only if he manages to hit superb form with his lower CA. That would make possible for some players mis-managed by AI to become late bloomers like Toni or Drogba.

[Welshace]

So then what you think of my post? Why can't there be a middle ground?

The fact that it is an old argument is irrelevant. I don't see a reason why that hardcoded roof can't be dynamic within boundaries.

Edit: its not about the PA number, it's about it being COMPLETELY impossible to have cases like Kuijt in FM. Amateurclubs can get high PA regen but imo Kuijt was not a high pa player ever. If SI had sent 10 scouts to his amateurclub Katwijk at that time for a whole season he still would never have gotten a pa that would make it possible for him to reach the dutch top, dutch squad and EPL.

Another reason imo, though maybe less important: it adds to the story. Getting a 2nd div club to the EPL and actually having some homegrown players still improving to a decent enough level is more fun and realistic than buying 15 brasilian 4,5 star potential players because they have a 1m€ release clause. It adds to the 'roleplaying' part of the game.

Again the problem is you are confusing potential with ability.... Kuyt's ability just hadn't developed, you can't just say 'irl his potential was low' ... there is no comparison with real life, especially in a player like Kuyt, who's main weapon is his determination, strength and workrate... Kuyt would have always had the potential, just not the application until he worked at it.

It works fine for me in game, it's a human issue, not a game issue... I've taken the likes of Johnny Howson when he was still at Leeds and made him a 'prem team of the year' class player, even with his low potential.. the issue is that FM players learn who are high potential youngsters and just buy them instead as it's easier..

The main issue regarding potential for me is just the potential of Newgens, who STILL come in and completely overrun the real players by 2016.. quality is just too high.

[Jibby123]

....The main issue regarding potential for me is just the potential of Newgens, who STILL come in and completely overrun the real players by 2016.. quality is just too high.

I'd agree with this. Some of the newgens churning out look insane monsters moreso than even previous versions. Southampton on my current save seems to have got some sort of upgraded deluxe version of La Masia; they're churning out the real deals year in, year out.

[RBKalle]

Fixed PA (and Perceived PA only going down and never up) and inadequate AI development skills actually two sides of the same coin.

It doesn't matter if AI scouts/managers can only see PPA rather than PA because in the end that value will become THE measuring stick of reports, recommendations and signings.

I've had my 20JPP scouts flooding my inbox with the reports of awful 16yo who wouldn't have been starting XI material in BSP and of equally terrible 19yo whose only chance of "making it" would have been relocationg to mid-table clubs in Norway or Austria,

Why that? Simple: because those players, despite their low/unbalanced attributes still had a relatively high (P)PA!

And there's where the second part of the problem surfaces... Even in the case I'd decide to waste some money and sign a couple of those "fake prospects", the game wouldn't allow me to make them BETTER than the game decided they could become at that point in time

So should I sign a "Drogba, circa year 2001" type of player, all I'd get would be a dime-a-dozen forward with limited skills and potential.

Now imagine I could somehow come up with the perfect tactic to put his limited talent to use and he'd start scoring 20 goals per season, he would STILL get stuck with his poor attributes. Basically he'd be scoring DESPITE his lack of skills, not because of his skills improving.

So the core of the matter isn't the philosophical question about "does potential really exist or is it an abstraction"... It's more about putting the attributes and the performances in context to "re-evaluate" potential.

Was Drogba ALWAYS a potential topscorer, even when he was struggling to make an impact at mid/bottom-table level?

In real life it's impossible to tell, but in FM it comes all down to a single figure... Give a player a PA 180 and he's going to be a hit 99.9% of the time. Give a player a 130PA and he'll never be better than that, no matter how well you can train, tutor and develop him.

Can we blame it on the development module? Maybe so, but said module is rigid and predictable because it's based on an equally monolithic and unforgiving system like CA/PA (and Reputation, but that's a rant for another day)

[BiggusD]

Fixed PA (and Perceived PA only going down and never up) and inadequate AI development skills actually two sides of the same coin.

It doesn't matter if AI scouts/managers can only see PPA rather than PA because in the end that value will become THE measuring stick of reports, recommendations and signings.

I've had my 20JPP scouts flooding my inbox with the reports of awful 16yo who wouldn't have been starting XI material in BSP and of equally terrible 19yo whose only chance of "making it" would have been relocationg to mid-table clubs in Norway or Austria,

Why that? Simple: because those players, despite their low/unbalanced attributes still had a relatively high (P)PA!

And there's where the second part of the problem surfaces... Even in the case I'd decide to waste some money and sign a couple of those "fake prospects", the game wouldn't allow me to make them BETTER than the game decided they could become at that point in time

So should I sign a "Drogba, circa year 2001" type of player, all I'd get would be a dime-a-dozen forward with limited skills and potential.

Now imagine I could somehow come up with the perfect tactic to put his limited talent to use and he'd start scoring 20 goals per season, he would STILL get stuck with his poor attributes. Basically he'd be scoring DESPITE his lack of skills, not because of his skills improving.

So the core of the matter isn't the philosophical question about "does potential really exist or is it an abstraction"... It's more about putting the attributes and the performances in context to "re-evaluate" potential.

Was Drogba ALWAYS a potential topscorer, even when he was struggling to make an impact at mid/bottom-table level?

In real life it's impossible to tell, but in FM it comes all down to a single figure... Give a player a PA 180 and he's going to be a hit 99.9% of the time. Give a player a 130PA and he'll never be better than that, no matter how well you can train, tutor and develop him.

Can we blame it on the development module? Maybe so, but said module is rigid and predictable because it's based on an equally monolithic and unforgiving system like CA/PA (and Reputation, but that's a rant for another day)

But it is pointless discussing real players in hindsight! Everyone's right after the fact, and in FM terms going back a few years to other versions prove nothing about the CA/PA system. No-one knew that Drogba could become that good, and so in FM he didn't and couldn't. In FM13, there are also players that have low potential that actually becomes world class players in the future, but that doesn't matter at this point, since there are also players that many believe will be good that becomes good in FM but not in real life. If a player reaches his pontential and becomes a mediocre Championship player in FM13, that is exactly the same as if he had the potential to become the new Messi but didn't cut it and ended up a mediocre Championship player instead. The only way there could be a difference between the two is if we know that one had a PA of 120 and the other of 175, so as long as we are deprived of this knowledge completely, we are none the wiser. Unfortunately, we aren't and that is the whole issue. The scouts tell us that he could become a 175CA player until he turns 19, when they tell us that he could be a 160CA player; until he turns 20 and he could be a 150CA player; until he turns 21 and could be a 140CA player; until he turns 22 and could be a 130CA player and in the end, at age 23, it turns out he was a dud.

If the only way we could see that there is a difference between 120PADude and 175PADude is that at 17 they are the same and at 18 120PADude slows down his development while 175PADude continues at the same rate as before, then there would be no "Dynamic PA" discussions outside the FMRTE/GenieScout users and in the editor forum. The undisputable fact is that some players stop their development while others continue developing, and the current CA/PA system simulates that nicely. The scouting feature messes it all up, though.

[Kilmarnock]

Indeed, people are confusing development with potential I feel.

You aren't really meant to know the PA of a player... you can only go by what your scout says initially and what you think, all based on his current abilities... which is how it is irl and in game.

How the player will develop will depend on his reaction to your training and his experience of playing etc, again.. just like real life.

.

Well, since this is the area which I am qualified in and have worked for many years, then I doubt I am getting confused with player development and potential.

The fact of the matter is potential is abstract. No one knows if a young players is going to turn into a high quality player or end up on the free agent list in a couple of season, he may currently show outstanding attributes which will be the difference between him signing a Pro Youth Contract or getting the promotion into the reserves, but from there it is about his development. Development is the most important aspect of any sports person and can totally change where a player ends up in the footballing ladder. Do you really think coaches sit and write down how big a potential the player has? "oh yea Gaffer, Big Shugs has the potential ability of 120, but he needs another 40 points to reach his potential ability as currently he is only an 80.

In my opinion the CA/PA and developing of players in the game needs a massive overhaul as it does not reflect real life and surely, more realism is what we are after.

[Al_Pacino]

If someone has a PA of -9 (or whatever), I think a better idea is to keep it at -9 at game start. In other words he has a PA range of 150 to 180 depending on how he is managed, performs, trains and so on.

It annoys me that some players will start a save with a PA of 151, whereas on the next save he could be PA 178. I'd much prefer players to all have a range based on this negative PA number system, and it is up to us managers (real or AI) to get the best out of them.

[Al_Pacino]

Forum went wonky and double posted.

[juventinu]

If someone has a PA of -9 (or whatever), I think a better idea is to keep it at -9 at game start. In other words he has a PA range of 150 to 180 depending on how he is managed, performs, trains and so on.

It annoys me that some players will start a save with a PA of 151, whereas on the next save he could be PA 178. I'd much prefer players to all have a range based on this negative PA number system, and it is up to us managers (real or AI) to get the best out of them.

Totally agree with you m8. Players with a -9 PA have a tendency not to became world class because they end up with a PA 155. Take El Shaarawy, he's becoming quite a superstar in Italy, in one of my saves he ends up pretty mediocre. Pogba is another example, and the list could go on and on. My suggestion is simple. Negative PA's should stay negative at the start of the game, and the player should reach a maximum PA of 180 if trained well. The tricky thing is, when a -9 PA turns in positive PA?(should we say 172), if this ecuation is solved I think this should be one of the best ideas ever.

[RBKalle]

But it is pointless discussing real players in hindsight! Everyone's right after the fact, and in FM terms going back a few years to other versions prove nothing about the CA/PA system. No-one knew that Drogba could become that good, and so in FM he didn't and couldn't. In FM13, there are also players that have low potential that actually becomes world class players in the future, but that doesn't matter at this point, since there are also players that many believe will be good that becomes good in FM but not in real life.

I agree on that (and it's one of my main arguments in the "young players from smaller nations shouldn't get -7/-8 PA" debate over in the Data Issues board).

Hindsight is "useful" just to show how limited and one-dimensional the current PA/development system is.

There's no way to predict Joe Bloggs, 22 and currently an unremarkable Championship player, can become a reliable EPL guy in 5 years following an unexpected "growth".

But in FM there is. Or, to be more precise, it's not going to happen unless Joe has a "hidden reserve" of CA points. But even in such a scenario, at age 22 odds are his remaining points would have been nixed and his Max Attainable PA would have been cut already.

That's the real problem: many 170PA newgens will follow a predictable and linear development, while some others will fail to grow and their curve will soon flatline with ZERO chances of resuming the growth, or at least not to the original level.

The scouts tell us that he could become a 175CA player until he turns 19, when they tell us that he could be a 160CA player; until he turns 20 and he could be a 150CA player; until he turns 21 and could be a 140CA player; until he turns 22 and could be a 130CA player and in the end, at age 23, it turns out he was a dud.

Yes and once he's on the "Jeffers" path, there's no way back.

If the only way we could see that there is a difference between 120PADude and 175PADude is that at 17 they are the same and at 18 120PADude slows down his development while 175PADude continues at the same rate as before, then there would be no "Dynamic PA" discussions outside the FMRTE/GenieScout users and in the editor forum. The undisputable fact is that some players stop their development while others continue developing, and the current CA/PA system simulates that nicely. The scouting feature messes it all up, though.

There would STILL be debate because AI would still pick the "mediocre but with potential" guy over the "reliable guy who peaked already" even thouth Guy 1 hasn't been featured much while Guy 2 has been consistently starting XI material for his club.

Is it scouting? Probably so.

But it's ALSO an overly rigid, predictable and, ultimately, sort of flawed evaluation/development system.

Half of AI's squad building issues stem from the "PA fallacy".

[THOG]

You aren't really meant to know the PA of a player... you can only go by what your scout says initially and what you think, all based on his current abilities... which is how it is irl and in game.

Except scouts, regardless of their ability, are never very far off with youngsters and are able to identify high potential youth with a one day visit to their club's training ground... very much unlike real life.

I don't have a problem with PA, but I think it should be genuinely unknowable. It's far too "visible" for a game mechanic that players aren't supposed to know about, and since the AI bases its scouting off of it as well, the nature of the system inevitably shapes the way everyone (humans and AI) play the game.

With that said, a PA-free or "dynamic potential" system does not necessarily have to imply that everyone could be Messi. It would only imply that everyone has the capacity to improve to some extent up until they hit a peak age. If you have various personal (Professionalism, Ambition, perhaps additional attributes affecting the rate of development in each attribute category, etc.) and external (training facilities, coaches, etc.) factors affecting a player's rate of development, you can define and balance the maximum amount by which any player can improve in a given period of time. After that, a player's peak age (defined by natural fitness) and starting ability (their "natural talent" or "early development," depending on where you fall in that debate) would define their effective "maximum potential" without having a fixed PA causing the various oddities of FM's development system. Random events causing alterations in certain development attributes could also help better model "late bloomers" and early burnouts.

Of course, completely reworking potential in this manner would be a huge task, but it wouldn't impossible to implement it in a way that kept all sides of the "potential debate" happy and had mechanisms to prevent players from exploiting it in unrealistic ways.

[snootyjim]

The only problems arise when you look at those numbers using external tools. If you use the in-game tools (scouts/coaches) then it works as intended.

I'm not so sure.

I agree with you with reference to regens, but in the researched database it's a bit daft. How can anyone legitimately claim to know a young players' potential on a 10 point scale, let alone a 200 point one? Yet the researchers are required to do it, and then repeatedly modify the figures year on year when they realise they were wrong.

[YKW]

The reason I don't think the current system is best is that, for example, a player at his max cannot improve his passing, but if he gets an injury and his physics drop a bit, he is now suddenly able to improve his passing with those spare PA points. This doesn't make any sense to me.

In theory the current system would allow you to reduce a player to a CA of 0 and then retrain him into a totally different player. In practice this is only possible on a much smaller scale, but in my years of playing FM I have had a few newgens reach their max and have 19 or 20 pace/acceleration, and I've been able to make them a custom training schedule, get their pace/acceleration down to say 17/18 and then had loads of spare CA to use on attributes I thought were more important. One of the main benefits of the new training module seems to be that intentionally negative training is a thing of the past, which I am for for the reasons above, but still believe it is masking rather than solving a problem.

Obviously the time a player spends improving at x is time he can't spend improving at y, and given the finite number of days in a year this is fairly easy to replicate in game. But why should getting faster mean that in future you will be unable to get better at passing? Until of course you get slower, in which case you suddenly can become a better passer. What if I have a highly technical player who reaches his PA by 21, at which point he has awful mental stats. In the current system it is impossible for this player to improve his mental stats, but this makes no sense. suppose he plays 150 games over the next 5 years at which point he will be 26. Is it in any way realistic that he has no greater understanding of the game after those 150 matches? Fair enough he has reached his "potential" but these situations are far from realistic.

In terms of suggesting improvements, I think one huge one would be the separation of CA/PA for Physical, Mental and Technical Attributes. Of these, I would say that Physical PA should max out the fastest, followed by Technical PA, with Mental PA often needing a whole career to max out.

My second idea is a bit more drastic but it would involve ditching PA all together and effectively replacing it with BA or "Base ability." The greater the difference between CA and BA the greater the effect on the "development rate" or "tendency to improve." Imagine BA as being a force of attraction on CA. For example, take a newgen with CA 50 and Base Ability 100. He would experience very fast growth up to a CA of 100, with the growth from 50 to 60 taking less time than the growth from 90 to 100. Now, the more the player improves above his BA of 100 the harder (or slower) the improvements are, because of the gravitational pull of his BA. What this means is, that although in theory any player could reach CA 200, most will not get anywhere near this because their BAs will be too low, and the work they have to do to maintain their physique, skills etc grows with each CA point they earn.

To use real life examples, a player like Giggs would have a high BA, enabling him to have a long career at the top, whereas a player like James Beattie would have a low BA, meaning that although he was able to reach a high CA and be a top player for a couple of seasons, he wasn't able to maintain it, as it was more work for him to stay at that level than it was for Giggs. I also think BA would be a better decider than Natural Fitness as to how fast an old player declines, not to mention how much more fun it would make buying and selling players, for example choosing to sell someone because you think they are performing above their real level.

I think this would bring a lot more dynamism and unpredictability into the game, and would definitely do a better job of replicating real life.

[Robert the Spud]

The main issue regarding potential for me is just the potential of Newgens, who STILL come in and completely overrun the real players by 2016.. quality is just too high.

I agree. See so many overpowered newgens on my saves and on others. 16 y/r olds with amazingly all-round, brilliant stats. And then human managers think they've actually done something to achieve their success

[Gunblade]

I think YKW has the right idea. I had also thought that it was ridiculous that just because my player gained one influence to cap his CA/PA (as an example) that all of a sudden that prevents him from improving in passing. Now I feel skills can continue to improve late into the career, not sure how late, but just look a Tugay, his passing was still amazing even in his late 30's.

Now people say that the gene's can prevent a player developing past a physical and mental point. I agree, but I feel that Technique, the "Skill" of the game can be improved by anyone if given the RIGHT training. I bet if I had started at a young age I could have been the most accurate passer in the world, but it doesn't mean that I'd have had the mentality to make that accurate pass count in a professional game or the physical attributes to last in a professional game.

Now again the arugment that, "With no cap I can train everyone to be Messi", well yes you could, i believe everyone has the potential to be as "SKILLFUL" as anyone it's whether they have the mentality to do so (determination to be the best, the inteliligience on the football field, etc) or the physical attributes which is partially related to mentality i.e. can he bothered to put the work in the gym, build to be tall enough, "Natural Fitness", etc.

So even if you were to make that technique or skill capless, they would still need the mental and physical attributes to get to the top of the skill game and then you would also have a mental and physical PA anyway. So let's say you get all skill attributes over 15 (we would of course make it very difficult to get him all at 20 obviously). If his mentality and physical attributes suck he'll never make it at the top.

Personally, and I don't have the knowledge toback it up just an opinion, i feel that the primary reason for most lower leagues footballers to never reach the top is not "lack of skill", it's lack of mentality and lack of physical prowess.

[BiggusD]

I think YKW has the right idea. I had also thought that it was ridiculous that just because my player gained one influence to cap his CA/PA (as an example) that all of a sudden that prevents him from improving in passing. Now I feel skills can continue to improve late into the career, not sure how late, but just look a Tugay, his passing was still amazing even in his late 30's.

Now people say that the gene's can prevent a player developing past a physical and mental point. I agree, but I feel that Technique, the "Skill" of the game can be improved by anyone if given the RIGHT training. I bet if I had started at a young age I could have been the most accurate passer in the world, but it doesn't mean that I'd have had the mentality to make that accurate pass count in a professional game or the physical attributes to last in a professional game.

Now again the arugment that, "With no cap I can train everyone to be Messi", well yes you could, i believe everyone has the potential to be as "SKILLFUL" as anyone it's whether they have the mentality to do so (determination to be the best, the inteliligience on the football field, etc) or the physical attributes which is partially related to mentality i.e. can he bothered to put the work in the gym, build to be tall enough, "Natural Fitness", etc.

So even if you were to make that technique or skill capless, they would still need the mental and physical attributes to get to the top of the skill game and then you would also have a mental and physical PA anyway. So let's say you get all skill attributes over 15 (we would of course make it very difficult to get him all at 20 obviously). If his mentality and physical attributes suck he'll never make it at the top.

Personally, and I don't have the knowledge toback it up just an opinion, i feel that the primary reason for most lower leagues footballers to never reach the top is not "lack of skill", it's lack of mentality and lack of physical prowess.

Yes the combination of natural physique (combination of white and red muscle fibers + the right build + high motoric skills), the mentality to train for hours every day for years, the ability to understand football, the genes to withstand heavy training over time without suffering injuries, no or very few genetic weaknesses (bad eyesight, asthma etc etc), the presence of a professional enough football culture, the presence of a high enough level of football at any given time, the presence of coach expertice and a good bit of luck ensures that exceptional footballers are exceptionally rare. A squad player at Wolverhampton is an exceptional footballer, to be sure. The very best of them, those that you find at the top of the Premier League, they are extreme cases of all of the above. There are hundreds of millions of youngsters playing football and only one Sergio Kun Aguero; a unique specimen. And then we have Messi.

[TOUGHGUY]

That is incorrect. Every single player with good enough Ambition and Professionalism will reach close to max PA if they get enough competitive match experience and avoid injuries. Those are enough IFs in my opinion. Without high Ambition, the player won't get enough CA, without high Professionalism there will be too many bad training periods, if the level of football is too low he won't gain enough CA and if he is injured he is losing months if not years of development.

If you know what you're doing, it is easy to find the players who are likely to reach their potential, though. That is also an IF.

Over the past couple of years I have done several saves where I checked the PA difference of my regens and the number of those not reaching their potential was extremely low. Like, half a dozen over a ten year save, literally that low, absolutely minimal, if they got playing time. That should not be the case. Not when I was a second division German club, not when I was a League 1 club in England, not when I was a poor club with awful facilities and lucky to have over two stars in training over the course of all those games. Yet the story was always the same. Heck, the vast majority of players developing within a couple of points of their maximum PA shouldn't even be the case for a top half Premier League club either. You say all those factors are big ifs but I disagree. The only if that seems to have been present in the game for years now is if a player was played a lot or not. With little regard as to whether he trains at the state of the art facilities of FC Oil Money or breaks the legs of third division players in SpVgg Bumfugnowherestein.

[M.U.F.C....TSVR]

The OP's idea seems mad. If SI did change it to a non fixed potential with the core dynamics as form, persona, training and games played - every team no matter how big or small, could be producing a 'wonder side' through its youth academy. It would just destroy the game I think.

[Spart]

The reason I don't think the current system is best is that, for example, a player at his max cannot improve his passing, but if he gets an injury and his physics drop a bit, he is now suddenly able to improve his passing with those spare PA points. This doesn't make any sense to me.

...but that is sort of what happens in real life. Look at Giggs, Lampard, Michael Owen and other players who have reinvented their game (or at least tried to) once they lost their pace or strength.

As was suggested in another thread of this topic, I'm not sure we need a radical change to CA/PA but a more robust variety of development models. We already have the early improvement acceleration of the "wonderkid" - why not also include the "late developer", the "twilight resurgence"?

Youngsters with high PAs but high attitudes should also struggle to achieve their potential - something which I've noticed has been handled much better in FM12 and FM13 with Balotelli, Ravel Morrison and similar.

I've often had players that you could class as Kuyt-like on Football Manager: often written off by my coaches and the star rating system, but with the right mental stats and personality to be a useful squad member. You'd be surprised what a player with very very mediocre stats can do with a decent mentality and a taste for big games.

The OP's idea seems mad. If SI did change it to a non fixed potential with the core dynamics as form, persona, training and games played - every team no matter how big or small, could be producing a 'wonder side' through its youth academy. It would just destroy the game I think.

This is exactly why we need hard limits. Dynamic, fluctuating values would turn the game into chaos.

[x42bn6]

PA is the ability to predict the future, which has no place in a realistic simulation. And no, the game is not God and doesn't "know" it. The game is not sentient. It's also a circular argument ("PA is right because the game is God, God is always correct, which justifies PA"). The game knows absolutely nothing. The game is just the bytecode compiled from source code written by human, mortal developers, working on data input by researchers who are human, imperfect and suffer from personal bias (for real players), or generated via some random number generator, again written by mere mortals, aided by the original data input for balance.

PA is merely a limitation to aid balancing. There's one less thing to balance if it's effectively hard-coded and one scenario - where a player does better than expected - doesn't happen. However, it's also unrealistic.

It all boils down to the fact that a player's true peak is merely the sum of all development (which is a vector quantity: it might be negative at certain points in time). The solution is to remove the crystal ball PA concept and focus on making player development better, and balance that instead.

I think whether we have limits or not is rather immaterial, because even if we did have limits, it doesn't mean they need to be hardcoded into the game. You don't know what the limits are of specific players, anyway: Can anyone come up with an algorithm or formula that predicts the future? Indeed, that idea of a limitation might change over time as football itself evolves: The world's best player in 100 years time might be a massive, towering, physical targetman who bullies Lionel Messi IV, scoring goals through sheer power and pace, and whose technical ability is worse than Paul McShane's weaker foot. Some things might have limits, like density of brain cells and blood cells and all that, but that is fairly meaningless because the smartest person in the world is probably not a footballer, and Usain Bolt is clearly not better than Lionel Messi at football.

It doesn't matter what is given as the limitation of a player in-game, be it a researcher for real players, or a random number generator for newgens. What really matters is how that player develops. "What I think of this player at age 16" is just that - a thought - a figment of my imagination that has absolutely no impact on how this player really develops. My thoughts don't control Raheem Sterling's real-life performances.

----

As for "the game will descend into chaos!" argument: Well, that's where balance and good design comes in. In order for a young player to develop well, he needs to play a solid amount of first-team football at a high level from a young age, play well when he is given those chances, train well at a club with good facilities, have a good personality for football, and avoid injuries and night clubs. These severely limit the ability to produce the number of kids you bring up, because:

- Not every youngster is good enough for your first-team

- Not every youngster will play well if given first-team opportunities

- Not every club is a top-tier club with world-class facilities

- Not every player has a good personality for football

- Injuries are luck-based

Therefore if you tossed your youth team into the first-team in the Premier League, your team would average around 4.00, you would get relegated and none of your players will learn anything meaningful. Unless you are using an exploit tactic, in which case good youth development is a symptom, not a root cause: The root cause should be addressed rather than handicapping development.

There are also other limitations: If Real Madrid produced 10 extremely promising goalkeepers (after all, Real Madrid are one of the best sides in the world, have fantastic facilities, plenty of mentors, etc.), they'd still need to get past Iker Casillas. And there are only so many top sides in the world: Some of those goalkeepers are bound to end up at mid-table sides because they are too far behind in the pecking order, and hence don't turn out as well as could have been. Therefore the chances of seeing 10 Iker Casillas-like players at the same time is very unlikely, because of the fact there isn't enough "top" for the cream to rise to.

[Norrbacka]

I want to share my points of view in this case.

I am truly a believer of dynamic PA and I don't think any player should have a (direct) limit. BUT I do think every club should have a developement limit. For example, a mediocre championship club in England should not be able to train a youth to become the best player in the world (in general, maybe a multimillionaire invested all their money on youth facilities then it would be possible, but in a genereal case). Only a "bigger" club can make a youth a super star.

I think this club PA should be calculated through out a formula based on training facilities, coaches and club status, as well as mentorship of a player. For example, a player that has messi as a mentor would more like improve his potential. The growth of a player would work like it does today, with maybe a little more reliance on a players will. Like they say, "a hard working player beats a lazy super talent any day".

But... If I draft a sucky player and put him in Barcelona, would'nt he become a super star then? Well, not really. He does not have the personality and the will to become that. And if he did - despite being sucky - he would of course maximize his potential and his CA but being so sucky at probably a pretty old age (lets say 18) he would maybe become a decent spanish division 2 player. Because theres only so much a player can develope, and even though he got a boosted PA, he does not have the time to become world class.

IN SHORT: A clubs abilities * A players abilities = PA

[Spart]

PA is the ability to predict the future, which has no place in a realistic simulation. And no, the game is not God and doesn't "know" it. The game is not sentient. It's also a circular argument ("PA is right because the game is God, God is always correct, which justifies PA"). The game knows absolutely nothing. The game is just the bytecode compiled from source code written by human, mortal developers, working on data input by researchers who are human, imperfect and suffer from personal bias (for real players), or generated via some random number generator, again written by mere mortals, aided by the original data input for balance...

Should it be so open ended? The only way I'd agree with such openness and depth is if the game were to simulate players from birth, calculating their physical developmental qualities, the amount of street football they played etc - that's not exactly realistic any time soon for legal and technical reasons. And anyway, speaking in unrealistic ideals isn't really constructive in how to better or improve the CA/PA model.

You say that all that's needed is balance and good design to prevent chaos - I'd argue that exactly what we have at the moment. The alternative gives the potential for any player, when given the right facilities, coaches, games and resources, to become Lionel Messi. Surely that's not something players would desire from FM?

[Spart]

I want to share my points of view in this case.

I am truly a believer of dynamic PA and I don't think any player should have a (direct) limit. BUT I do think every club should have a developement limit. For example, a mediocre championship club in England should not be able to train a youth to become the best player in the world (in general, maybe a multimillionaire invested all their money on youth facilities then it would be possible, but in a genereal case). Only a "bigger" club can make a youth a super star.

I think this club PA should be calculated through out a formula based on training facilities, coaches and club status, as well as mentorship of a player. For example, a player that has messi as a mentor would more like improve his potential. The growth of a player would work like it does today, with maybe a little more reliance on a players will. Like they say, "a hard working player beats a lazy super talent any day".

But... If I draft a sucky player and put him in Barcelona, would'nt he become a super star then? Well, not really. He does not have the personality and the will to become that. And if he did - despite being sucky - he would of course maximize his potential and his CA but being so sucky at probably a pretty old age (lets say 18) he would maybe become a decent spanish division 2 player. Because theres only so much a player can develope, and even though he got a boosted PA, he does not have the time to become world class.

IN SHORT: A clubs abilities * A players abilities = PA

Isn't that rather condescending to lower league clubs? Of course it should be more likely for talents to realise their potential at "big" clubs, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

In your model, promising players might not be able to drop down a league or two if they failed to make a breakthrough in a top league.

[Dave C]

PA should be fixed, that's absolutely the right approach, always has been. Any argument for dynamic or unlimited PA is doomed to failure.

That said, the real probelm has always been that the development model for players is a bit too linear, which means PA estimates have to be conservative.

What's needed is a more optimistic approach in research, allied to a new model that makes it far less likely a player will fulfil that potential. One that allows for 'late bloomers' and emerging talent at all levels. You get all the benefits of dynamic PA that way, without the unrealistic concept of changing potential.

[Spart]

PA should be fixed, that's absolutely the right approach, always has been. Any argument for dynamic or unlimited PA is doomed to failure.

That said, the real probelm has always been that the development model for players is a bit too linear, which means PA estimates have to be conservative.

What's needed is a more optimistic approach in research, allied to a new model that makes it far less likely a player will fulfil that potential. One that allows for 'late bloomers' and emerging talent at all levels. You get all the benefits of dynamic PA that way, without the unrealistic concept of changing potential.

This is exactly what I'd like to see.

[postal postie]

No, I wouldn't want this as this would obviously ruin the game.

As I say I don't have the formula, however players especially at ages between 16-19 shouldn't have any potential ability, because you don't know how they are going to develop.

External tools: No, If your scouts are good enough they can easily define the potential and you end up trying to find the 5 star players. However my point isn't about buying the best players or making the best players. It is about potential being developed by the aspects. Every player in the game has a point he cant progress by, because the game says so, is this right? I don't believe so.

potential doesn't improve by the opportunities you get. that's current ability.

[YKW]

...but that is sort of what happens in real life. Look at Giggs, Lampard, Michael Owen and other players who have reinvented their game (or at least tried to) once they lost their pace or strength.

I honestly don't think it is. None of the players you mentioned gained new skills, they just started using their existing skills in new ways, to combat their decreased physical presence. Do you believe that a slow Michael Owen should be able to train up to 20 for penalties while a fast Michael Owen should find it impossible to improve at penalties? There is no sense in that - it is a failure of the game's mechanics, pure and simple.

I would also like it if you could explain in a bit more detail why exactly you believe that "Dynamic, fluctuating values would turn the game into chaos." This just seems like scaremongering with no real foundation. There are many, many ways this could be prevented, and I've suggested some already in this thread.

PA should be fixed, that's absolutely the right approach, always has been. Any argument for dynamic or unlimited PA is doomed to failure.

You may well be right but is there really any need to be so arrogant about it? I personally believe that it would be very possible to implement unlimited or dynamic PA successfully, as long as the system was well thought out. Why exactly do you think any arguments or ideas I have along these lines are "doomed to failure?"

I have a third idea as to how the CA/PA system could be changed. Imagine a line stretching from 0 to 200 to represent a players CA. Now imagine a second line with 3 points: the middle one being the player's CA, and to the left and right two more points that represent the limits on that player's CA at that time. Something like this:

0 ------------------------------------------------- 200

--------------- 115---125-------150

This shows that the player in question is currently CA 125, and that their "frontiers of development" are a decrease of 10CA and an increase of 25CA. This would mean that in the next x days (where x would be a constant like a year or 6 months) the player in question is almost 100% certain to be somewhere between 115 and 150 CA, depending on if he trains well, plays well etc.

Consider these development frontiers and think about the type of player it would be. (Pretend the 0 - 200 line is always there, and remember the middle value is the current CA)

50--60----------100

To me this is most likely a very young player, hence their close lower limit and much further upper limit.

120-----------160--163

This would be an aging star in the last years of his career.

168--170-171

This would be a player of around 26/27 years, who isn't likely to improve or get worse over the next year.

The key thing about this system is that it is a measure of possible improvement against time. The philosophy behind it is that ANY player can improve at ANY time, just to severely varying degrees. The only time a player CAN NOT improve at all is when they reach a CA of 200.

For youngsters, the development frontiers will be much wider and with a much greater bias in the upward direction. This bias changes to deterioration as a player gets older.

In effect, by the time a player is 25/26 they will have a PA, albeit a slightly dynamic one (within 5-10 points or so), that they are almost certain not to exceed. The balancing comes from the fact that players are more likely to improve as youngsters, and more likely to decrease as old players, but either is possible. Imagine a 33 year old who looks like this: 150---169-170. This means that over the course of the next year he is almost 100% certain to be between 150 and 170 CA. In this next year he could either gain 1 or lose 19. However, there is much more room to the downside than the upside, and so while things go right (he trains well, plays well, stays fit and happy) he could improve 1 after a year, but if things go even slightly wrong (injury, bad form) then his career could quickly start to come to a close. On the other hand, if he is managed perfectly and has a lot of luck then by the time he is 35 he could be CA 172.

[Norrbacka]

Isn't that rather condescending to lower league clubs? Of course it should be more likely for talents to realise their potential at "big" clubs, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

In your model, promising players might not be able to drop down a league or two if they failed to make a breakthrough in a top league.

Well, no (if I understand your argument). For example, A player that have trained all their life in Man United and have the personality to really become something, yet never get match experience, would still keep a lot of the potential even though he drops to a championship club. But droping to a club with less "potential developement" would only harm his chances of improving his potential further. It even might be a smart move, because he will have a lot easier to improve CA if he gets match experience there.

Let's say like this... He can only improve his potential at a club, not loose.

I draw a diagram to show how I mean it should work for a player that drops from Utd to Derby:

[danny_123]

to be honest i would like to see a bit more top youth coming through in the lower leagues, there is some but not many.

i think its fine a player i had was rated 3 star potential but he was playing to well and had good stats so kept playing him now its 4 star. players like cleverly hes a 3 start now hes a main player for me, but when i did a past save he rotted away in the reserves he went down to a 2 star player in two seasons

[Spart]

Well, no (if I understand your argument). For example, A player that have trained all their life in Man United and have the personality to really become something, yet never get match experience, would still keep a lot of the potential even though he drops to a championship club. But droping to a club with less "potential developement" would only harm his chances of improving his potential further. It even might be a smart move, because he will have a lot easier to improve CA if he gets match experience there.

Let's say like this... He can only improve his potential at a club, not loose.

I draw a diagram to show how I mean it should work for a player that drops from Utd to Derby:

I'm still not sure how realistic that would be though. Unlikely as it may be, if a non-league club had the facilities of a top team then their players should have as much of a chance to reach their potential.

Adding something so obviously artificial as a rule saying only clubs of a certain level/reputation can develop a player to their best seems wrong to me. What if Manchester United were relegated one season? Would their players then be banned from developing to their full potential.

Dave C's suggestions sounds like the easiest to implement and simplest to balance to me. Seeing the problems caused by Balotelli and Ravel in the last couple of FM's leads me to believe SI are on the right track when it comes to making player development more varied/complex in a good way.

[Norrbacka]

Spart, re-read my original post, which I wrote that the following factors would be considering in the PA-decision:

"I think this club PA should be calculated through out a formula based on training facilities, coaches and club status, as well as mentorship of a player. "

I'm certain that there are even more factors to consider and they all should be weigthed differently.

EDIT.

In addition, a club like united would pretty much remain the same potential level even if they were relegated. But it would decrease over time as their status would be less if they don't comeback to the top league as well as technology progress and therefore making their facilities old.