Potential Ability debate

[Spart]

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 making their facilities old.

Reason for my confusion/misunderstanding is that I can't see how that's too different to what we have now? The need for a bigger PA ceiling could be covered by giving almost everyone more potential yet making development harder/more complex.

[Cemre]

Sounds more realistic

[Jibby123]

CA/PA groupies are kind of cheating anyway. Only 2 things to worry about; can I afford him and will having him improve my squad long term and/or short term. Like real life??

[Spart]

CA/PA groupies are kind of cheating anyway. Only 2 things to worry about; can I afford him and will having him improve my squad long term and/or short term. Like real life??

Definitely agree with this. Taking a look at the stats under the hood is a very effective way of spoiling your enjoyment.

[YKW]

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.

To be fair, I'm not sure how true this is. You have to think about things like the standard of player that they are playing with, the standard of the players in the league and the standard of football in general in that league. Also the quality of the coaches and other staff at the club. All of these will be significantly lower at this hypothetical non-league club which has top facilities.

I think Norrbacka's idea is interesting. My only problem with it is, Man U for example churn out so many average players that a) get hyped up simply because they play for United, and b) look better when playing for a good team. Once they leave united they are invariably really bad - Gibson, Richardson, Frazer Campbell, etc etc. I'm not convinced that these players gained a higher potential for being at United, as much as they were able to gain CA faster.

[Spart]

To be fair, I'm not sure how true this is. You have to think about things like the standard of player that they are playing with, the standard of the players in the league and the standard of football in general in that league. Also the quality of the coaches and other staff at the club. All of these will be significantly lower at this hypothetical non-league club which has top facilities.

I think Norrbacka's idea is interesting. My only problem with it is, Man U for example churn out so many average players that a) get hyped up simply because they play for United, and b) look better when playing for a good team. Once they leave united they are invariably really bad - Gibson, Richardson, Frazer Campbell, etc etc. I'm not convinced that these players gained a higher potential for being at United, as much as they were able to gain CA faster.

You're right about the other problems of a non-league club, but then again consider the less wealthy/illustrious clubs and nations in Europe and around the world that have produced top level players. You don't always have to be at an elite level to produce elite level players.

I think if more sensitive and complex development models were brought in then a club's level, facilites, staff would matter anyway. I just don't think hard and fast equations are a good way to go about it - we need something more fluid that leaves in a level of randomness, no matter how unlikely.

[x42bn6]

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.

You don't have to simulate players from birth. A random number generator will suffice for the first years. The reason why something else is needed beyond that (i.e. at game start) is because the user has control over the game world in some way.

And anyway, speaking in unrealistic ideals isn't really constructive in how to better or improve the CA/PA model.

How is removing PA and improving the development model an unrealistic ideal, or not constructive? It's a step towards a more realistic simulation and is definitely doable.

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?

If balanced properly, the odds of this happening will be just as slim as Joe Average becoming the next Messi - very unlikely. Like I said: Toss a bunch of rubbish youngsters into your first-team in the Premier League and you will get relegated, they will play badly and they will not develop much at all. Consistent failure doesn't teach you as much as consistent success (with escalating difficulty).

All it does is allow for more realistic development for those players that were underestimated at the start of the database/newgen generation at the start.

Of course the game has good balance at the moment. But it is at the expense of realism.

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.

The problem with late-blooming and PA is that a player must initially underachieve, CA-PA wise, for a player to have the CA-PA difference to late-bloom. However, the point of a late-bloomer is that it is unexpected: A researched player would have had a reasonable CA-PA difference with no room to late-bloom. A newgen with a generated low PA and reasonable personality would have had a reasonable CA-PA difference with no room to late-bloom. To me, a fixed PA is incompatible with late-blooming because a fixed PA doesn't factor in the possibility of late-blooming (or indeed, any rare, positive event).

For example, a 130/130 player cannot late-bloom, full-stop, despite the fact that there are real-world (rare) circumstances that would let this player late-bloom: If these circumstances happen in-game, the player should late-bloom in-game, too.

[x42bn6]

I think Norrbacka's idea is interesting. My only problem with it is, Man U for example churn out so many average players that a) get hyped up simply because they play for United, and b) look better when playing for a good team. Once they leave united they are invariably really bad - Gibson, Richardson, Frazer Campbell, etc etc. I'm not convinced that these players gained a higher potential for being at United, as much as they were able to gain CA faster.

Manchester United have a solid history in churning out Premier League quality players: Few, if any, clubs match them in England. The vast majority of our kids who play for our Under-18s end up having professional careers. Many who sign professional terms end up in Championship or higher. Gibson, Richardson and Campbell are actually good examples.

At United, they don't really gain potential as such: They just leave with a better-rounded footballing education than most other clubs' youngsters, reflected perhaps in higher attributes or better attitudes than average. Playing for United as opposed to Derby County means that the quality of training is greater, and the quality of the opposition is greater (in the first-team), meaning development will usually be quicker at United. So, to me, tracking PA in Norrbacka's way is kind of like tracking two CA graphs, but the top line is still pretty meaningless since by definition, it grows in tandem with CA, and I'm not sure how the top line would really be used. It's too specific to the club: Why have it at all?

[haunted1234]

i think the biggest problem with the potential ability how it works now, that theres almost no error margin, what i mean is when a scout returns with a 5 star player report, this guy has (in worst case) at least 4,5 stars.. most of the time they are not wrong so you look at the player search and there are couple 18 years old with 1 or 0,5 stars but 5 star potential... and its never an error to pick them up, unless they gonna break their leg 2 times, if played regularly this guys will become 5 star players sooner or later. this is 0 realistic.

there are so many failed wonderkids in real life football, in football manager there are approx. 0 failed wonderkids, unless they are managed by the AI and rot in the reserves. but for a human manager, every player with a 5 star potential is golden.

thats what makes the game so easy in the long run ..

nobody is gonna look at the 18 year old 3/3 stars player... although hes like 10 times as good as the 0,5/5 guy at that moment, nobody cares...

edit: maybe in future versions there should be a option where the potential ability is hidden from the scout reports, because i highly doubt that in real life ANY scout can say "yeah, this guy.. hes so bad atm... but in the future oh boy, and rates him 0,5/5... and the other guy, far far superior atm, same age... but yeah... he has no potential, hes gonna stay the way he is.. 3/3"...

[Spart]

You don't have to simulate players from birth. A random number generator will suffice for the first years. The reason why something else is needed beyond that (i.e. at game start) is because the user has control over the game world in some way.

How is removing PA and improving the development model an unrealistic ideal, or not constructive? It's a step towards a more realistic simulation and is definitely doable.

If balanced properly, the odds of this happening will be just as slim as Joe Average becoming the next Messi - very unlikely. Like I said: Toss a bunch of rubbish youngsters into your first-team in the Premier League and you will get relegated, they will play badly and they will not develop much at all. Consistent failure doesn't teach you as much as consistent success (with escalating difficulty).

All it does is allow for more realistic development for those players that were underestimated at the start of the database/newgen generation at the start.

Of course the game has good balance at the moment. But it is at the expense of realism.

I think my main issue with your proposal is that I don't think it does offer more realism. How would you balance it in-game? What mechanics would there be to make sure is isn't chaos or totally open ended, with Kuyt-esque youngsters turning into Messi's all over the shop?

Say you don't throw 11 total youngsters into the Premier League but instead toss in your youth player with the best attitude then you could conceivably pump out a world-beater every two or three seasons without fail if managing a solid side. Imagine dropping Ryan Tunnicliffe into the current United team, winning three titles on the trot and/or a Champions League (definitely doable in-game), turning him into the greatest ball-winning midfielder in the world just by association and gaming your mechanic - is that realistic?

Giving players a larger PA ceiling along with a "late developer" player status - similar to the current "wonderkid" flag that makes youngster develop at an increased rate - with more robust and harsher development paths is the best and easiest way I can see of allowing almost all players to develop a little further in the right conditions and researcher under/over-estimations to be rounded off. Dynamic PA just seems to be a step into a very risky direction. Can of worms and all that.

[Norrbacka]

I think Norrbacka's idea is interesting. My only problem with it is, Man U for example churn out so many average players that a) get hyped up simply because they play for United, and b) look better when playing for a good team. Once they leave united they are invariably really bad - Gibson, Richardson, Frazer Campbell, etc etc. I'm not convinced that these players gained a higher potential for being at United, as much as they were able to gain CA faster.

Well, I believe they did get a higher potential with all factors considered (facilities, mentorship, players personality, coaches). And of course they will be hyped, they would have a greater status because of they time at this particular club United. But, because of aging (decreasing the amount of time to develope) and probably personality issues (not wanting it enough), they probably never reaches even close to their gained potential.

What it would cause is a bunch of players with higher potential, but also a lot of wasted potential. Unless the right manager, the right mentor and the right club comes in to play in the future for them (maybe a decent club like Wolverhampton, with an experienced player like Stephen Hunt as a mentor and an uplifting manager who gives the player a lot of match experience). Then they would have chance to become a late bloomer.

So, yes the system would cause a lot of potential stars from bigger clubs. But most of them wont have the "star personality". They would be older and would have less time to develop. And most of them would become wasted material. A few may bloom lately and become good premier league players. Maybe 1/20 becomes a star because he just never got the chance att his older "big club". And most of them just vanishes in to the darkness of Blue Square South or similar fotball scenes.

[lonestar190]

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.

Messi just proves that people were wrong about his PA not that he didn't have one. Every person does have potential, but based on physical limitations, the potential is limited. Almost no one reaches his or her potential, however. My statement is not rubbish, but is based on a great deal of research I have done in the area. Physical limitations, including lung capacity, heart size, muscle response to training, and numerous other factors mean that not everyone can become superstar athletes, no matter how hard they train. Limitations exist, and a hard coded PA is realistic.

The fact that researchers cannot accurately predict future PA in the game just means that the representation of PA and how it is used in the game should be reworked. But each player having PA is completely realistic - despite inaccuracies.

[BiggusD]

i think the biggest problem with the potential ability how it works now, that theres almost no error margin, what i mean is when a scout returns with a 5 star player report, this guy has (in worst case) at least 4,5 stars.. most of the time they are not wrong so you look at the player search and there are couple 18 years old with 1 or 0,5 stars but 5 star potential... and its never an error to pick them up, unless they gonna break their leg 2 times, if played regularly this guys will become 5 star players sooner or later. this is 0 realistic.

there are so many failed wonderkids in real life football, in football manager there are approx. 0 failed wonderkids, unless they are managed by the AI and rot in the reserves. but for a human manager, every player with a 5 star potential is golden.

thats what makes the game so easy in the long run ..

nobody is gonna look at the 18 year old 3/3 stars player... although hes like 10 times as good as the 0,5/5 guy at that moment, nobody cares...

edit: maybe in future versions there should be a option where the potential ability is hidden from the scout reports, because i highly doubt that in real life ANY scout can say "yeah, this guy.. hes so bad atm... but in the future oh boy, and rates him 0,5/5... and the other guy, far far superior atm, same age... but yeah... he has no potential, hes gonna stay the way he is.. 3/3"...

I have had a 5-star potential teenager getting plenty of first-team time from the age of 17, but at 21 he hadn't developed nearly at all. He had like 17 in Determination and was a Model Professional, but as things were he had either a highly over-reported potential or had too low Ambition to suceed at anything. This was at Roma, so not like my staff was incompetent or training facilities were lacking. He had a 3-month injury once, and after that I mostly yelled at him to step up in training...

So no it is simply not true that -every- high-PA youngster reaches his potential. What is true is that it is easy to find 5-star youngsters with such good mental attributes that they will reach their potential if they get enough first-team experience. Too easy... but this is the fault of the scouting system not the player development system and has nothing to do with fixed PA.

[x42bn6]

I think my main issue with your proposal is that I don't think it does offer more realism. How would you balance it in-game? What mechanics would there be to make sure is isn't chaos or totally open ended, with Kuyt-esque youngsters turning into Messi's all over the shop?

Not much more than what is in place at the moment? Players don't suddenly develop technical abilities on par with Messi.

Like my Casillas examples: There are only so many top-tier clubs in the world, and they have only so many spots for world-class players. Naturally, it means that you cannot have too many world-class players because you need world-class football to develop.

To me, it's not much different to ensuring scorelines don't end 30-0 and all that. Soak tests would suffice, with data mining and analysios.

Say you don't throw 11 total youngsters into the Premier League but instead toss in your youth player with the best attitude then you could conceivably pump out a world-beater every two or three seasons without fail if managing a solid side. Imagine dropping Ryan Tunnicliffe into the current United team, winning three titles on the trot and/or a Champions League (definitely doable in-game), turning him into the greatest ball-winning midfielder in the world just by association and gaming your mechanic - is that realistic?

Firstly, Tunnicliffe has to pull his weight. If he doesn't, then he will fail to learn much (although he will learn something through constant failure: To me, constant failure at first-team level > no first-team football at all), and his development will simply not keep up with the trajectory needed to become the world's best ball-winning midfielder. You might even burn him out. If he keeps failing to perform, he might get upset and the pressure might get to him.

Of course, if he continuously fails to perform, he might drag your entire team down, especially in such a key position. So it's Champions League today, Europa League tomorrow... Lesser-quality football, lesser-quality development.

On the other hand, if Tunnicliffe does pull his weight and perform well, you are basically asking the question: What if a player (who happens to be called Ryan Giggs) gets thrown into the first-team and consistently delivers solid performances at a tender age? The answer: He turns out to be one of the best players the Premier League has ever seen. So is that realistic? Giggsy says yes.

So a lot of it simply boils down to how he performs (and other things, like avoiding injury and all that).

If you have to game the match engine to deliver this, then SI should address the root cause (the match engine exploit), rather than handicap the development engine. In programming, we call this "Separation of concerns", which is a good thing.

Even Messi had this sort of trajectory: An extraordinary wonderkid, but would have had a fairly boring career if he hadn't performed for Barcelona, perhaps closer to former teammates Giovanni dos Santos and Bojan.

Giving players a larger PA ceiling along with a "late developer" player status - similar to the current "wonderkid" flag that makes youngster develop at an increased rate - with more robust and harsher development paths is the best and easiest way I can see of allowing almost all players to develop a little further in the right conditions and researcher under/over-estimations to be rounded off. Dynamic PA just seems to be a step into a very risky direction. Can of worms and all that.

The problem is: Who anticipates a late-bloomer? Go back to FM05: Would Demba Ba's researcher anticipate him late-blooming? Late-blooming is unexpected. Anyone can late-bloom and you cannot see it a decade in advance.

Maybe dynamic PA or no PA is opening a can of worms. To me, if you want a realistic simulation, you need to open that can.

[x42bn6]

Messi just proves that people were wrong about his PA not that he didn't have one. Every person does have potential, but based on physical limitations, the potential is limited. Almost no one reaches his or her potential, however. My statement is not rubbish, but is based on a great deal of research I have done in the area. Physical limitations, including lung capacity, heart size, muscle response to training, and numerous other factors mean that not everyone can become superstar athletes, no matter how hard they train. Lance Armstrong (despite his drugging) is a prime example. See http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0722_050722_armstrong.html. Limitations exist, and a hard coded PA is realistic.

The fact that researchers cannot accurately predict future PA in the game just means that the representation of PA and how it is used in the game should be reworked. But each player having PA is completely realistic - despite inaccuracies.

None of this really matters, because you still can't know the future. You can only hazard a guess, which could be wrong.

It would be like predicting Usain Bolt's 100m time when he was 16, and getting it wrong by underestimating it (because, let's face it, he ripped the record to shreds). Maybe Usain Bolt is the ultimate sprinter today (he won't be in the future thanks to evolution, but that is a different story): You didn't know that 10 years ago.

So is it important to make a guess, that is almost surely wrong, or to focus attention on the actual development of a player, so that opinions remain exactly that - opinions?

And strictly-speaking, although there are definite genetic limitations to certain characteristics of a footballer, not everything is down to genetics. For example, Messi is only so good as he is today because his teammates help him out. How good a player actually turns out is down to many, many other factors, some of which he has no control over. Also, if Ronaldo were smarter than Messi, Ronaldo would probably thrash Messi in terms of genetics (faster, stronger, taller, doesn't need medication for an ailment, etc.), but it's obvious who is the better player.

[morphing]

I disagree with OP strongly. I think PA is fine as it is. IRL, Every athlete's peak potential is fixed. As long as it's a hidden value, and you're not snooping around editors to see everybody's potential, then everything should come off great.

"Fluid" Potential makes absolutely no sense. Dirk Kuijt always had that potential in him to be unlocked and with some fair luck along the way, it was realized. Very few could do what he did. The game is perfect in that regard. Again, shutting down your silly editors and stop looking up which youngsters to sign cheap, you solve your problem with the PA feature instantly.

[morphing]

i think the biggest problem with the potential ability how it works now, that theres almost no error margin, what i mean is when a scout returns with a 5 star player report, this guy has (in worst case) at least 4,5 stars.. most of the time they are not wrong so you look at the player search and there are couple 18 years old with 1 or 0,5 stars but 5 star potential... and its never an error to pick them up, unless they gonna break their leg 2 times, if played regularly this guys will become 5 star players sooner or later. this is 0 realistic.

Scouts may turn up too many of these guys I agree, but I play alot of deep games and found quite a bit of these "5-star potential" free transfer 17, 18-year olds end up being 2-3* players at most. Maybe 1 out of 5 actually turn into a 5-star player. And remember the stars are relevant to the level you are currently in. There's lots of guys in the 3rd-4th tiers who have superior athletic ability and its not hard to say "oh man that lad has the potential to dominate League 2".

[isignedupfornorealreason]

Have a 1/2/3 attribute that affects 'growth' rate. Simple.

1 = Grows normally as per your training facilities et al (as we have now)

2 = Ability grows too damn fast - more likely to reach potential before 20 (Early-bloomers)

3 = Ability stagnates but grows x4 speed once the player hits 26+ years of age. (late-bloomers)

It would have to be hidden, random and scouts should NOT be able to identify it at all. An early bloomer with LOW PA will likely sucker an unsuspecting manager into thinking they got a diamond in the rough and so on.

To be honest, this discussion crops up every installment and yeah it does need changing but it won't be.

[Spart]

Not much more than what is in place at the moment? Players don't suddenly develop technical abilities on par with Messi.

Like my Casillas examples: There are only so many top-tier clubs in the world, and they have only so many spots for world-class players. Naturally, it means that you cannot have too many world-class players because you need world-class football to develop.

To me, it's not much different to ensuring scorelines don't end 30-0 and all that. Soak tests would suffice, with data mining and analysios.

But clubs don't generate multiple world-beaters, select the one or two they want, and then sell the rest off. That's not how the real football world is populated with elite level players so it shouldn't be how FM should approach doing so.

Firstly, Tunnicliffe has to pull his weight. If he doesn't, then he will fail to learn much (although he will learn something through constant failure: To me, constant failure at first-team level > no first-team football at all), and his development will simply not keep up with the trajectory needed to become the world's best ball-winning midfielder. You might even burn him out. If he keeps failing to perform, he might get upset and the pressure might get to him.

Of course, if he continuously fails to perform, he might drag your entire team down, especially in such a key position. So it's Champions League today, Europa League tomorrow... Lesser-quality football, lesser-quality development.

On the other hand, if Tunnicliffe does pull his weight and perform well, you are basically asking the question: What if a player (who happens to be called Ryan Giggs) gets thrown into the first-team and consistently delivers solid performances at a tender age? The answer: He turns out to be one of the best players the Premier League has ever seen. So is that realistic? Giggsy says yes.

So a lot of it simply boils down to how he performs (and other things, like avoiding injury and all that).

If you have to game the match engine to deliver this, then SI should address the root cause (the match engine exploit), rather than handicap the development engine. In programming, we call this "Separation of concerns", which is a good thing.

Even Messi had this sort of trajectory: An extraordinary wonderkid, but would have had a fairly boring career if he hadn't performed for Barcelona, perhaps closer to former teammates Giovanni dos Santos and Bojan.

I couldn't disagree more with you. Even if Tunnicliffe did pull his weight, using his work rate, strength and good form to play to best of his ability, that shouldn't give him an unlimited ceiling with which to develop into. That certainly wasn't the story with Giggs who was seen as an exciting talent before he graduated from the youth ranks. Tunnicliffe is seen as a hard worker and fiery personality who probably has all the mental drive needed to "game" an open, dynamic system that rewards effort and form.

Messi too would likely have always succeeded with the right medical assistance - why would Barca have gone to such efforts otherwise? I'd also argue that not all players are equal in terms of potential. Perhaps not in such a harshly finite way as a hard PA number but there's certainly a gap.

I'm not saying its necessarily set from birth (I do think some people are born with certain natural qualities/flaws but we've disagreed on this in similar discussions in the past so I don't want to dwell on it), but Messi played a hell of a lot of street football at a very young age and had other environmental factors that contributed to his affinity with the game. Giggs the same. If not hard numbers, there at least needs to be bands that group the world-beaters above the top division regulars, squad players, championship stalwarts and so on and so forth...

Going back to Tunnicliffe, let's look at Park Ji-Sung and John O'Shea - two solid squad players who, at their peak, never let United down in the league or Europe in terms of effort, commitment or team playing. They were hard working and talented footballers but never key players. In an open, dynamic PA system that rewards good attitude, form, facilities, good football exposure etc. surely they should both have turned into 180-190+ players by virtue of their industry and mental strength?

The problem is: Who anticipates a late-bloomer? Go back to FM05: Would Demba Ba's researcher anticipate him late-blooming? Late-blooming is unexpected. Anyone can late-bloom and you cannot see it a decade in advance.

Maybe dynamic PA or no PA is opening a can of worms. To me, if you want a realistic simulation, you need to open that can.

My point with the "Wonderkid" status is that it wouldn't be set - Wonderkid kicks in when a players of a certain age has both a high CA and PA.

Perhaps a "Late Developer" status could activate for players over 23 who are at least 5 points away from their PA, on fantastic form and with an excellent personality? If not, I'm such there are other factors that could add into triggering such a buff.

[YKW]

This is a very interesting thread, and I would like to pose a few open questions to whomever is interested in answering with their opinion.

1. Suppose you were a researcher for the game, what factors would you take into account when deciding a player's potential? Would you consider there to be any master attributes e.g. composure or flair, that you would say give a player a high "potential factor?"

2. If you had already assigned a player a PA, what would influence you to change this PA in future versions of the database?

3. How do you feel about the possibility of a player having a 30 point difference in his PA between two save games on one version of the game?

4. Do you think that players over the age of, say 25, actually get better, or do they just get wiser? (do technical and physical attributes not max out fast enough on the game?)

And also, 5. For those who are against dynamic PA or who think the current system is fine, how would you feel about separate (fixed) PAs for the technical, mental and physical attributes?

[Jelle Slaets]

This is a very interesting thread, and I would like to pose a few open questions to whomever is interested in answering with their opinion.

1. Suppose you were a researcher for the game, what factors would you take into account when deciding a player's potential? Would you consider there to be any master attributes e.g. composure or flair, that you would say give a player a high "potential factor?"

2. If you had already assigned a player a PA, what would influence you to change this PA in future versions of the database?

3. How do you feel about the possibility of a player having a 30 point difference in his PA between two save games on one version of the game?

4. Do you think that players over the age of, say 25, actually get better, or do they just get wiser? (do technical and physical attributes not max out fast enough on the game?)

And also, 5. For those who are against dynamic PA or who think the current system is fine, how would you feel about separate (fixed) PAs for the technical, mental and physical attributes?

While the discussion may be interesting, it has been held so many times, it loses its edge a little, but I'll just drop my 2 cents, since at least it is a more or less constructive thread in between all the crying for patches.

To answer those questions of:

1. I think we should look at what all scouts look at: CA combined with age. It's not happening in this game now unfortunately, but I think what happens with scouting in real life (and thus also for the SI DB), is that we look at what a player can do at a certain age, and predict his future. And for some players, this will mean they are under estimated, and for it will mean they are overhyped, but in all, this should balance out just fine.

I believe the only problem with the CA/PA system in this game, is that scouting sees the PA, where it should not IMO. It should just look at age and CA, just like real scouts in real life do. Which would mean, it would miss some 'high PA' players, and they would be undiscovered by most teams, until a later age, and thus become late bloomers, or just have a under performing career.

Another problem is development being to reliable when under the guidance of human managers, but this has nothing to do with PA, more the training / development of players, and I hope this will be tackeled.

2. The same thing as in number one, age and CA. Say his CA went up the last years, and of course his age as well, we make a new guesstimate. This will be both for players doing better, and players doing worse, as scouting is never an exact science. It's making predictions on how players will evolve to present a DB which is always up to date to the current state of football. And like predicting the weather 1 yr in advance, impossible to get completely right.

3. I have no idea what you mean with this question, but the biggest problem of PA is that people know there is PA. And that people have access to the editor and tools like FMRTE to see this value, and scouting guessing it too accurately. People should look at their players, and their current stats, and form, and progress he has been making, his age, ... Not to a hidden value which determines his maximum potential.

4. I think the development of players and their attributes sure have room for improvement. I think their physical attributes may max out too fast. Their mental too. I now see too many young powerhouses, where this could probably grow more stable over time, so players, even in human hands, even 'early bloomers', will still slowly grow till the age of say 27-28. In human hands, players can reach their full potential much too quickly imho, which makes 'playing with kids' and 'buying cheap youngster and developing them' too easy, and make the game too easy as well.

5. I don't like the idea, as it is pretty much the same thing, only more complicated. PA takes in account everything, and creates nicely balanced players imo. I don't have any regens / players with weird balances in between categories. You could say it could help to improve the development model, but I don't think any separate PA values are needed, and that it can be done in the current model.

To me, keeping the PA/CA model is fine. I don't see any better alternative, and I think all suggestions for a dynamic PA, are very open to exploits, or don't improve the game or development model at all. You could say now that the current model will miss some players who will turn out great in 7 years, but were never spotted, true. However, going to a dynamic PA, you will get the opposite, and a lot of complete third rate players will turn out to be world class players. So both systems will have the exact same problem.

The main benefit I see in the current PA model, is that it's a very good way to balance the amount of great players and good players and normal players ... over the years, so there will always be the same balance. Any dynamic system, (which to me will be very prone to humans figuring out how it works), will probably suffer many editions to get the right balance, and in the end, I don't see what added benefit they have over the current system, which will eventually have the same amount of world class players / great players / good players / ...

I think SI's focus should be on improving scouting and development (actually, the financial model to me is far more in need of work then any of those, let alone CA/PA). If people were not aware of PA, and those 2 were better, I think you would see that everything will look extremely natural, as PA in that case, just ensures there is a right balance of players of all quality. And some will have good CA at young age and fail to develop, some will have low CA at some age and fail to develop. Some will develop slowly, but never really make it into quality material in the end, and some will make it to be the next Messi.

[YKW]

While the discussion may be interesting, it has been held so many times, it loses its edge a little, but I'll just drop my 2 cents, since at least it is a more or less constructive thread in between all the crying for patches.

To answer those questions of:

1. I think we should look at what all scouts look at: CA combined with age. It's not happening in this game now unfortunately, but I think what happens with scouting in real life (and thus also for the SI DB), is that we look at what a player can do at a certain age, and predict his future. And for some players, this will mean they are under estimated, and for it will mean they are overhyped, but in all, this should balance out just fine.

I believe the only problem with the CA/PA system in this game, is that scouting sees the PA, where it should not IMO. It should just look at age and CA, just like real scouts in real life do. Which would mean, it would miss some 'high PA' players, and they would be undiscovered by most teams, until a later age, and thus become late bloomers, or just have a under performing career.

Another problem is development being to reliable when under the guidance of human managers, but this has nothing to do with PA, more the training / development of players, and I hope this will be tackeled.

Firstly, thanks for the response. Agree entirely with the bolded I would love something to change along the lines you suggest.

3. I have no idea what you mean with this question, but the biggest problem of PA is that people know there is PA. And that people have access to the editor and tools like FMRTE to see this value, and scouting guessing it too accurately. People should look at their players, and their current stats, and form, and progress he has been making, his age, ... Not to a hidden value which determines his maximum potential.

I'm not sure off the top of my head what the values are, but some players start the game with a variable potential such as -9 which I think translates to an in game PA of between 150 and 180. That is to say he could be 150 in my game and 180 in yours. That's a pretty huge difference and tbh is a feature that I've always found strange. It makes sense to me that players should have different careers on each save game, but I'm not sure if this really is a positive way to implement it.

I definitely agree that knowing PA exists is part of the problem for me, and I agree even more about scouts guessing it too accurately. Even if PA were to remain static, I would settle for a game in which scouts had no access at all to the PA value, this would solve a lot of my problems.

5. I don't like the idea, as it is pretty much the same thing, only more complicated. PA takes in account everything, and creates nicely balanced players imo. I don't have any regens / players with weird balances in between categories. You could say it could help to improve the development model, but I don't think any separate PA values are needed, and that it can be done in the current model.

But do you believe that getting faster and taking better penalties are mutually exclusive? There may be an opportunity cost through training one and not the other, but if I improve my balance up to a point where I am at my PA, what sense is there that I now have NO CHANCE of improving my corners, for example. For me, this is where the theory behind CA/PA totally falls down.

Let's for example take Gareth Bale. For me, his rise to stardom began when he missed a huge chunk of time out with an ankle injury and in this time he went to the gym loads and came back as a man beast. Obviously he had some huge untapped physical potential that he has managed to realise. Suppose he didn't get the ankle injury and was not able to spend a lot of time in the gym growing muscle. Instead he plays all the games, improves his technique a bit, and learns a lot about the game. Surely he would still have that physical potential, it would just be unrealised. If it were FM then it would now not be possible for Bale to develop his physical side. An alternative example would be Thierry Henry arriving at Arsenal at close to his physical max, but still with a lot of untapped technical potential.

This is why I would say splitting up the PA would work much better. Imagine having a highly technical youngster and training him to be like Messi but finding that he doesn't improve. Maybe he has just reached his Technical limit. Perhaps you realise just in time to start training him physically and unlocking his physical potential. Perhaps scouts could report that player x "looks like he could become a physical beast" or "seems to have a natural aptitude for kicking a football," instead of "player x has 4 spare stars worth of PA for you to distribute through training."

To be honest, if static potential was going to be kept, I'm not sure I wouldn't actually be behind every player having a defined limit in each stat. For example a player having 6 for heading with the potential to be 12, or 11 finishing with the potential to be 13.

To me, keeping the PA/CA model is fine. I don't see any better alternative, and I think all suggestions for a dynamic PA, are very open to exploits, or don't improve the game or development model at all. You could say now that the current model will miss some players who will turn out great in 7 years, but were never spotted, true. However, going to a dynamic PA, you will get the opposite, and a lot of complete third rate players will turn out to be world class players. So both systems will have the exact same problem.

The main benefit I see in the current PA model, is that it's a very good way to balance the amount of great players and good players and normal players ... over the years, so there will always be the same balance. Any dynamic system, (which to me will be very prone to humans figuring out how it works), will probably suffer many editions to get the right balance, and in the end, I don't see what added benefit they have over the current system, which will eventually have the same amount of world class players / great players / good players / ...

I think SI's focus should be on improving scouting and development (actually, the financial model to me is far more in need of work then any of those, let alone CA/PA). If people were not aware of PA, and those 2 were better, I think you would see that everything will look extremely natural, as PA in that case, just ensures there is a right balance of players of all quality. And some will have good CA at young age and fail to develop, some will have low CA at some age and fail to develop. Some will develop slowly, but never really make it into quality material in the end, and some will make it to be the next Messi.

Agreed totally on the bold which is a great point.

[haunted1234]

i think hiding the potential of players would make the game certainly a thousand times more interesting, however i think you should be able to see the potential of a player either if hes coming trough your youth acadamy, or after being at the club for one year or so.. and working together with the staff... so they evaluate his real potential and tell you about it... thats what i would state as realistic

not a scout coming back within 48 hours with a full detailed report about the person without even seeing one game of him or anything...

and potential should be capped, theres no such thing as dynamic potential... everyone is potentially limited, it doesnt matter if you play all day with xavi and iniesta or in the second division of poland... you would just hit your full potential alot quicker with the better guys obviously, but they cant make the physical and mental barriers just go away

[Jelle Slaets]

I'm not sure off the top of my head what the values are, but some players start the game with a variable potential such as -9 which I think translates to an in game PA of between 150 and 180. That is to say he could be 150 in my game and 180 in yours. That's a pretty huge difference and tbh is a feature that I've always found strange. It makes sense to me that players should have different careers on each save game, but I'm not sure if this really is a positive way to implement it.

....

....

But do you believe that getting faster and taking better penalties are mutually exclusive? There may be an opportunity cost through training one and not the other, but if I improve my balance up to a point where I am at my PA, what sense is there that I now have NO CHANCE of improving my corners, for example. For me, this is where the theory behind CA/PA totally falls down.

Let's for example take Gareth Bale. For me, his rise to stardom began when he missed a huge chunk of time out with an ankle injury and in this time he went to the gym loads and came back as a man beast. Obviously he had some huge untapped physical potential that he has managed to realise. Suppose he didn't get the ankle injury and was not able to spend a lot of time in the gym growing muscle. Instead he plays all the games, improves his technique a bit, and learns a lot about the game. Surely he would still have that physical potential, it would just be unrealised. If it were FM then it would now not be possible for Bale to develop his physical side. An alternative example would be Thierry Henry arriving at Arsenal at close to his physical max, but still with a lot of untapped technical potential.

This is why I would say splitting up the PA would work much better. Imagine having a highly technical youngster and training him to be like Messi but finding that he doesn't improve. Maybe he has just reached his Technical limit. Perhaps you realise just in time to start training him physically and unlocking his physical potential. Perhaps scouts could report that player x "looks like he could become a physical beast" or "seems to have a natural aptitude for kicking a football," instead of "player x has 4 spare stars worth of PA for you to distribute through training."

As to the first, I believe it is a 10 or 20 difference, but I'm not sure. I have no idea why they do it like that, but I guess it more or less an easy way to add players in a 10 scale then a 200 scale. Personally, I don't really care about that point, and while it seems weird, I don't mind that a players passing in 1 game is a little less then in another. But that's just me. I wouldn't mind them giving all player a fixed value

And to the second point:

I can see your idea, and I can see how it works. But I also see it then again limiting in a way.

We would still like to keep a limit on the total development of a player. Say, the current 200 PA. Else we would get extremely imbalanced players, which have way too overpowered stats or combination of stats...

The way it would then be implemented is to split this 200PA over the different attribute groups.. like some technical wizzkid, but mentally unstable, could have Technical PA 120 Mental PA 30 Physical PA 50

A more balanced defender would have technical PA 50 Mental 60 Physical 90

And so one.

This does impose a little more limits to the manager, as he can no longer develop players as much as they want in certain aspects, example: no matter how much you would have Henry Train scoring, even at young age, once he reaches the technical limit, it stops... Just at much as now mental stats increase will stop, when you reach the technical limit. Though you could argue this is (more) realistic then the current model. No matter how you look at it, a player will once reach his potential, and no longer develop, that is a part of life.

I do believe this limit is now reached far too soon, especially with human managers, so we run into this wall faster. If this development model would become slower, so players peak at age 28-30, I think we would have a lot more options to 'shape' players and to see their mental attributes rise later, or to refocus their skill points.

[Gunblade]

I personally do not believe ina technical limit. Mental and physcial limit yes but no technical. As I mentioned before I feel the majoirty of players are playing professionally are only limited by mental and physical attributes. I'm not saying that a BSP player is as technically gifted as a premier league player, though there might be some who are close (Stead to Blackburn was a good example of lower league making it well to upper league, even if only for one season), but their mental and physical attributes prevent them from getting as technically gifted.

It's been scientifically proven that anyone can get better at a SKILL through time. the magic number being 10000 hours. This is nothing but an AVERAGE though of course. Some might take a bit faster some might need even double that, again this is down to MENTAL LIMITS, and to an extent physical limits.

I feel NOTHING prevents a player from improving in finishing, or passing if given the right time, training and with the right ATTITUDE or INTELLIGENCE on the field or on the training ground.

So any who goes with the trite argument of "anyone could be trained to be 20 at everything" is wrong. There would still be a "Cap" the cap being does his mental and physical attributes allow him to train up everything in the time he has as a professional along with a mental and physical cap as well.

[Rashidi]

Havent we had the same conversation at different times in the last 7 years?

[Spart]

Yep. This seems to come up fairly regularly, often with the same old chestnuts.

[x42bn6]

But clubs don't generate multiple world-beaters, select the one or two they want, and then sell the rest off. That's not how the real football world is populated with elite level players so it shouldn't be how FM should approach doing so.

The post you quoted was in response to the idea that a club could generate many world-beaters: I said it should be impossible, even without PA, because of the lack of top-tier clubs.

I couldn't disagree more with you. Even if Tunnicliffe did pull his weight, using his work rate, strength and good form to play to best of his ability, that shouldn't give him an unlimited ceiling with which to develop into. That certainly wasn't the story with Giggs who was seen as an exciting talent before he graduated from the youth ranks. Tunnicliffe is seen as a hard worker and fiery personality who probably has all the mental drive needed to "game" an open, dynamic system that rewards effort and form.

What, like Gary Neville or Roy Keane then? Or even Darren Fletcher?

Fergie's Fledglings were written off in 1995 (you will recall what Hansen said), in the same way you are writing off this hypothetical Tunnicliffe. While it's true Tunnicliffe hasn't been as impressive as Giggs in 1995-1999, he's only had a few games and I don't really see the point in judging Tunnicliffe on those. It might be an issue if we sold all our midfielders and stuck Tunnicliffe in there as a first-teamer, but Sir Alex hasn't done that.

Messi too would likely have always succeeded with the right medical assistance - why would Barca have gone to such efforts otherwise? I'd also argue that not all players are equal in terms of potential. Perhaps not in such a harshly finite way as a hard PA number but there's certainly a gap.

You don't know how to determine a player's potential, by algorithm or whatever, with full certainty: So how can you be sure?

Going back to Tunnicliffe, let's look at Park Ji-Sung and John O'Shea - two solid squad players who, at their peak, never let United down in the league or Europe in terms of effort, commitment or team playing. They were hard working and talented footballers but never key players. In an open, dynamic PA system that rewards good attitude, form, facilities, good football exposure etc. surely they should both have turned into 180-190+ players by virtue of their industry and mental strength?

Nope, because Park and O'Shea's performances were usually always one notch below "world-class", i.e. they were never as good as, say, Ronaldo. Your performances should determine how you develop, so neither would match Ronaldo's development. If Park had gone on to score 20-30 goals per season, then you could argue he should have had a sort of "delayed Ronaldo" moment (i.e. late-bloom).

My point with the "Wonderkid" status is that it wouldn't be set - Wonderkid kicks in when a players of a certain age has both a high CA and PA.

Perhaps a "Late Developer" status could activate for players over 23 who are at least 5 points away from their PA, on fantastic form and with an excellent personality? If not, I'm such there are other factors that could add into triggering such a buff.

So you're not opposed to moving PA around?

To me, that's too arbitrary (5 points). It should be possible to "half-late-bloom" as well, as well as different "levels" of late-blooming (from small to drastic). It's not a discrete thing. Making PA dynamic would solve all of these.

[WizbaII]

Why is it not obvious to people that potential ability cannot be a variable number? If the number was variable (or within a range), then there wouldn't be much point in having PA in the first place. I do agree with what I've read that the game needs to do a better job of accommodating late bloomers. Otherwise it seems okay to me. My biggest concerns are going to be ME-related because that affects pretty much everything else including stuff like PA. But I do think the CA/PA system is generally okay the way it is.

Even so, I have heard some interesting ideas. rashidi1's suggestion about no cap on technical skills gets my attention. As does BiggusD's idea of scouts not using PA to make the scout report, but rather using player rating, age, rate of development, etc., instead.

I'm enjoying reading this thread, for the most part.

[lil ole me]

If i have a CM who is 23 years old and has a CA of 154 and PA of 154.

Does this mean that he cannot get any better?

[WizbaII]

Also loving YKW's BA idea. It does sound better than the current model and doesn't sound any harder to code for either. It allows for late bloomers, etc. Alas, I must go to sleep now.

[x42bn6]

If i have a CM who is 23 years old and has a CA of 154 and PA of 154.

Does this mean that he cannot get any better?

Some of his attributes may go down to compensate for others to go up, which might make him "better" (but only in the sense that attributes tell a better story than CA does).

However, this doesn't necessarily make sense: Why should a striker's tackling, say, get worse in order for his finishing to improve? In an extreme case with low CA and PA, a player might not even have any attributes "to lose" before he can get better (imagine 1 in every non-key attribute, and a very low attribute in the others: What can he "lose" to gain in the key attributes?).

In a lot of ways, although attributes really matter, CA/PA is a better thing to discuss in this thread because CA allows us to compare apples and oranges somewhat (a CA 154 left-back can be compared with a CA 154 striker and they can be deemed "equal" in terms of ability), in a more general sense rather than "my CA 154 striker is better than your CA 154 striker because he fits my formation better" and all that.

[lonestar190]

Some of his attributes may go down to compensate for others to go up, which might make him "better" (but only in the sense that attributes tell a better story than CA does).

However, this doesn't necessarily make sense: Why should a striker's tackling, say, get worse in order for his finishing to improve? In an extreme case with low CA and PA, a player might not even have any attributes "to lose" before he can get better (imagine 1 in every non-key attribute, and a very low attribute in the others: What can he "lose" to gain in the key attributes?).

Actually it makes perfect sense. To improve his finishing he must practice it more than other attributes. Therefore, other attributes may decline based on his lack of practice. I know my skills have decreased based on lack of practice over the last month while I have not been playing.

If he has reached his peak (i.e. the entirity of his practice is required just to maintain his attributes) then to improve one attribute another must make way.

[x42bn6]

Actually it makes perfect sense. To improve his finishing he must practice it more than other attributes. Therefore, other attributes may decline based on his lack of practice. I know my skills have decreased based on lack of practice over the last month while I have not been playing.

If there is spare PA, the attributes can be remain stagnant while others rise. However, if there is no PA, some attributes must drop. There is a difference between the two categories, which is the weird thing.

If he has reached his peak (i.e. the entirity of his practice is required just to maintain his attributes) then to improve one attribute another must make way.

You can always improve, if perhaps slower than you would have in the past. It might never happen (i.e. an average player may never move to Real Madrid and experience its world-class training facilities that would improve him), but it could. It is just that this rarely happens: Not everyone can train at Real Madrid.

[Dave C]

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?"

It doesn't matter how good, how clever, how intricate, or how well-thought-out the idea is. The idea of unlimited/dynamicly positive PA is unrealistic, so any suggestion along those lines fails before it starts.

If I sound arrogant, sorry, it's just it's a very dull argument that has been played out here so many times. If everyone took all their good ideas and applied it to a development model within a capped PA system, they could really give SI something to think about. Otherwise, it'll just be dismissed as flawed, and nothing will change.

[Dave C]

The problem with late-blooming and PA is that a player must initially underachieve, CA-PA wise, for a player to have the CA-PA difference to late-bloom. However, the point of a late-bloomer is that it is unexpected: A researched player would have had a reasonable CA-PA difference with no room to late-bloom. A newgen with a generated low PA and reasonable personality would have had a reasonable CA-PA difference with no room to late-bloom. To me, a fixed PA is incompatible with late-blooming because a fixed PA doesn't factor in the possibility of late-blooming (or indeed, any rare, positive event).

For example, a 130/130 player cannot late-bloom, full-stop, despite the fact that there are real-world (rare) circumstances that would let this player late-bloom: If these circumstances happen in-game, the player should late-bloom in-game, too.

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Late blooming just means a player doesn't progress early in his career. In FM terms, he has low CA, high PA, but doesn't progress. He drops down, gets some football, and finally starts to fulfil that potential. In reality he hasn't discovered ability that nobody knew was there. He's just finally making the most of himself.

All you are doing is backing my argument that the actual *development model" that underpins the transition from CA-PA needs to evolve.

[Dave C]

I personally do not believe ina technical limit. Mental and physcial limit yes but no technical. As I mentioned before I feel the majoirty of players are playing professionally are only limited by mental and physical attributes. I'm not saying that a BSP player is as technically gifted as a premier league player, though there might be some who are close (Stead to Blackburn was a good example of lower league making it well to upper league, even if only for one season), but their mental and physical attributes prevent them from getting as technically gifted.

It's been scientifically proven that anyone can get better at a SKILL through time. the magic number being 10000 hours. This is nothing but an AVERAGE though of course. Some might take a bit faster some might need even double that, again this is down to MENTAL LIMITS, and to an extent physical limits.

I feel NOTHING prevents a player from improving in finishing, or passing if given the right time, training and with the right ATTITUDE or INTELLIGENCE on the field or on the training ground.

So any who goes with the trite argument of "anyone could be trained to be 20 at everything" is wrong. There would still be a "Cap" the cap being does his mental and physical attributes allow him to train up everything in the time he has as a professional along with a mental and physical cap as well.

I don't really agree with that. If we break the attributes of a footballer into three categories, Physical, Technical, and Mental, then the one that sets the absolute best players apart is the mental side. That's the hardest to improve. But the easiest to improve, the easiest to be good at, is the physical side. I've watched lower league football the best part of thirty years. I've seen some absolute beasts, real man mountains. But they have no technique, or great technique but they are bottlers. I've seen players as quick as any Premier League star, but without the technique, decision-making, and composure to make it truly valuable.

So I would say it's mentality that provides the greatest limitation, then technique, then physique.

You can feel otherwise, but things like hand-eye (or foot-eye) coordination have been shown to have a genetic component, therefore provide a real limit on technical potential.

[milnerpoint]

Meh we have this every year, the usual multi-quoting and going round in circles.

[MakaveliPT]

I do agree that if a young player has reached his PA in order to get better on some attributes due to training, others might declined, using the example before i can understand how a striker might lose tackling to get better at finishing as that's what he's training.

Although we sometimes see in real life players that everyone thinks that they already reached their best and then next season they come back so much better, i reckon if we see potential as a mental "attribute" that this form increase is due to a better, more focus mentality towards the game.

That said, i think PA should be dynamic but only in between seasons, to players who already reached their PA, and that are below the age of perhaps 25 i'd say. Why? Because if a player already reached his PA at 25, either he's a star like Neymar, or his PA is lower around 150-160.

Now this increment should not be much, i'd say between 1-15 PA points at most, which would depend on how he did last season, his training and personality as some have said. I don't know Neymar's PA by heart but i think we can all agree players like him, Gotze and others will only get better and better with age unless some bad injury gets in their way.

This PA increase should only happen once per player of course.

Example :

Star player

Age 25

CA 170

PA 170

personality - model citizen let's say

great season won plenty award which led to higher confidence on himself and his game

PA increase of 15

Regular player

age 25

CA 140

PA 140

personality - professional

had a better than regular season with plenty of assists, helped team avoid relegation or helped team get promoted what not

PA increase of 10.

I think this should be very interesting to see in future versions, although has to be carefully study as it would be us human players who will eventually dominate everything (hopefully) will see this happening most, so SI would have to make sure AI would also take care of their players and keep this "in mind".

I reckon this would be a great and overdue addition. Good thread and good points here.

[x42bn6]

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

Late blooming just means a player doesn't progress early in his career. In FM terms, he has low CA, high PA, but doesn't progress.

This is the problem: A researched player will never have this scenario because a player who doesn't progress won't have high PA. He will be a fabulously-average player with a fabulously-average PA, with no scope to develop.

Newgens have a similar issue, although PA is pulled out of a hat rather than being based on some real-life research of a player. The random number generator needs to generate a high-enough number to allow late-blooming, and the player needs to underachieve based on that PA.

The criteria for late-blooming has nothing to do with meeting his "potential": The criteria is that they had sustained periods of very good form at an old age. This is independent of the expectations placed upon them. If Luca Toni's researcher at 16 thought Toni would become a boring Serie B striker in the future, it doesn't matter: Luca Toni still late-bloomed. If Luca Toni's researcher at 16 thought Toni would become a star Serie A striker in the future, it doesn't matter: Luca Toni still late-bloomed.

If a researcher sets the PA to be low, or the random number generator generates a low number for PA, the game is effectively ruling out late-blooming for that player, despite the fact that the characteristics of late-blooming can still apply to that player.

A late-bloomer can only ever be known with hindsight: You didn't know that Drogba would be considered a late-bloomer at 16, but it is clear that after a few years at Chelsea, he could be considered one. Therefore you can never judge hindsight at a young age.

All you are doing is backing my argument that the actual *development model" that underpins the transition from CA-PA needs to evolve.

For what it's worth, I'm saying the development model needs to develop too, but not to keep the flawed idea that the future can be known. In a lot of ways, an improved development model is all the game needs when it comes to players' futures, including late-blooming, flops and spectacularly average development.

[Dave C]

For what it's worth, I'm saying the development model needs to develop too, but not to keep the flawed idea that the future can be known. In a lot of ways, an improved development model is all the game needs when it comes to players' futures, including late-blooming, flops and spectacularly average development.

If we have a better, more complex, development model, then researchers would be encouraged to take a more optimistic view of PA. Which solves the problem. No need for unlimited/flexible PA.

So we agree. Excellent!

[YKW]

How would people feel about PA being split into stages. A first PA value which determines how good the player could be by 23 and a second value for how good he could be from that point?

I think this could be an interesting way to incorporate the late bloomer effect that some people want.

[x42bn6]

How would people feel about PA being split into stages. A first PA value which determines how good the player could be by 23 and a second value for how good he could be from that point?

I think this could be an interesting way to incorporate the late bloomer effect that some people want.

That age is too arbitrary. If we accept the perception of potential can grow (or indeed, shrink) over time, then let it grow or shrink over time (or since it's now mostly useless as a moving target, get rid of it).

[mixmkz]

So far in FM13 player development is close to what is being mentioned in this thread, unlike FM12 I am less certain of my youth prospect's development.

I have a newgen RB that came into my first team at the age of 18 as a LT prospect to replace one of the top RB in the world. The fully developed RB was rated 3.5/3.5 in terms of CA/PA, the newgen was 2/4 CA/PA. Now at the age of 22, my coaches tell me that he is close to his full potential... at 2.5/3 CA/PA. This guy was tutored with the best and made over 100 first team appearances since the age of 18. So not all players meet their PA, even with the best tutors and facilities.

[THOG]

So far in FM13 player development is close to what is being mentioned in this thread, unlike FM12 I am less certain of my youth prospect's development.

I have a newgen RB that came into my first team at the age of 18 as a LT prospect to replace one of the top RB in the world. The fully developed RB was rated 3.5/3.5 in terms of CA/PA, the newgen was 2/4 CA/PA. Now at the age of 22, my coaches tell me that he is close to his full potential... at 2.5/3 CA/PA. This guy was tutored with the best and made over 100 first team appearances since the age of 18. So not all players meet their PA, even with the best tutors and facilities.

Star ratings are relative to your squad at the time, so over 4 years, the meaning of a 3-star rating can change and it doesn't necessarily mean that your RB failed to develop.

[mixmkz]

Star ratings are relative to your squad at the time, so over 4 years, the meaning of a 3-star rating can change and it doesn't necessarily mean that your RB failed to develop.

Yes but I have 3 RB, the world class one left, the rotational one at 3/3 CA/PA was there since the beginning the whole time and had no star changes, but the newgen who was there the whole time as well dropped 1 whole star rating after turning 22, so I highly doubt it has anything to do with my squad makeup.

[Matshit]

I don't think removing potential ability is the solution. What i think should be done however is to raise it a lot for all players and instead make it more difficult to get to. This way the players peak CA will be a lot more based on other stuff, and less on how good he could be when he was 16. A regen Bojan can still come into the game with a massive CA for a 16y old, and with a close to 200 PA. However, his mental flaws (i personally believe this is what stopped Bojan) will stop him from ever getting close to this number.

On the other hand a regen Di Natale could start with a weak CA, and a high PA. He ends up in weaker clubs his whole career, but his lack of injuries+profesional attitude+getting matches his whole career, end up as one of the worlds top 10 (at least) strikers when he turns 33-34. Or a Adriano who ends up as a world class player already at 21, but lose focus+have injury problems, and start declining already at this age. Or a Zanetti who is 40 and is still close to his peak, due to his fantastic attitude and the perfect football body.

Those are all extreme cases, but they should all exist in the game. It should be a lot harder to predict who the big stars of the future will be, and there should be a lot more different "paths" a players CA could take.

Perhaps a regen starts up at a Conference South club with a 200 PA. He has every natural talent needed, but his lack of ambition, lack of profesionalism, lack of a high starting CA, lack of good coaches to help him stops his potential from getting fulfilled, and he never even ends up playing a senior match for his club.

[BiggusD]

I don't think removing potential ability is the solution. What i think should be done however is to raise it a lot for all players and instead make it more difficult to get to. This way the players peak CA will be a lot more based on other stuff, and less on how good he could be when he was 16. A regen Bojan can still come into the game with a massive CA for a 16y old, and with a close to 200 PA. However, his mental flaws (i personally believe this is what stopped Bojan) will stop him from ever getting close to this number.

On the other hand a regen Di Natale could start with a weak CA, and a high PA. He ends up in weaker clubs his whole career, but his lack of injuries+profesional attitude+getting matches his whole career, end up as one of the worlds top 10 (at least) strikers when he turns 33-34. Or a Adriano who ends up as a world class player already at 21, but lose focus+have injury problems, and start declining already at this age. Or a Zanetti who is 40 and is still close to his peak, due to his fantastic attitude and the perfect football body.

Those are all extreme cases, but they should all exist in the game. It should be a lot harder to predict who the big stars of the future will be, and there should be a lot more different "paths" a players CA could take.

Perhaps a regen starts up at a Conference South club with a 200 PA. He has every natural talent needed, but his lack of ambition, lack of profesionalism, lack of a high starting CA, lack of good coaches to help him stops his potential from getting fulfilled, and he never even ends up playing a senior match for his club.

I feel that currently the Ambition and Professionalism attributes along with match experience makes player development an on/off feature. Either a standstill or near stagnation, or rocket development. In the past this has led to a very wide gap between the awesome regens and the rest. Season 10+ with Bradford in FM12 I realized that there were no real quality difference between the bottom half of the Premier League and the Championship - the AI squads were roughly the same, but the PL clubs had maybe one or two good players each. Overall the quality decreased steadily, compared to the first season, when it comes to attributes and who I would deem as good players.

But is that perhaps more a problem with the randomness of attribute distribution more than CA?

[Rashidi]

It doesn't matter how good, how clever, how intricate, or how well-thought-out the idea is. The idea of unlimited/dynamicly positive PA is unrealistic, so any suggestion along those lines fails before it starts.

If I sound arrogant, sorry, it's just it's a very dull argument that has been played out here so many times. If everyone took all their good ideas and applied it to a development model within a capped PA system, they could really give SI something to think about. Otherwise, it'll just be dismissed as flawed, and nothing will change.

Been waiting for that model for such a long time. This PA argument isnt new, whats needed is a bright spark that links it to a dynamic model for development, and with the current interplay between tactics and training its very very possible

[x42bn6]

Been waiting for that model for such a long time. This PA argument isnt new, whats needed is a bright spark that links it to a dynamic model for development, and with the current interplay between tactics and training its very very possible

PA is only realistic if you can actually know the future, when you can't.

It's a prediction, and should be treated as such (i.e. it can be wrong in both directions).

Of course, such a vague number doesn't really serve a purpose if it is vague (it is a number that the player "may or may not reach", depending on what he does in-game - how useful!), which is why you can in theory just get rid of it.

The real solution is a dynamic training model, which will show up PA anyway, because what matters is the many deltas of development over time, not some pie-in-the-sky prediction of a very vague and unfalsifiable limit.