Youngsters/Wonderkids unable to develop into complete players

[Fergy234]

I have been playing the game for a while and I have noticed that it is very rare to find a young player who can become a complete top player.

Many wonderkids don´t develop into top class players, when I say a top class player I mean with proper numbers in the important attributes his position needs..

 

And when the game creates new players most of them have "ridiculous" numbers (I use genie scout so I can see how their numbers develop)

 

Why is the game unable to create new players who can become complete? 

 

This is one of the things that needs to be fixed before the 2018 game or in the next update imo

[Cougar2010]

Because clubs don't turn out Messi & Ronaldo every year IRL.

[Fergy234]

14 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Because clubs don't turn out Messi & Ronaldo every year IRL.

I am not only looking for that, but solid players who can develop in 3 - 6 years into key players in a team that is challenging top 6 in the prem they don´t have to be like Messi or Ronaldo.. 

[lemeuresnew]

i think the problem i have is not noticing when key attributes wont be developed. i know for instance if the jumping att is on single figures for a central defender it won't increase as much as is needed, but still keep trying

i also think some people (me included) rely too much on star ratings rather than key attributes being fairly decent from the start. a balanced player with a 2 star rating will possibly be as good as you want, but why bother when your assistant keeps ranting about the 'player of his generation' that needs a lot of luck to get there

[Cougar2010]

47 minutes ago, Fergy234 said:

I am not only looking for that, but solid players who can develop in 3 - 6 years into key players in a team that is challenging top 6 in the prem they don´t have to be like Messi or Ronaldo.. 

Well the answer is to stop using Genie Scout and play the game.

Once you stop looking for perfection you'll find plenty of players who can be first team players for top clubs.

[Fergy234]

34 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Well the answer is to stop using Genie Scout and play the game.

Once you stop looking for perfection you'll find plenty of players who can be first team players for top clubs.

yeah you got a point but just think it is irritating when for example I have a very good young left back but his crossing rating is only 10 and you can not develop it further, just think it ruins the player......

[Fergy234]

43 minutes ago, lemeuresnew said:

i think the problem i have is not noticing when key attributes wont be developed. i know for instance if the jumping att is on single figures for a central defender it won't increase as much as is needed, but still keep trying

i also think some people (me included) rely too much on star ratings rather than key attributes being fairly decent from the start. a balanced player with a 2 star rating will possibly be as good as you want, but why bother when your assistant keeps ranting about the 'player of his generation' that needs a lot of luck to get there

exactly my point lem. It is very common that some key attributes wont develop, like for example marking and tackling in a defensive midfielder..........

[Cougar2010]

5 minutes ago, Fergy234 said:

yeah you got a point but just think it is irritating when for example I have a very good young left back but his crossing rating is only 10 and you can not develop it further, just think it ruins the player......

Why can't you develop it further?

Have you tried the player on the pitch?

How does he do?

[Fergy234]

He does well on the pitch but does not assist, probably because of his crossing is only 10. I don´t know why I can not develop it I do have crossing as the additional focus in the training but the number does not go up, still only 10 and I think that training has been on for 10 months in the game

[Bigpapa42]

Those are two strange examples. Those skills can most definitely be developed, by both role training and skill-specific training. If they are not improving even with that training, its something with that specific player or perhaps your coaches. If those skills are already pretty high (not the 10 Crossing you reference), then improvement will be slower.

In terms of success at crossing, I've got plenty of cross-assists from players with Crossing of around that. Its not Crossing by itself that will dictate the success of cross. It will combine with other attributes and also when he is being asked to do it tactically.

[Fergy234]

 

7 minutes ago, Bigpapa42 said:

 If they are not improving even with that training, its something with that specific player

Exactly my point, in my save at least there are plenty of that kind of players, and that needs to be changed/fixed.. I have good coaches, have one on each training and have a 4 and a halfstar on everything

[Cougar2010]

57 minutes ago, Fergy234 said:

He does well on the pitch but does not assist, probably because of his crossing is only 10. I don´t know why I can not develop it I do have crossing as the additional focus in the training but the number does not go up, still only 10 and I think that training has been on for 10 months in the game

As Bigpapa has alluded to no attribute works by itself.

The success of a cross is down to at least 10 different attributes and thats only the guy crossing the ball, never mind the person on the other end of it.

I think I'm right in saying that Crossing in isolation is how accurate a player delivers a cross to where he wants to.

 

In terms of training there is nothing stopping crossing from improving in general so unless you have altered other parts of the training so that the crossing focus has less effect there shouldn't be an issue.  However with it being a key attribute for a winger it will take more CA points to improve it, therefore a player will need to earn more before you see it increase.

[Bigpapa42]

54 minutes ago, Fergy234 said:

 

Exactly my point, in my save at least there are plenty of that kind of players, and that needs to be changed/fixed.. I have good coaches, have one on each training and have a 4 and a halfstar on everything

But its not a problem everyone is seeing. So either its a bug in your game or something specific with your save. Saying "this needs to change" would represent it as a wide, common problem. And it doesn't seem to be. Plenty of us manage to see very significant improvement in certain youngsters. Even in attributes that cannot be trained at all. 

[FmPeace]

@Fergy234 the problem lies within Genie Scout.

Genie Scout's "potential ability" feature is not 100% accurate.
You can still develop his crossing with focus training, despite genie scout's potential ability indicator.
I have done it many times myself.
Genie Scout's "potential ability" feature is just there to give you a basic idea of a players potential development.

What's true though is that many players with PA-180 or PA-190 have a weird attribute spread.
A striker with PA-186 has Corners at 14 and Free Kicks at 15? Really? Marking at 10 and Tackling at 12?
This is just one example, but I have seen the same pattern in many regens with high PA.

Important Matches at 3 or 5? Really?
Bravery at 2?


SI should definitely improve that area.

3 examples:

Spoiler

-Here's how, according to me, a normal central defender (the tall and slow type with no ball-playing defender skills) should look like:


-Here's how, according to me, a winger (short but fast) should look like:


-Here's how, according to me, a striker (normal height, the complete forward type) should look like:

Of course, there will be variations in attributes such as Aggression, Bravery, Determination and Natural Fitness (and not only in these atts).
But the previous concept is a lot better than what SI is doing atm with regens (am I too arrogant?).

[Fergy234]

I like your examples fmpeace.. This is what I mean. many players are ruined because of them imo

[Bigpapa42]

The basic problem is that if there is more adherence to a "youth template", you end up with far too many cookie cutter youths who, if they have the potential, will almost certainly end up as world class players. I've seen that in other sim games and it unbalances the game world as you progress. That's not really realistic - not every high potential player becomes Ronaldo, Messi, or Cristiano Ronaldo. These "ideal" prospects absolutely get generated in most saves. Players without overt drawbacks for their position who will become the next generations "best in the world" type stars. But those imperfect prospects are also important and realistic to have as well. Whether its ending up with a Messi-like player who is streaky or can't perform on a big stage, or a player with perfect technique, passing, and first touch but almost no creativity. You would end up not having a game world with those great but "flawed" players like Veron (little pace) or Ayala (short CB), etc. 

To me, one of the great dynamics of youth development is dealing with those "imperfect' prospects. That aspect of the game is really REALLY boring if you just have an assembly line of perfect prospects who are going to develop into perfect superstar players regardless of what you do. But if you have some imperfect prospects, you have a challenge. How can I maximize this player? How can I best address the flaw(s)? Do I retrain them to a new position? Can a PPM be learned to compensate? Can I work around it tactically? And when you develop that player into a great talent despite that flaw, you feel like you've accomplished something. 

[FmPeace]

Fair enough @Bigpapa42. Fair enough.

But, what's your opinion on the fact that, regen players have nothing in common with, in terms of attributes spread, the original players?
Is it only me that thinks "the original database of players is indeed a very good job, but after some years I get regens with a weird spread of attributes"?
I am sure it's not only me.
And I am sure many people have thought the "look at that CB with 18 tackling and 4 balance"...

[aditya]

Some players has really poor hidden attribute (character) that will not allow them to reach their true potential even with world class training facilties and 5 star coaches. *cough cough Michael Johnson*

[FmPeace]

Just now, aditya said:

Some players has really poor hidden attribute (character) that will not allow them to reach their true potential even with world class training facilties and 5 star coaches. *cough cough Michael Johnson*

A character can be "built" through tutoring.
Important matches though can't. At least that's what I think (correct me if I am wrong).
And even if it can grow by using your player in important matches, it will grow by 1, max 2 points?

For me, the important matches figure in regens is one of the worst jobs done by SI (sorry SI ).
You get a regen with 180PA and 3 for important matches...

[Bigpapa42]

1 hour ago, FmPeace said:

Fair enough @Bigpapa42. Fair enough.

But, what's your opinion on the fact that, regen players have nothing in common with, in terms of attributes spread, the original players?
Is it only me that thinks "the original database of players is indeed a very good job, but after some years I get regens with a weird spread of attributes"?
I am sure it's not only me.
And I am sure many people have thought the "look at that CB with 18 tackling and 4 balance"...

You mean like Bernado of Middlesborough, with 14 Tackling and 5 Balance and 10 Pace and 17 Stamina? or Mikel Villanueva of Malaga who is a bit similar? Those kind of unbalanced players happen. They are in the original DB. Perhaps not quite as common or prevalent. But they are certainly not uncommon. Short CBs who can't jump. Ridiculously fast strikers or wingers who can't do anything else. Great mental and physical attributes but terrible technical. One great technical skills and nothing else reasonable. You don't tent to see them at top clubs but they certainly happen in reality. 

Again, it might be more common and prevalent, but saying "this shouldn't happen" is not accurate to me, because that would be unrealistic. 

And you are right - character can potentially be improved. But its not guaranteed. Sometimes it just doesn't work. And a more developed youngster is more likely to require a higher squad status at a younger age (unless you are the biggest of clubs), taking away the option of tutoring sooner. But @aditya makes a good point - in reality, many players don't maximize their potential, whether its because they don't have the personality, because of injuries, because they can't overcome whatever weaknesses they have, etc. So a high potential player developing into a good player with a notable weakness is most definitely realistic. 

[FmPeace]

Just now, Bigpapa42 said:

Again, it might be more common and prevalent, but saying "this shouldn't happen" is not accurate to me, because that would be unrealistic. 

No, I never said "it shouldn't happen".
I said that SI should do a better job with the attribute spread.

Of course there are real players with not a good spread because that's their real ability, I get that.
But when it comes to regens, the "unbalance" is far worse.

[FmPeace]

And to be more exact.
Let's see some figures from my save with the help of genie scout. (FM16, currently in June 2017).

Total Players (real and regens) in my save: 124971
Total Real Players: 88869
Total Regens: 36102

Let's compare the "Important Matches" attribute (real players-regens):

Spoiler

Real Players with PA of 0-50: 2549
Important Matches from 0-5: 843 (33.07%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 1675 (65.71%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 28 (1.09%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 3 (0.11%)

Regens with PA of 0-50: 9337
Important Matches from 0-5: 2781 (29.78%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3937 (42.16%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 2141 (22.93%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 478 (5.11%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 51-100: 43187
Important Matches from 0-5: 10985 (25.43%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 28184 (65.26%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 3885 (8.99%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 133 (0.3%)

Regens with PA of 51-100: 16526
Important Matches from 0-5: 4563 (27.61%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 6739 (40.77%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 4337 (26.24%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 887 (5.36%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 101-150: 42021
Important Matches from 0-5: 6759 (16.08%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 22270 (52.99%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 12477 (29.69%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 515 (1.22%)

Regens with PA of 101-150: 9886
Important Matches from 0-5: 2586 (26.15%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3834 (38.78%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 2864 (28.97%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 602 (6.08%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 151-175: 1052
Important Matches from 0-5: 51 (4.84%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 186 (17.68%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 698 (66.34%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 117 (11.12%)

Regens with PA of 151-175: 310
Important Matches from 0-5: 78 (25.16%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 106 (34.19%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 97 (31.29%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 29 (9.35%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 176-200: 60
Important Matches from 0-5: 0 (0%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3 (5%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 29 (48.33%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 28 (46.66%)

Regens with PA of 176-200: 43
Important Matches from 0-5: 10 (23.25%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 16 (37.21%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 11 (25.58%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 6 (13.95%)

 

Did you see that?
Why such difference in the percentages (real vs regens)?
Why do real players have a better spread in the "Important Matches" attribute than the regens?
Shouldn't SI focus more on the 6-10 and 11-15 area?

I would really love for an explanation from the SI staff regarding the percentages .
Is it because the devs who are responsible for adjusting the values for regens, don't take a look at the original db and just make up something from their mind regarding the attribute spread?

[HUNT3R]

1 hour ago, FmPeace said:

And to be more exact.
Let's see some figures from my save with the help of genie scout. (FM16, currently in June 2017).

Total Players (real and regens) in my save: 124971
Total Real Players: 88869
Total Regens: 36102

Let's compare the "Important Matches" attribute (real players-regens):

  Hide contents

Real Players with PA of 0-50: 2549
Important Matches from 0-5: 843 (33.07%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 1675 (65.71%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 28 (1.09%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 3 (0.11%)

Regens with PA of 0-50: 9337
Important Matches from 0-5: 2781 (29.78%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3937 (42.16%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 2141 (22.93%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 478 (5.11%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 51-100: 43187
Important Matches from 0-5: 10985 (25.43%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 28184 (65.26%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 3885 (8.99%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 133 (0.3%)

Regens with PA of 51-100: 16526
Important Matches from 0-5: 4563 (27.61%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 6739 (40.77%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 4337 (26.24%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 887 (5.36%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 101-150: 42021
Important Matches from 0-5: 6759 (16.08%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 22270 (52.99%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 12477 (29.69%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 515 (1.22%)

Regens with PA of 101-150: 9886
Important Matches from 0-5: 2586 (26.15%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3834 (38.78%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 2864 (28.97%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 602 (6.08%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 151-175: 1052
Important Matches from 0-5: 51 (4.84%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 186 (17.68%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 698 (66.34%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 117 (11.12%)

Regens with PA of 151-175: 310
Important Matches from 0-5: 78 (25.16%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 106 (34.19%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 97 (31.29%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 29 (9.35%)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players with PA of 176-200: 60
Important Matches from 0-5: 0 (0%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 3 (5%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 29 (48.33%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 28 (46.66%)

Regens with PA of 176-200: 43
Important Matches from 0-5: 10 (23.25%)
Important Matches from 6-10: 16 (37.21%)
Important Matches from 11-15: 11 (25.58%)
Important Matches from 16-20: 6 (13.95%)

 

Did you see that?
Why such difference in the percentages (real vs regens)?
Why do real players have a better spread in the "Important Matches" attribute than the regens?
Shouldn't SI focus more on the 6-10 and 11-15 area?

I would really love for an explanation from the SI staff regarding the percentages .
Is it because the devs who are responsible for adjusting the values for regens, don't take a look at the original db and just make up something from their mind regarding the attribute spread?

Your comparison should be comparing regens and real players at similar ages. In 2017, regens will all be very young so will not have had time to develop their Important Matches. Not saying there ISN'T an issue, just that the comparison is incomplete.

[FmPeace]

9 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Your comparison should be comparing regens and real players at similar ages. In 2017, regens will all be very young so will not have had time to develop their Important Matches. Not saying there ISN'T an issue, just that the comparison is incomplete.

Which real player is 16-17y old in 2017?
Suppose I did a wrong comparison. Tell me which one would be the best, so to do it. Compare 15-18y old real players from 2015 with the 15-18y old regens from 2017?

Btw, the "important matches" attribute doesn't improve (what, 1 point max if you use your player regularly in important matches?). Is that going to prove SI devs right?
Consistency does, as the player gets older...

 

[HUNT3R]

1 minute ago, FmPeace said:

Which real player is 16-17y old in 2017?
Ok, suppose I did a wrong comparison. Tell me which one would be the best, so to do it. Compare 15-18y old real players from 2015 with the 15-18y old regens from 2017?

Btw, the "important matches" attribute doesn't improve (what, 1 point max if you use your player regularly in important matches?). Is that going to prove SI devs right?
Consistency does, as the player gets older...

 

Important Matches can and does improve. It's been stated on the forum, even by SI themselves. Seb, IIRC.

[FmPeace]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

Important Matches can and does improve. It's been stated on the forum, even by SI themselves. Seb, IIRC.

Suppose that's correct.
I don't accept that the "important matches" attribute improves the same way "consistency" does, but for the sake of argument, I will accept it does.

Which comparison should be fair for you?

[HUNT3R]

4 minutes ago, FmPeace said:

Which comparison should be fair for you?

I've already answered this:

17 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Your comparison should be comparing regens and real players at similar ages.

You're comparing 170-200 PA regens who are ±16 years old, with the likes of everyone in the database with that PA including Ronaldo and Messi. It's not a fair comparison.

[FmPeace]

Here you are with a more detailed comparison.
I compared the real 15/16/17/18y olds from 19th of May 2015 with the 15/16/17/18y olds regens from 4th of June 2017. (the difference in the date doesn't matter for the following comparison).

Spoiler

Real Players Aged 15y old: 894
Important Matches 0-3: 163 (18.23%)
Important Matches 4-7: 235 (26.28%)
Important Matches 8-11: 482 (53.91%)
Important Matches 12-15: 12 (1.34%)
Important Matches 16-20: 2 (0.22%)

Regens Aged 15y old: 1790
Important Matches 0-3: 249 (13.91%)
Important Matches 4-7: 518 (28.93%)
Important Matches 8-11: 571 (31.9%)
Important Matches 12-15: 359 (20.05%)
Important Matches 16-20: 93 (5.2%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players Aged 16y old: 5158
Important Matches 0-3: 865 (16.77%)
Important Matches 4-7: 1422 (27.56%)
Important Matches 8-11: 2789 (54.07%)
Important Matches 12-15: 78 (1.51%)
Important Matches 16-20: 4 (0.07%)

Regens Aged 16y old: 12218
Important Matches 0-3: 1739 (14.23%)
Important Matches 4-7: 3606 (29.51%)
Important Matches 8-11: 3826 (31.31%)
Important Matches 12-15: 2363 (19.34%)
Important Matches 16-20: 684 (5.6%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players Aged 17y old: 7364
Important Matches 0-3: 1212 (16.45%)
Important Matches 4-7: 2134 (28.97%)
Important Matches 8-11: 3869 (52.54%)
Important Matches 12-15: 145 (1.97%)
Important Matches 16-20: 4 (0.05%)

Regens Aged 17y old: 15643
Important Matches 0-3: 2143 (13.7%)
Important Matches 4-7: 4605 (29.43%)
Important Matches 8-11: 5004 (31.98%)
Important Matches 12-15: 3023 (19.32%)
Important Matches 16-20: 868 (5.54%)

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Real Players Aged 18y old: 9327
Important Matches 0-3: 1483 (15.9%)
Important Matches 4-7: 2562 (27.46%)
Important Matches 8-11: 5034 (53.97%)
Important Matches 12-15: 241 (2.58%)
Important Matches 16-20: 7 (0.07%)

Regens Aged 18y old: 4698
Important Matches 0-3: 639 (13.6%)
Important Matches 4-7: 1428 (30.4%)
Important Matches 8-11: 1441 (30.67%)
Important Matches 12-15: 932 (19.83%)
Important Matches 16-20: 258 (5.5%)

What's important to consider before any conclusions, is the fact that the vast majority of real youngster players have 0 for the "Important Matches" attribute which in turn generates a random number for that attribute when starting a new save.

Some conclusions:
-The percentage spread is wrong for me. Why so many players in the  "0-3" and "4-7" region (both the real ones and the regens)?
-While the percentage for the region "8-11" is higher in every case than the rest regions for the real players, it should have been a lot higher for the regens as most players are in that region (logically).

This is a good spread of percentage, for me:
0-3: 10%
4-7: 15%
8-11: 50%
12-15: 15%
16-20: 10%


Another comparison, the "Important Matches" attribute.

-Let's check the results for players aged 15-19 till 17-21:

Spoiler

As you can see, only two players saw their "Important Matches" attribute being increased.
Jairo Riedewald (11->12)
Carlos Soler (6->7)

-Let's check the results for players aged 20-23 till 22-25:

Spoiler

No increases here.

-Let's check the results for players aged 24-27 till 26-29:

Spoiler

No increases here.

-Let's check the results for players aged 28-31 till 30-33:

Spoiler

No increases here. In fact we can see two players saw a decrease:
Arjen Robben (15->14)
Giorgio Chiellini (16->15)

(most competitions were set to "Full Detail")

So, you draw the conclusions regarding the "does the important matches attribute increase?"....

[santy001]

Perhaps as a researcher I can help shed a bit of light on this. 

I've sought clarity on the matter because it does impact upon research, and it was indeed confirmed that hidden attributes like consistency and important matches do change. At some point in time they were much more static, or entirely static, but that is not the case any more. How much movement there is/can be I'm not sure of. One of the big problems is making attributes like consistency and important matches malleable is the playerbase will break it unless its incredibly well done. Being incredibly well done coincidentally means making it very hard to figure out, or putting a large amount of it purely down to chance. The thing is, if there's ever a process in the game which guarantees you can improve these attributes players will have to take it. Consistency and important matches are powerful in what they do, as are all the hidden attributes. 

Generally speaking, for all real life players that young, the advise we receive for attributes like important matches and consistency is they should be left empty. Let the game decide, it provides variation from save to save, it can then emulate how a players career might go. Personally I feel like we need a banded system similar to what we use for PA's of young players, I've made this clear in the relevant places but there could be a better solution in the works none of us are yet aware of. 

There's too much of a focus on things like this though, because ultimately, the game does normalise. If the average top flight leagues consistency goes from 13 to 11, its the same for everyone. That's why its the new average. 

The biggest problem with the regen system: It's trying to do the work of was it Miles said 1200 people who only have to do it for 1 years worth of players (which is still a huge amount mind), instead season in season out. The FM regen system is effectively the yearly research team condensed into your game. How do you condense the process that re-creates real players so well when you consider its enormity? 

The spread of attributes is a very interesting topic though, for Xherdan Shaqiri, last year I was deciding what attributes to submit and I had a 130ish CA model, a 150ish model and a 174CA model. They all worked and played like Shaqiri in FM16. I actually heavily favoured the 174CA model since it left a player who had a handful of magical moments, but often left you feeling disappointed that he didn't quite live up to what his ability suggested he should do. The 130CA model also had a handful of magical moments, which is right for Shaqiri, yet you always felt like he was performing well above himself. 

[FmPeace]

14 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Generally speaking, for all real life players that young, the advise we receive for attributes like important matches and consistency is they should be left empty. Let the game decide

I am sure the devs have a tool which spreads the attribute percentage for example, "Important Matches" for the regens.
They should add more reasonable variables. 3 for Important Matches? Come on...

14 minutes ago, santy001 said:

If the average top flight leagues consistency goes from 13 to 11, its the same for everyone.

But still, even the "crappy" players in Vanarama can have a consistency of 13. That's not down to top flight leagues ability vs lower leagues ability.
Same for physical attributes. Even the "crappy" ones can have amazing stats there.

14 minutes ago, santy001 said:

was it Miles said 1200 people who only have to do it for 1 years worth of players

I could give you a basis of player's attributes within a month (for different heights, different roles, etc). For the most clubs.
Can't 1200 people create templates for regens?

[santy001]

Physical attributes aren't affected by consistency, but we reach into the territory now of peering beyond how much people are perhaps meant to know about the game.

Consistency and important matches are modifiers, but there is no publicly available information on how much of a modifier they are. However, you can offset these impacts through other attributes like professionalism. High individual attributes like concentration and decisions will also offset these passively, particularly combined with tactics. 

The biggest problem, and you won't accept this in all likeliness, is you're looking at information you're not supposed to be looking at and trying to compare two very different processes to one another. 

I appreciate you're trying to increase my and other researchers workload with the FM game, but we're not paid. However, the work we do already ties in with what you're wanting to be created. It already exists. There are templates, or rather there is an infrastructure in the code of the game which has country by country variance and draws upon other attributes we researchers set for our clubs that helps mould and shape regens coming through. The back room staff in the game also do this. If we just provided templates, it would actually be a massive step backwards and create a very "samey" game from save to save. 

There has to be a certain acceptance of how it is, its a system than in 10 years time will be better than it is now. And right now its better than it was 10 years ago (which is around when it first came into the game I think?) There is an iterative improvement process in place. 

It's hard to bridge the gap because you posted you believe you can do the work of 1200 researchers in 1 month for a process that is always happening year round to an extent with "active" phases of 3-4 months in total. It dilutes the validity or well intentions of any points you make. If you truly believe that then no response in this thread is going to satisfy you.

[FmPeace]

Well, that's actually something I've never thought of. That "you could offset the modifiers of Consistency and Important Matches through other attributes like Professionalism".
That's very informative, thank you.

Yeah, now that you've dwelled upon this, I admit that my comparison may not say too much.
Although I do feel that a better percentage spread would more realistic.
 

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

It's hard to bridge the gap because you posted you believe you can do the work of 1200 researchers in 1 month for a process that is always happening year round to an extent with "active" phases of 3-4 months in total.

I probably overestimated myself.
A consequence of my hypothetical work would be to "create a very 'samey' game from save to save".
Which is totally fine for me, I don't consider it "a massive step backwards". I prefer to see regens who have a similar attribute spread to the real ones.
And I hate it when I see regens like this (the same pattern with high corners, free kicks, tackling, marking, etc. for a striker):

Spoiler

Yes, you could "steal" a couple of points with focus training, because the "Show Potential Attributes" feature is not 100% accurate, but still, the ratings for Corners and Free Kicks would still be very high. For a striker.

[santy001]

In regards to offsetting it, most people perhaps may not realise just how much you can offset it. For me, the best position to offset weak consistency and important matches (and mentals in general) is the AMC position for a playmaker. It's very easy to create a low pressure, time on the ball role there that means the effects of consistency and such are far less prominent. In the case of most attributes as well, the difference between 1 and 20 isn't that high. It's why in the research forums, suggestions of single attributes being even as much as 2/3 points higher/lower are dismissed because it wouldn't come close to achieving what people think it would achieve. 

[mack4ever]

15 hours ago, Fergy234 said:

He does well on the pitch but does not assist, probably because of his crossing is only 10. I don´t know why I can not develop it I do have crossing as the additional focus in the training but the number does not go up, still only 10 and I think that training has been on for 10 months in the game

Then don't play him in a fashion where he is expected to cross the ball all the time.

Play him as an IWB with a winger ahead of him. That way instead of going wide and crossing the ball his role will be to come inside and either play a pass through the defence or play it out wide to the winger who can then put in a cross.

[Neil Brock]

Just to clarify, issues like these with examples are best raised in the bugs forum so our QA team in the player progression/newgen area can see it and use the analysis constructively.

Thanks. 

[Fergy234]

1 hour ago, Neil Brock said:

Just to clarify, issues like these with examples are best raised in the bugs forum so our QA team in the player progression/newgen area can see it and use the analysis constructively.

Thanks. 

Just want to say that I think this is a great game, just suggesting some improvements. Alot of good points raised on this thread. Maybe you should move the thread to the area you suggested so "the team" can see it? 

Btw what ruins a player for me is low ratings in determination, consistency, important matches, ambition and pressure. Fundamentals for me.

Defenders and defensive midfielders with low work rate, positioning, marking and tackling for example...

Very rare to find captain material with high rates in determination, teamwork and leadership 15 plus

Way too often you find players with high potential 160 - 200 with big flaws. (This is more common in players that the game creates btw) I know no one is perfect but players with big potential and wonderkids should not have major flaws. Just doesnt make sense but I do realize like I said that no one should be perfect of course.

 

Well anyway keep up the good job. I have been playing this game from time to time for 15 years and this version is the best.

[Urg]

38 minutes ago, Fergy234 said:

Just want to say that I think this is a great game, just suggesting some improvements. Alot of good points raised on this thread. Maybe you should move the thread to the area you suggested so "the team" can see it? 

Btw what ruins a player for me is low ratings in determination, consistency, important matches, ambition and pressure. Fundamentals for me.

Defenders and defensive midfielders with low work rate, positioning, marking and tackling for example...

Very rare to find captain material with high rates in determination, teamwork and leadership 15 plus

Way too often you find players with high potential 160 - 200 with big flaws. (This is more common in players that the game creates btw) I know no one is perfect but players with big potential and wonderkids should not have major flaws. Just doesnt make sense but I do realize like I said that no one should be perfect of course.

 

Well anyway keep up the good job. I have been playing this game from time to time for 15 years and this version is the best.

Yes, flawed players are an annoyance. But they are needed. Imagine how boring the game would be if every newgen had attributes perfectly suited to their role and the only real difference between them would be their PA?

In my opinion the real problem is that the AI has trouble with squad building and those flawed players. It makes it rather easy for human players to build a team that consistently performs well, year after year. I do feel progress is being made in regards to squad building though, so keep it up SI!

[Soninho]

Bought a chilean guy from the argentine league in one save. Had complete red "dreads important matches" (or how it's called in english), but performed like a God for me! Sold him for 50 mil+ because I got a decent replacement.

In another save I checked this guy out.. Nothing about important matches in scout report but suddenly yellow in consistency, (don't know what that's called in english).. This really changed this guys performance and in this save I think his worse..

Btw.. Got my first presumably 5 star newgen today! Best before this was 4,5 star.. A very good CD... Of course a 6 for jumping... 

[FmPeace]

7 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Just to clarify, issues like these with examples are best raised in the bugs forum so our QA team in the player progression/newgen area can see it and use the analysis constructively.

Thanks. 

Thank you very much for the suggestion, but I am sorry, I don't have much faith in you guys.
After all these years...

But if you want, feel free to use my comparisons in any way you like.

[FmPeace]

6 hours ago, Fergy234 said:

Very rare to find captain material with high rates in determination, teamwork and leadership 15 plus

You could "train" his determination, although you are right about the leadership issue and to a lesser extent, the teamwork issue.

6 hours ago, Fergy234 said:

Way too often you find players with high potential 160 - 200 with big flaws. (This is more common in players that the game creates btw)

That is 100% accurate.



And, no one here said "Hey, I only want to see awesome regens in my save with no flaws".
Flawed regens are welcomed, just not at the rate they are now...

[Guest]

Do you really think that real life youth players are less likely to have inherent flaws that require good coaching to correct?

It's actually less likely to see a 15 year old player without any obvious flaws.

[Mr U Rosler]

This is where PA/CA can be misleading.

A Striker with 185 CA might appear to be World Class but if a lot of those points are swallowed up in sub optimal areas (tackling, marking etc) and or they have low consistency then they are not world class.

A 140 CA player might be a better Striker if he has better distribution of attribute points.

You cannot look at PA/CA in isolation.

[FmPeace]

6 hours ago, Mr U Rosler said:

A Striker with 185 CA might appear to be World Class but if a lot of those points are swallowed up in sub optimal areas (tackling, marking etc) and or they have low consistency then they are not world class.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If the devs have a template for a 190PA newgen, don't distribute his points to the less important areas (corners, free kicks, marking, tackling). At least not in the rate it is now.
Of course there will be a 190PA newgen who is also good at corners and free kicks, I get that, I understand, because it's realistic. But the rate this is happening right now, is pretty bad...

EDIT: If you still do that, what's the point in the 190PA?

[FmPeace]

9 hours ago, Barside said:

It's actually less likely to see a 15 year old player without any obvious flaws.

What do you mean by "obvious flaws"?
A 15y old central defender with 8 for off the ball, but 4 for balance and 6 for bravery?
A 15y old winger with 8 for acceleration, but 10 for positioning?
A 15y old striker with 12 for free kicks, but 8 for finishing?

Yeah, that's the FM I like...

[Cougar2010]

32 minutes ago, FmPeace said:

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

If the devs have a template for a 190PA newgen, don't distribute his points to the less important areas (corners, free kicks, marking, tackling). At least not in the rate it is now.
Of course there will be a 190PA newgen who is also good at corners and free kicks, I get that, I understand, because it's realistic. But the rate this is happening right now, is pretty bad...

EDIT: If you still do that, what's the point in the 190PA?

Because the 190PA is the overall potential of the player.

How that is distributed should always be semi random for the simple reason that everyone is unique IRL.

Using an example of an individual attribute is also wrong because no attribute works in isolation.  Using your striker example above I've had a striker banging in 20+ goals a season with finishing of less than 10.

Less looking at CA/PA/Stars/Attributes and more looking at the player on the pitch.

[FmPeace]

Just now, Cougar2010 said:

Less looking at CA/PA/Stars/Attributes and more looking at the player on the pitch.

Of course. But isn't it a shame to have newgens with amazing potential, like the following:

and then wonder "why did they distribute more points in the useless (for a striker) attributes such as corners, free kicks, marking, tackling"?

Why not distribute them like this?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, FmPeace said:

Of course. But isn't it a shame to have newgens with amazing potential, like the following:

and then wonder "why did they distribute more points in the useless (for a striker) attributes such as corners, free kicks, marking, tackling"?

Why not distribute them like this?

You're not taking into account the "cost" for attributes. 18 off the ball, for instance, isn't anywhere close to 18 for Teamwork. You'll also find that Finishing will "cost" more than Free Kicks, so it's not just a matter of swapping the numbers around.

 

That said, regens aren't meant to be perfect. They're young still and will need moulding, in a lot of cases, IRL and FM.

[FmPeace]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

You're not taking into account the "cost" for attributes. 18 off the ball, for instance, isn't anywhere close to 18 for Teamwork. You'll also find that Finishing will "cost" more than Free Kicks, so it's not just a matter of swapping the numbers around.

So, I created this very good template, I kept the original numbers, just swapped them, and the only thing you have to say is "You're not taking into account the "cost" for attributes."??
Forget about the 18 off the ball. Make it 14 and make the Teamwork 14.
How is that now?

If you had to choose between the original newgen Vitor Pinto and the one where I distributed the attributes via the notepad, who would you buy?

[HUNT3R]

Just now, FmPeace said:

Forget about the 18 off the ball. Make it 14 and make the Teamwork 14.

You can't just swap some numbers around? Teamwork (IIRC) is almost a "free" attribute. As I said, different attributes "cost" different amounts of CA.

You also can't make the comparison you did, because those two players will have a VERY different CA.

[Cougar2010]

11 minutes ago, FmPeace said:

Of course. But isn't it a shame to have newgens with amazing potential, like the following:

IRL for every player that makes it at a club there are hundreds that don't.

There is a reason that there has only been one Messi, C. Ronaldo, Maradona & Pele IRL and for every world class player there are literally millions & millions that aren't.

 

11 minutes ago, FmPeace said:

and then wonder "why did they distribute more points in the useless (for a striker) attributes such as corners, free kicks, marking, tackling"?
 

You don't seem to understand how CA converts to attributes.  If you took all those points out of those four skills you probably still wouldn't have enough CA to increase finishing by a single point.