[Suggestion] PA Changes for FM18

[Tnq]

Hello,

What i would like to suggest is a feature that already exists but is modified in a way i believe to be more realistic and interesting than it currently is.

As we all know, there are players who, in real life, unexpectedly "explode" and become wonderkids overnight. Don't you wish there's that kind of unpredictability in FM ?

My suggestion for this would be to change the current PA system in a way that would allow players to go all the way to the top depending on each new save we start, so that players with current PA of 130 and beyond would all have a chance to reach 200, which would work just like -8, -9 (etc.) when starting a new game for those players whose potential you're uncertain of, to increase the importance of scouting and element of surprise in every new game we start. Just to emphasize, this PA should be used on players who might have potential to go beyond their currently inserted PA, so most people with -8, -9 and -10 would have potential to go to the very top if they are determined enough to do so - I will talk about this in the last paragraph. Of course, this doesn't mean that players with, lets say, -8 PA should be at risk to have a PA as low as 110, so i'll give you an example. If player A has -8 potential, which ranges anywhere from 130 to 160 PA, he would now have PA of anywhere from 130 to 200 PA. Player B, on the other hand, has -9 potential, ranging from 150 to 180 PA, which would mean his new PA would now be anywhere from 150 to 200 PA. This would be even better implemented if you were to change PA of all people younger than 22-23 to ''-'' PA, so that, lets say, Andre Silva who just transfered from FC Porto to A.C. Milan, with 140 CA and 163 PA, instead has -85 PA (currently 140-170), which would mean he would now have PA of also -85, but ranging from 140 all the way up to 200. Check the attachment at the end of topic.

Let me explain further, take Vinicius Junior for example. If i'm not mistaken, his PA at the start of the FM17 game is -8 (130-160). This hot prospect has been bought by Real Madrid for 44kk EUR. My somewhat rhetorical question is, do you really believe the most successful football club would pay him more than Benzema (41kk EUR) and Modric (34kk EUR) if they weren't entirely sure he could go to the very top ? If it were the way i suggested, he would have a potential of 130 to 200, which would mean he's not tied to his 160 PA as his "last stop". Another thing to take into consideration is, as already mentioned above, scouting. If you are a type of player who would start a new game every once in a while because you either hate playing with regens or you get bored/unsatisfied with your current save, it becomes repetitive. You already know what wonderkid has the best chance to develop at certain position and any way you look at it, it's a no-brainer to simply go for the one you need. What i want to say is, there are no surprises. After a couple of new games or a simple look at the editor, scouting becomes unimportant until few years in game have passed and some new worthwhile regens show up. 

This could be implemented to academies of many clubs who were the most successful in selling their players in the last couple of years and are considered to be a step between their first club and top club, such as Portuguese, Brazilian and Dutch clubs. If we take a minute to think about this, players usually leave the clubs from their nation at young age to join successful academies where they would have chance to develop further. I honestly believe that true potential should be determined by the quality of development they receive, not their restricting PA. To balance things out futher, you can make youth player development depend more on their playing time, consistency, determination, type of personality etc, than pure PA, all in hope to add the early mentioned element of surprise, variety of ways the game can be played but above all, realism. Nothing can convince me that an average youngest can't become a star player with proper personality, quality coaching and enough playing time, which is impossible in this game with current PA system but has been proven to be true in real world a dozens of times through the years.

[Preveza]

Good ideas all around here. I do think PA system needs to be addressed. Jamie Vardy is a prime example. Current system is too rigid IMO. Needs to become more robust; players from the lower leagues need to develop better. Not saying all decent players will become class players in the future, and this is where the balance needs to come into place. But I would love to buy a player in the lower leagues (Evostik) and see him become a good championship player for example. Not saying they all have to become world class, but at least a role player in the Prem or second division.

[Tnq]

Exactly, i was trying to keep things as simple as possible in my previous post, but the general idea is to allow a player to potentially have the potential to reach 200, meaning that in ''Save number 1", some player from Sporting CP Lisbon academy, lets say Daniel Braganca with his -85 potential, has 93 CA and 145 PA, and some player from FC Porto, Diogo Leite, with his -8 potential, has 85 CA and 194 PA, while in ''Save number 2, Braganca would have -85 potential with 93 CA and 198 PA, while Diogo Leite would have -8 potential with 85 CA and 151 PA. Of course, there's a risk that both players might have PA above 190, but if there's a percentage of players with high PA that each save has to fulfill, there won't be a risk of too many youngsters having the potential to become world class players. Also, looking from a different perspective, if they both had the lowest PA they could possibly have, Braganca 140 PA and Leite 130 PA, that would prove that Braganca is a more gifted footballer, which makes lower limit a more important thing to set.

At first, the idea was that if a youngster has 105 CA, his potential could be anywhere from 105 to 200 in a new save, as there are players who never truly improved beyond some point, but this might be a little too hard to implement, so i decided to present the idea the way i described above.

[gunner86]

3 hours ago, Tnq said:

 I honestly believe that true potential should be determined by the quality of development they receive, not their restricting PA. 

I have to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Every player has their limit. And this is what PA is trying to achieve, but better facilities and better coaching does not equate to a better player.

You could take me to the best training facilities in the world and I could be coached by the worlds best players and coaches. I'm not going to become Cristiano Ronaldo.

[Cougar2010]

At first I thought you were talking about a flexible PA within a save which is certainly a no-no.

However reading your second post you seem to be more suggesting a random PA which is fixed at the beginning of each save and that is certainly something I can get behind & have even suggested it myself in the past.

[Tnq]

2 minutes ago, gunner86 said:

I have to say, I couldn't disagree more.

Every player has their limit. And this is what PA is trying to achieve, but better facilities and better coaching does not equate to a better player.

You could take me to the best training facilities in the world and I could be coached by the worlds best players and coaches. I'm not going to become Cristiano Ronaldo.

I can see why you would disagree, but we are talking about 30-40 points in difference (average) here. 

Players with PA lower than 130 are ''beyond salvation'' here. Youngster with 80 CA would have to work twice as hard to reach his 180 PA than the one with 120-130 CA, that's something i don't need to mention. I didn't say that a player with CA of 20 should be able to go all the way to 200, i'm talking about players who are already about to have good careers, this would just offer them an ability to have great ones.

[santy001]

The big problem here is you're misunderstanding what potential is. Potential isn't the opportunities you have in life, potential is the limit on what you can achieve. You never have more potential than you have, the problem is in identifying that potential. 

Here's what happens the moment you leave it down to some player influenced system:

- Players begin tinkering and testing development systems, approaches, training, match time etc.

- Players start to collaborate on their testing and feedback.

- Within weeks, maybe months the "every player 200 PA guide" appears in the training and tactics section.

- Every player has to start following these guides to get their players to this limit. 

- FM becomes "develop a 200PA player 2018"

The moment you take the shackles off, is the moment players will look for ways to break the system. Your system is far less realistic though, because its assuming every player has the same potential, that every player can be Messi/Ronaldo and they can't. 

- - - - 

As I mentioned, the problem lies in identifying potential, it's the hardest thing in the world. We simply can't reach a level of perfection on this front because we're human and as much effort as we put in as researchers, its very hard to predict the future. What would probably be a more pertinent solution would be further changes to CA acquisition and development. There isn't any real way to describe the situation correctly, but it is still too easy for a human player to identify the kind of player in FM who will develop well. There needs to be less certainty, then researchers could actually afford to be more on the generous side with PA's to facilitate such break-out players. 

[santy001]

1 minute ago, Tnq said:

I can see why you would disagree, but we are talking about 30-40 points in difference (average) here. 

Players with PA lower than 130 are ''beyond salvation'' here. Youngster with 80 CA would have to work twice as hard to reach his 180 PA than the one with 120-130 CA, that's something i don't need to mention. I didn't say that a player with CA of 20 should be able to go all the way to 200, i'm talking about players who are already about to have good careers, this would just offer them an ability to have great ones.

So your system wouldn't facilitate a Jamie Vardy at all then? Or any kind of break-out player? The game already does facilitate this with its current system, its rare, as it should be. There are players who can develop late, or look promising, fade and then prove themselves capable later in their careers.

[XaW]

Let met just try to understand something here. You are saying that for instance a -8 playing in one save would have a fixed PA 140 while in another save a fixed PA 190? So not a variable PA in one save, but rather a fixed PA per save, but fluctuating from save to save? So a wider ranger than we have today?

If that is the case I can certainly agree. It would lead to more unpredictable saves than we have now. In one save a player might become a world beater while in another he will never even get into the top tiers. This would create a more versatile game, and is something I would like.

This relates to something I've wanted for a while, but haven't been able to think entirely through. The gist is that most players will have a higher PA than today, but make it much much harder to reach. As noted it's not a completely though out idea, but this would allow players like Vardy and other "late bloomers" to get a spike in CA later in their career should they find themselves in an environment that suits them. This would be individual for each player. Country, manager, game time, training facilities, coaching staff, some pseudo random things, personality (determination, ambition, professionality, etc), good connections to team mates, and a lot of other variables would determine the growth of CA towards PA. This means that many players will never ever reach their PA and will fall way short of their potential, just like real life.

If you are talking about a variable PA within a single game, then no, I don't like it.

[Tnq]

I don't know if your intention is to sabotage my suggestion or i explained it so bad that it makes it hard to understand, but it's neither the fact that i misunderstand what potential is, nor am i suggesting that Vardy wouldn't facilitate at all. I'm just suggesting that Vardy will never become as good as Ibrahimovic, Suarez or Benzema. PA system should be made more flexible, with greater variations. You want to tell me that a player i previously mentioned, Diogo Leite, should/would never be able to become a better DC than Diego Godin (166/169) just because he has 160 PA as his upper limit ? Mbappe had -85 PA in FM16, in 17.1.0, he had -9, now in 17.3.0, he has -95 PA. It would be much more interesting and realistic in my opinion if he had a more flexible PA right from the very beginning. Also, you are kinda contradicting yourself. You disagree with the idea of making a PA more flexible, while you say that potential is hard to identify. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it expansive then ?

[Tnq]

5 minutes ago, XaW said:

Let met just try to understand something here. You are saying that for instance a -8 playing in one save would have a fixed PA 140 while in another save a fixed PA 190? So not a variable PA in one save, but rather a fixed PA per save, but fluctuating from save to save? So a wider ranger than we have today?

If that is the case I can certainly agree. It would lead to more unpredictable saves than we have now. In one save a player might become a world beater while in another he will never even get into the top tiers. This would create a more versatile game, and is something I would like.

This relates to something I've wanted for a while, but haven't been able to think entirely through. The gist is that most players will have a higher PA than today, but make it much much harder to reach. As noted it's not a completely though out idea, but this would allow players like Vardy and other "late bloomers" to get a spike in CA later in their career should they find themselves in an environment that suits them. This would be individual for each player. Country, manager, game time, training facilities, coaching staff, some pseudo random things, personality (determination, ambition, professionality, etc), good connections to team mates, and a lot of other variables would determine the growth of CA towards PA. This means that many players will never ever reach their PA and will fall way short of their potential, just like real life.

If you are talking about a variable PA within a single game, then no, I don't like it.

The concept of idea is not much different than current -1...-5...-10 system, it just offers a wider range of PA. If Vardy were a youngster and he once had a -65 (100-130) PA, this would offer him a chance to actually have a PA of, lets say -6 (100-160). One other thing i would like to point out is that Vardy was a one-in-a-million case, we shouldn't focus that much on him, as system should focus on majority of players, not cases like him and once again, i'm talking about players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top, not older players.

[gunner86]

2 minutes ago, Tnq said:

The concept of idea is not much different than current -1...-5...-10 system, it just offers a wider range of PA. If Vardy were a youngster and he once had a -65 (100-130) PA, this would offer him a chance to actually have a PA of, lets say -6 (100-160). One other thing i would like to point out is that Vardy was a one-in-a-million case, we shouldn't focus that much on him, as system should focus on majority of players, not cases like him and once again, i'm talking about players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top, not older players.

Ok. I'm with you now. 

I agree that adding additional scope to each of the negative PA brackets would make for a more variety from save to save, and I have to say I quite like that idea. I maybe wouldn't go as far as giving every bracket over (or under as I suppose it technically should be) -8 a cap of 200, but an additional 20 or so PA points in each bracket may have the same desired affect.

[Tnq]

34 minutes ago, santy001 said:

- FM becomes "develop a 200PA player 2018" Your system is far less realistic though, because its assuming every player has the same potential, that every player can be Messi/Ronaldo and they can't. 

I never said all players should have 200PA, i mentioned over and over again that good different youngsters with PA that is not fixed, should have wider range in PA that will change after each save to offer variety of options as you can never be sure people in charge of deciding what PA of a certain player is made a correct decision.

15 minutes ago, Tnq said:

I don't know if your intention is to sabotage my suggestion or i explained it so bad that it makes it hard to understand, but it's neither the fact that i misunderstand what potential is, nor am i suggesting that Vardy wouldn't facilitate at all. I'm just suggesting that Vardy will never become as good as Ibrahimovic, Suarez or Benzema. PA system should be made more flexible, with greater variations. You want to tell me that a player i previously mentioned, Diogo Leite, should/would never be able to become a better DC than Diego Godin (166/169) just because he has 160 PA as his upper limit ? Mbappe had -85 PA in FM16, in 17.1.0, he had -9, now in 17.3.0, he has -95 PA. It would be much more interesting and realistic in my opinion if he had a more flexible PA right from the very beginning. Also, you are kinda contradicting yourself. You disagree with the idea of making a PA more flexible, while you say that potential is hard to identify. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it expansive then ?

Forgot to quote you in previous post so reposting.

[Cougar2010]

2 minutes ago, Tnq said:

I never said all players should have 200PA, i mentioned over and over again that good different youngsters with PA that is not fixed, should have wider range in PA that will change after each save to offer variety of options as you can never be sure people in charge of deciding what PA of a certain player is made a correct decision.

I don't think you understand how PA works.

PA IS ALWAYS Fixed.

The youngsters who are given a "-" number in the database have a variable PA before a save starts but its fixed when a save is setup and can never change once the save is started.

[santy001]

45 minutes ago, Tnq said:

I don't know if your intention is to sabotage my suggestion or i explained it so bad that it makes it hard to understand, but it's neither the fact that i misunderstand what potential is, nor am i suggesting that Vardy wouldn't facilitate at all. I'm just suggesting that Vardy will never become as good as Ibrahimovic, Suarez or Benzema. PA system should be made more flexible, with greater variations. You want to tell me that a player i previously mentioned, Diogo Leite, should/would never be able to become a better DC than Diego Godin (166/169) just because he has 160 PA as his upper limit ? Mbappe had -85 PA in FM16, in 17.1.0, he had -9, now in 17.3.0, he has -95 PA. It would be much more interesting and realistic in my opinion if he had a more flexible PA right from the very beginning. Also, you are kinda contradicting yourself. You disagree with the idea of making a PA more flexible, while you say that potential is hard to identify. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it expansive then ?

To take your point to the extreme, why don't we just leave them all blank? What if we're wrong about their tackling, their passing? What if we're wrong about their current ability or determination? It should be more flexible right? Maybe Diogo Leite could be a better striker than Benzema. Maybe Benzema could be a better defender than Godin. 

If they had more flexible attributes from the very beginning, then surely that is better too? We will make the wrong decisions on individual attributes as well after all. Most of us change attributes in less than a 6 month time frame.

This argument always hits a point when someone starts equating CA with actual ability. I could make a 160CA defender better than Godin even if he was at 169CA. Odds are, I could actually make a 130CA defender that runs him very close. 

[Tnq]

4 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

I don't think you understand how PA works.

PA IS ALWAYS Fixed.

The youngsters who are given a "-" number in the database have a variable PA before a save starts but its fixed when a save is setup and can never change once the save is started.

The PA is fixed after the game has already started, i'm talking about editor settings. Of course i understand that very well, how do you think i got this kind of idea ? If i didn't understand, i couldn't come up with this. I want that player who has -8 PA to have the chance to have more than 160 PA once the game has started if people in charge of deciding his PA were uncertain he can't go beyond that. It's always better to have wider range of PA the game will set you once you start it, as PA gives you an option to reach that point, which doesn't mean you will eventually do it, just gives you a chance. 

Since i mentioned Mbappe, i want him to have a range of 160 to 200, not 160 to 190, as nobody can say for sure he won't become better than Messi or Ronaldo who currently have more than 190 CA. That way, i might get lucky and get Mbappe to have 197 PA, or the game would make him have 168 after i start it, rather than hoping he might get the most at the moment and have 190 and even if i fully develop him, he still won't be better than Messi/Ronaldo.

[Cougar2010]

Just now, Tnq said:

The PA is fixed after the game has already started, i'm talking about editor settings. Of course i understand that very well, how do you think i got this kind of idea ? If i didn't understand, i couldn't come up with this. I want that player who has -8 PA to have the chance to have more than 160 PA once the game has started if people in charge of deciding his PA were uncertain he can't go beyond that. It's always better to have wider range of PA the game will set you once you start it, as PA gives you an option to reach that point, which doesn't mean you will eventually do it, just gives you a chance. 

Since i mentioned Mbappe, i want him to have a range of 160 to 200, not 160 to 190, as nobody can say for sure he won't become better than Messi or Ronaldo who currently have more than 190 CA. That way, i might get lucky and get Mbappe to have 197 PA, or the game would make him have 168 after i start it, rather than hoping he might get the most at the moment and have 190 and even if i fully develop him, he still won't be better than Messi/Ronaldo.

Ok.

Thats fine but you don't seem to be communicating it very clearly hence the confusion from those of us replying.

[Tnq]

1 minute ago, santy001 said:

To take your point to the extreme, why don't we just leave them all blank? What if we're wrong about their tackling, their passing? What if we're wrong about their current ability or determination? It should be more flexible right? Maybe Diogo Leite could be a better striker than Benzema. Maybe Benzema could be a better defender than Godin. 

If they had more flexible attributes from the very beginning, then surely that is better too? We will make the wrong decisions on individual attributes as well, this is why we're always ever amending the data as best as we can, but since its never spot on, let it all be random with just a lower floor?

This argument always hits a point when someone starts equating CA with actual ability. I could make a 160CA defender better than Godin even if he was at 169CA. Odds are, I could actually make a 130CA defender that runs him very close. 

No offense, but you seem pretty narrow minded so far so i see no point in explaining this further to you, as i am repeating myself for quite some time now without success.

[santy001]

Oliver Shenton can never be better than Messi or Ronaldo though, I say that with 99% confidence. However, your system would mean its possible. There are more players we see every year, by the magnitude of tens of thousands, who aren't better than Messi and Ronaldo and never had the potential to be. Your system would mean there could be hundreds (and in a database where every player under the age of say 19 could hit 200PA it would be likely there would be - at least - hundreds) who come through just at the start of the game.

Once this change happens, the whole of the newgen system follows it. Every year hundreds more would be getting created, by the time you're 10 years in you'd have possibly closer to 10,000 than 10 Ronaldo/Messi potential players. 

[Tnq]

2 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

Ok.

Thats fine but you don't seem to be communicating it very clearly hence the confusion from those of us replying.

That's fine, this is not complete so not all points are covered, but i'm glad you got a general idea of what i meant.

[Cougar2010]

9 minutes ago, santy001 said:

To take your point to the extreme, why don't we just leave them all blank?

Works for me.

I've been beating that drum for years and it would make it easier for the researchers.

Every player a random PA between their CA & 200 when a save is setup.

It would add a massive variety to saves and stop the same general trends in the first couple of seasons.

SI are perhaps concerned about alienating those who simply buyt the same wonderkids every save but surely the answer in that case would be to add a tick box at the save setup or maybe release two databases (One old style & one random).

[Tnq]

1 minute ago, santy001 said:

Oliver Shenton can never be better than Messi or Ronaldo though, I say that with 99% confidence. However, your system would mean its possible. There are more players we see every year, by the magnitude of tens of thousands, who aren't better than Messi and Ronaldo and never had the potential to be. Your system would mean there could be hundreds (and in a database where every player under the age of say 19 could hit 200PA it would be likely there would be - at least - hundreds) who come through just at the start of the game.

Once this change happens, the whole of the newgen system follows it. Every year hundreds more would be getting created, by the time you're 10 years in you'd have possibly closer to 10,000 than 10 Ronaldo/Messi potential players. 

I've come to the point where i believe you are trolling me but i'll go along with it. No, my system wouldn't mean that is possible because i said ''players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top". Your Oliver Shenton has 100 CA and -7 PA (110-140). My idea would offer him to have PA of 110 to 160 or 170. If we take into consideration that he is at Stoke, already has 20 years and potentially his personality/determination that would play a role in a system i suggested, the best he could hope for would be somewhere around 125-130 CA a few years in the game. However, if i decide to sign him to some big club, offer him first team football, have him tutored by someone with appropriate personality and where he would have the best training facilities, he could go to the very best of his assigned PA after the game has started. Hope that sums it up for you.

[santy001]

Just now, Tnq said:

I've come to the point where i believe you are trolling me but i'll go along with it. No, my system wouldn't mean that is possible because i said ''players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top". Your Oliver Shenton has 100 CA and -7 PA (110-140). My idea would offer him to have PA of 110 to 160 or 170. If we take into consideration that he is at Stoke, already has 20 years and potentially his personality/determination that would play a role in a system i suggested, the best he could hope for would be somewhere around 125-130 CA a few years in the game. However, if i decide to sign him to some big club, offer him first team football, have him tutored by someone with appropriate personality and where he would have the best training facilities, he could go to the very best of his assigned PA after the game has started. Hope that sums it up for you.

It does sum it up, you've got no idea what you're on about. Stoke have top level training facilities and a category 1 academy. Based on your own rules, it'd move him into the top tier. Even if you find some way to then still disclaim Shenton, I'd still have to put Sobhi and Verlinden in as potentially better than Messi and Ronaldo, and while I believe both have the potential for good futures in football, I don't believe its quite that good.

But coming back to Shenton even then you do realise at 170CA he would then be one of the best players in the world?  Which would be very much a potential scenario. The only would be to start artificially imposing limits on player development, which is an even worse way to come at the problem.

I would type a long response, but your point about Godin and Leite showed you have little understanding of CA beyond your own imposed imaginary meaning. You're now suggesting that if you sign him before the game has started (which is impossible and suggests what you actually want is a big club development bonus for when they sign someone), or move his club in the database his PA changes.

My printer can potentially print 59 pages per minute, if I put it in a nicer office it doesn't gain the ability to potentially print 10 more pages per minute. 

[enigmatic]

Isn't this exactly how negative PAs used to work 15-20 year ago (back when it was -1 or -2, with the latter being a range going all the way up to 200)? Didn't the new system come in because this wasn't a very good way of rating potential?

Personally I'd rather see negative PAs replaced by a "max PA" and "min PA" box, so researchers can set narrow or wide ranges depending on their knowledge of the player, the player's maturity, and whether there's anything about the player that justifies a particularly wide range (like being way more technically gifted than his peers but too small to make it unless he has a growth spurt which may or may not happen). 

But in the mean time, I'm not sure either that (i) the fact that Mbappe's potential cannot be randomly assigned to be 195 is actually a real problem, bearing in mind he'll be one of the best players in the game if it maxes out at 175  or (ii) introducing a non-zero possibility that the game generates an Oliver Shenton with higher potential than the potential generated for Mbappe is actually a realism enhancement.

[Tnq]

1 minute ago, santy001 said:

It does sum it up, you've got no idea what you're on about. Stoke have top level training facilities and a category 1 academy. Based on your own rules, it'd move him into the top tier. Even if you find some way to then still disclaim Shenton, I'd still have to put Sobhi and Verlinden in as potentially better than Messi and Ronaldo, and while I believe both have the potential for good futures in football, I don't believe its quite that good.

But coming back to Shenton even then you do realise at 170CA he would then be one of the best players in the world?  Which would be very much a potential scenario. The only would be to start artificially imposing limits on player development, which is an even worse way to come at the problem.

I would type a long response, but your point about Godin and Leite showed you have little understanding of CA beyond your own imposed imaginary meaning. You're now suggesting that if you sign him before the game has started (which is impossible and suggests what you actually want is a big club development bonus for when they sign someone), or move his club in the database his PA changes.

My printer can potentially print 59 pages per minute, if I put it in a nicer office it doesn't gain the ability to potentially print 10 more pages per minute. 

As i said, pretty narrow minded. These are all just examples, the whole idea is far from complete. Since i have to explain every little detail to you, i didn't say Shenton would have 170 CA, i didn't even say he would have 170 PA, i said he would have a chance to have that much but that would be very hard, especially taking into account that in this case, chance to get the maximum PA out of 110-170 with 60 points range would be twice as hard as it is now with current 30 points between the min and max PA. Furthermore, again, as i said in previous post, many things, such as age, would hinder his development so him reaching any great level of CA is even harder. And about Leite, no, i'm not suggesting that, but really see no point in explaining anything further as this is going in a way that i didn't desire this topic to go. If you don't agree with the idea, that's fine, but let other people give their opinion as i'm sure there is someone who understands what i'm trying to say.

[XaW]

@santy001: I just thinks he wants some more variation as to what players are indeed the ones who will be big from save to save. In one save player X will have a PA of 130 and in another he will have PA 170. This is just an example, of course.

If I have understood him then the PA will be fixed in each and every game, but the number will have a wider variation that it has today. Since the rating of the potential of youth players are an educated guess for anyone then a bigger scope for them could add variation in games.

[Tnq]

6 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

But in the mean time, I'm not sure either that (i) the fact that Mbappe's potential cannot be randomly assigned to be 195 is actually a real problem, bearing in mind he'll be one of the best players in the game if it maxes out at 175  or (ii) introducing a non-zero possibility that the game generates an Oliver Shenton with higher potential than the potential generated for Mbappe is actually a realism enhancement.

Yes, but player with 190-195 CA would make much more difference than one with 175 CA. Unless you believe that it doesn't matter if you had Messi/Ronaldo or Hazard/Sanchez on the field ?

For the 100th time, this system applies for "players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top". I don't believe anyone considers Shenton to be successful youngster in that regard.

[Tnq]

2 minutes ago, XaW said:

@santy001: I just thinks he wants some more variation as to what players are indeed the ones who will be big from save to save. In one save player X will have a PA of 130 and in another he will have PA 170. This is just an example, of course.

If I have understood him then the PA will be fixed in each and every game, but the number will have a wider variation that it has today. Since the rating of the potential of youth players are an educated guess for anyone then a bigger scope for them could add variation in games.

Exactly, just to point out again that i was talking about successful youngsters, who currently have -85 or more PA, even some -8s. The whole Shenton and Vardy talk was just an explanation as you guys brought them up, but that wouldn't apply for players of their ability and potential. The image i provided as an attachment in my first post probably confused many of you, i might make a new one with more details if i happen to get the feeling this idea might succeed.

[santy001]

Young players in clubs with top level training facilities, playing in the top league of their country aren't considered candidates for success? I guess perhaps that leaves it down to youngsters who get Golden Boy nominations and such then? Like Thibaud Verlinden and Ramadan Sobhi? I'd tell my Head Researcher there is no way in a million years based on what I've seen I'd sign off on either of them eclipsing Messi or Ronaldo. 

@XaW more changes to CA acquisition and development would be a much better source of variation than just flat PA. The -X PA system is not an ideal solution anyway, its just representing uncertainty. the bands are likely to become smaller than bigger. The variety @Cougar2010 mentions is far more likely to come through more subtle means, scouting reports, enhanced player relationships (certain managers establishing a rapport with players, that may not be replicated elsewhere) and perhaps something I would advocate is a scope for more variance in the hidden attributes. 

Players like Freddy Adu, Cherno Samba etc as fondly remembered as they are, have to be considered errors in the data process. 

All I can say is ultimately, based on everything I've seen involved with FM, this is the exact opposite way to the path that has been trodden so far in terms of the approach to youngsters in the game. It would have disastrous consequences for newgen production, and would in a single sweeping blow render something in the region of 10 years work wasted because there is no way of imposing (other than some dumb luck lottery, or arbitrary system) what defines a successful youngster. 

For every season a player progresses through, if you have 3 or 4 saves across an FM title and average about 15 years in each one, you're seeing 45-60 global youth intakes. The change it would have a few years into the game would be horrendous in the sense that there would be far too many of these truly elite, handful in a generation players knocking about.

[enigmatic]

33 minutes ago, Tnq said:

Yes, but player with 190-195 CA would make much more difference than one with 175 CA. Unless you believe that it doesn't matter if you had Messi/Ronaldo or Hazard/Sanchez on the field ?

For the 100th time, this system applies for "players who are considered to be successful youngsters the way they already are and offer them ability to go all the way to the top". I don't believe anyone considers Shenton to be successful youngster in that regard.

I doubt anyone could tell the difference between a 190CA player (the highest possible under Mbappe's current allocation, which you used as an example of a problem) and a 199CA player without using an editor. 

IIRC Dybala - considered by most FMers who've signed him to be an unstoppable force of nature - has a PA of 180.

To the extent CA is (i) a reasonable approximation of player abilities and (ii) influences other game mechanics it makes a lot more difference when their abilities are a similar level to the rest of the division they play in than when it's over 170 and so they tend to dominate matches regardless, and all the scouting and transfer mechanics rate them as amongst the best in the game

Historically there are vastly more players that the PA system has overrated than wrongly prevented from having a PA in the 190s, and most of the examples of players being significantly underrated by PA allocations are late developers at smaller clubs rather than well-known talents FM prevented from having a random chance of being theoretically on the same level as Ronaldo

[XaW]

@santy001: Sure, I agree with a lot of what you are writing. Also as I have written, I'm more inclined to have generally higher PA's, but at the same time harder to reach.

Adu and Samba might be to be errors, but other players have also been regarded as the top talents in the world by just about everyone, not just FM, only to fall way short of the expectations. After all, that's why clubs get in so many talents, because they know a majority will not reach to first team, but the few who will will save or earn the club millions, at least in the top tiers.

I would like more variation regarding players reaching close to their PA. Once you have played the game for a while the recipe is quite clear. The same players become more or less equally good unless something spectacular happens. Like a serious injury or the rare "off field events" that change things. 

For me personally, as someone who really enjoy developing youth players in FM, I would like to see more variation and some improvements regarding development in the game as a whole. Both for the player and the AI, but that might be a topic for another day.

[Guest]

@XaW 

Do you enjoy developing youth because you can eventually build a squad of players you have nurtured from 15 or 16 or because despite the vast majority of youth team player not making the grade the one off player making it every couple of years makes it more enjoyable because of the effort & failures along the way?

[XaW]

@Barside: Both actually, depending on how I play the game. I've several times tried the youth challenge where I don't transfer in any players at all. I only fill my squad with players that came through my club. This won't have much to do with this topic since I'm mostly using newgens here and the variance is obvious.

I've also played games with the biggest clubs who can both produce my own players as well as buying anyone I want. My scouts will then mostly recommend the same (real) young players each game with roughly the same talent (PA). Here is where the variety would help out. You would have other players who would rule the footballing world, like Messi and C. Ronaldo have done the last year in real life, in one game than the other. If things were different then maybe Quaresma would reach the hights of Ronaldo while Ronaldo himself would only be remembered at a could-have-been. Now, in real life we can't do this again, but in FM we can. So why not a bit more variance?

[Seb Wassell]

8 minutes ago, XaW said:

@Barside: Both actually, depending on how I play the game. I've several times tried the youth challenge where I don't transfer in any players at all. I only fill my squad with players that came through my club. This won't have much to do with this topic since I'm mostly using newgens here and the variance is obvious.

I've also played games with the biggest clubs who can both produce my own players as well as buying anyone I want. My scouts will then mostly recommend the same (real) young players each game with roughly the same talent (PA). Here is where the variety would help out. You would have other players who would rule the footballing world, like Messi and C. Ronaldo have done the last year in real life, in one game than the other. If things were different then maybe Quaresma would reach the hights of Ronaldo while Ronaldo himself would only be remembered at a could-have-been. Now, in real life we can't do this again, but in FM we can. So why not a bit more variance?

I would say that this strays too far away from the point of research though.

The aim of the FM DB is to as accurately as possible represent the real world of football. In this way we want Cristiano Ronaldo to have the right level of Finishing on a 1-20 scale to as accurately as possible reflect his real-life finishing ability. Similarly we want to as accurately as possible predict where Mbappe will be in 10 years time in the form of PA. Obviously PA is much more educated guesswork than CA or Finishing, but it still requires a level of accuracy and whilst randomness is correctly introduced into the process this should not, in my opinion, be taken to the extreme that FM becomes unrealistic. It is likely correct that, if you manage a similar level of club, you are recommended the same few young players each save. This is as would be the case were you a real-life manager.

Whilst I do appreciate the desire for a new and different gameworld each save, I would suggest perhaps soaking 30 years into the future or starting with "fake" players to achieve this.

[XaW]

1 minute ago, Seb Wassell said:

I would say that this strays too far away from the point of research though.

The aim of the FM DB is to as accurately as possible represent the real world of football. In this way we want Cristiano Ronaldo to have the right level of Finishing on a 1-20 scale to as accurately as possible reflect his real-life finishing ability. Similarly we want to as accurately as possible predict where Mbappe will be in 10 years time in the form of PA. Obviously PA is much more educated guesswork than CA or Finishing, but it still requires a level of accuracy and whilst randomness is correctly introduced into the process this should not, in my opinion, be taken to the extreme that FM becomes unrealistic. It is likely correct that, if you manage a similar level of club, you are recommended the same few young players each save. This is as would be the case were you a real-life manager.

I might have exaggerated it a bit in my former reply, as I certainly don't want this to be anything other than a simulation that's as close to real life as possible. The only thing I meant was that some more variation around potential would be something I would welcome. Everyone knows Mbappe is one of the highest rated talents at the moment, but to know if he will continue to grow and become as prolific as Messi is, as you stated, an educated guess. I'm guessing that the negative PA range is the reason for this to give some variance to how good a talent will be, otherwise a fixed PA would always be used.

Your point that I would be recommended the same players in each save is correct, I should have expanded by stating they will develop almost the same should I try as best I can. This is were my wish for some more variance would be. Sometimes the player would be amazing, while other times he would be a decent choice, but not spectacular.

Of course, this is only a suggestion or a wish from me, and not a demand, so please don't take it as such should it come across like that.

[Cougar2010]

3 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

I would say that this strays too far away from the point of research though.

The aim of the FM DB is to as accurately as possible represent the real world of football. In this way we want Cristiano Ronaldo to have the right level of Finishing on a 1-20 scale to as accurately as possible reflect his real-life finishing ability. Similarly we want to as accurately as possible predict where Mbappe will be in 10 years time in the form of PA. Obviously PA is much more educated guesswork than CA or Finishing, but it still requires a level of accuracy and whilst randomness is correctly introduced into the process this should not, in my opinion, be taken to the extreme that FM becomes unrealistic. It is likely correct that, if you manage a similar level of club, you are recommended the same few young players each save. This is as would be the case were you a real-life manager.

Whilst I do appreciate the desire for a new and different gameworld each save, I would suggest perhaps soaking 30 years into the future or starting with "fake" players to achieve this.

While I understand you want it to be accurate PA is nothing more than an educated guess by the researchers with lots of examples down the years where they "got it wrong"

As an example I want to point you in the direction of a similar game that you might be aware of - Pro Cycling Manager made by Cyanide Software.  Its basically the FM of the cycling world albeit not as detailed but random PAs (via an option in save setup) is something that they introduced successfully many years ago to add variety to different saves.

 

[Seb Wassell]

Just now, XaW said:

I might have exaggerated it a bit in my former reply, as I certainly don't want this to be anything other than a simulation that's as close to real life as possible. The only thing I meant was that some more variation around potential would be something I would welcome. Everyone knows Mbappe is one of the highest rated talents at the moment, but to know if he will continue to grow and become as prolific as Messi is, as you stated, an educated guess. I'm guessing that the negative PA range is the reason for this to give some variance to how good a talent will be, otherwise a fixed PA would always be used.

Your point that I would be recommended the same players in each save is correct, I should have expanded by stating they will develop almost the same should I try as best I can. This is were my wish for some more variance would be. Sometimes the player would be amazing, while other times he would be a decent choice, but not spectacular.

Of course, this is only a suggestion or a wish from me, and not a demand, so please don't take it as such should it come across like that.

A 30 point range within each negative PA range bracket seems quite wide to me, or are you suggesting this is inadequate?

Regarding the development of players, strictly after a PA has been set by the game via the DB, I certainly agree more variation is desirable. We actually did quite a lot of work on that this year (FM17) to hopefully enable a few more Balotellis, Ravel Morrisons, etc. In other words 9 times out of 10 they waste their potential, but that one save they become world beaters. This regards how they develop and whether they do or do not reach their PA rather than what their PA is in the first place of course. The two are very separate conversations.  The changes we made to development were quite massive, but all under the hood and as such may not be immediately apparent to the Player. This area of the game is, as ever, an ongoing cycle of review and improvement and we hope to specifically build upon last year's changes. If you have any examples or suggestions please do feel free to post them in the appropriate places and we'll get to it. Could we perhaps take it to a further extreme for example?

[Seb Wassell]

30 minutes ago, Cougar2010 said:

While I understand you want it to be accurate PA is nothing more than an educated guess by the researchers with lots of examples down the years where they "got it wrong"

As an example I want to point you in the direction of a similar game that you might be aware of - Pro Cycling Manager made by Cyanide Software.  Its basically the FM of the cycling world albeit not as detailed but random PAs (via an option in save setup) is something that they introduced successfully many years ago to add variety to different saves.

 

I would argue that newgens somewhat fill the role of "random" PA. Obviously not directly, but they can certainly sate a need for a random future world. I do not think that researchers "getting it wrong" is a good reason to add more randomness to the process. To my mind that is effectively responding to inaccurate predictions by making future predictions even less accurate/consistent. The option of selecting completely randomly set PA on game start up as you suggest would be a feature request of its own, a valid one.

If PAs were significantly more random do you not think we would lose some of the shared experience between Users? One of the joys I find in FM is sharing those hidden gems with others. The balance I believe we need to strike is getting each young player within the right "ballpark", i.e. will he peak as a Premier Leauge player (eg. -9), League Two player, etc.  but leaving enough chance within that to allow for error/randomness, i.e. what tier of Premier League player will he be (eg. CA 150 or 180). As these players then age in reality we refine our predictions until we arrive at a set maximum PA. Of course this is all PA talk, actually traversing the gap from CA to PA is another matter and one I have covered a little above. This is the other side of the conversation: in-game development. It is important to note that whilst the DB research side and in-game development side are linked they are separate beasts and should be treated as such when considering what future FM gameworlds look like.

As I see it PA is a maximum possible ability if all conditions are perfect. It is effectively the player's footballing DNA. It is then the responsibility of the development module to provide you with the randomness you desire. We want Player A to develop to his PA 7 times out of 10 but Player B to only reach his PA 2 times out of 10, and within this framework the balance between reality and randomness can hopefully be found in the game.

 

[OCD]

If it's any use there are currently a few "add ons" that actually make every player within a new save have variable potential abilities. So the likes of Mbappe for example aren't guaranteed to become the go to wonderkid. There is also an add on that simply randomises player potential ability within each save.

I appreciate it doesn't cover the aspect of not having a "ceiling" on their potential and being able to develop them yourself as suggested on this thread, but ultimately it provides the end goal some are looking for, i.e an unpredictable world with different players hitting different levels.

I personally like the way things currently are. I like that if I see someone good in real life, chances are they'll be reflected accurately within FM most of the time, but each to their own.

[XaW]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

A 30 point range within each negative PA range bracket seems quite wide to me, or are you suggesting this is inadequate?

Regarding the development of players, strictly after a PA has been set by the game via the DB, I certainly agree more variation is desirable. We actually did quite a lot of work on that this year (FM17) to hopefully enable a few more Balotellis, Ravel Morrisons, etc. In other words 9 times out of 10 they waste their potential, but that one save they become world beaters. This regards how they develop and whether they do or do not reach their PA rather than what their PA is in the first place of course. The two are very separate conversations.  The changes we made to development were quite massive, but all under the hood and as such may not be immediately apparent to the Player. This area of the game is, as ever, an ongoing cycle of review and improvement and we hope to specifically build upon last year's changes. If you have any examples or suggestions please do feel free to post them in the appropriate places and we'll get to it. Could we perhaps take it to a further extreme for example?

Yeah, I guess 30 should be sufficient, it might just be me that always high roll on the players.

Thank you for making my input clearer than I had managed. This is exactly what I was hoping for, but haven't seen much in FM17. It might just be me that have seen a bit too little variety. My input would be more closely linked to how and if players improve towards reaching their potential.

I have no doubts that you guys are fixing and improving a lot under the hood.

If you need examples of the extreme kind it's always Stefan Moore.

[jozza800]

This topic pops up quite frequently and I'm always of the same mind. There is less of a problem if we don't know how the system works.

If you just play the game without knowing the numbers in the editor then the system works. If we didn't know what or how CA/PA worked behind the scenes then I think a lot of these issues wouldn't be noticeable.

 

I 100% believe that a players has a capped potential. How or if they reach their potentially is another question.

 

Pro Evolution Soccer used to have a thing that used to show the development curve of players. Some players were early bloomers but fade soon afterwards (Francis Jeffers, John Oster, Ricardo Queresma). Some would develop early and maintain it throughout their career (Maldini, Fabregas, Messi, Gerrard). Some would peak early but have a slower decline (Rooney, Owen,) Some would be late developers (Vardy, Forlan), It was actually seen as a graph.

I like this idea, giving players a varying development curves would  lead to more interesting and varied save games. The way it works now and player with a high potential and the right mentality will likely reach or at least get very close to that potential at the top clubs with the right facilities and coaches. It simply doesn't happen like that. Players career's take all sorts of deviations. This vary rarely happens in FM.

Again all this needs to be done under the hood.

 

Maybe make the scouting more vague and wrong more often. I'd love to sign a wonderkid and for him to be an absolute dud 2 or 3 years down the line.

[santy001]

7 hours ago, jozza800 said:

This topic pops up quite frequently and I'm always of the same mind. There is less of a problem if we don't know how the system works.

If you just play the game without knowing the numbers in the editor then the system works. If we didn't know what or how CA/PA worked behind the scenes then I think a lot of these issues wouldn't be noticeable.

 

I 100% believe that a players has a capped potential. How or if they reach their potentially is another question.

 

Pro Evolution Soccer used to have a thing that used to show the development curve of players. Some players were early bloomers but fade soon afterwards (Francis Jeffers, John Oster, Ricardo Queresma). Some would develop early and maintain it throughout their career (Maldini, Fabregas, Messi, Gerrard). Some would peak early but have a slower decline (Rooney, Owen,) Some would be late developers (Vardy, Forlan), It was actually seen as a graph.

I like this idea, giving players a varying development curves would  lead to more interesting and varied save games. The way it works now and player with a high potential and the right mentality will likely reach or at least get very close to that potential at the top clubs with the right facilities and coaches. It simply doesn't happen like that. Players career's take all sorts of deviations. This vary rarely happens in FM.

Again all this needs to be done under the hood.

 

Maybe make the scouting more vague and wrong more often. I'd love to sign a wonderkid and for him to be an absolute dud 2 or 3 years down the line.

I agree with you in theory that development curves would be nice but its then either random or set by researchers and neither are realistic, which is of course the aim. An example is lets say Marko Arnautovic, because he's a player I do the research for and see regularly. When he first arrived, Balotelli said he was worse than him for being a bit of a wild card. However, he had children, he was now living in a relatively quiet area, he's become something of a model professional in the way in which he lives his life and approaches training and the game in general (still has a temper but that's a different matter to professionalism, at least in FM terms) how do we forecast that say compared to someone who had fairly similar troublesome beginnings, but ended up somewhere completely else in life - Nile Ranger? 

I'm a huge believer that player development needs more work, but it definitely has to be organic within the game, not relying on something external from researchers making additional vague predictions about players futures or by using arbitrary templates. 

[enigmatic]

Plus the biggest things which affect development curves IRL is whether they're playing, and who they're playing for - neither of which could or should be set in advance...

[Majos Trajos]

On 6/22/2017 at 11:57, santy001 said:

As I mentioned, the problem lies in identifying potential, it's the hardest thing in the world. We simply can't reach a level of perfection on this front because we're human and as much effort as we put in as researchers, its very hard to predict the future.

But FM is a football simulation and in a football simulation predictions and extrapolations can be done.Here is the comment that I have made in an other topic.

3 hours ago, Majos Trajos said:

I am also thinking about that kind of an improvement will be great for the game and we should talk about more of Jamie Vardy.We can find a genie scout for FM 11 and look for his PA and compare it with FM 17. I am %100 sure his PA will be much less than FM 17. The same thing should be applied to Dimitri Payet (PA values should be compared in between FM 11 and FM 17). So what I am trying to say that increase of PA is a natural thing in FM. Users in this community can give different examples and this discussion can be advanced into a unique direction.

I also accept the Johathan Walters argument.Some players have some certain level of potential and this cant be changed. But What I want to say is FM should reward an exceptional season for a player (often young ones) by increasing his PA a little bit.

An extra example for the situation is my curiosity about Carlos Tevez. I installed CM 03/04 and scout Carlos Tevez for West Ham . Scouts said "Tevez hasn't got enough potential to be a first teamer." It's interesting to see that they didn't rate him highly.In the end , he became a top class forward.This means he actually has a very good PA. To conclude, it might be reasonable for rewarding an exceptional season by increasing PA of a player.

 

 

[ilkork]

I agree and disagree with the OP.
Messi's/Ronaldo's don't appear every year. And by having being trained in the best facilities in the world doesn't necessarily mean that you'll become one.
Just because Real Madrid spent £40m for Vinicius Jr, it doesn't mean that he'll become a top player. He's 16y old. We can't know such thing.

Also, by making -8 to -10 players pre-game to have an in-game PA of between 130-200, means that the game will eventually balance them out, because you can't have world-class players, it's unrealistic.
So, it's almost similar to the current system where you'll still get the 145PA player, you'll still get the 165PA player...

But, the current PA system is somewhat restrictive.
For example, a youngster with -8PA pre-game gets a 155PA in-game and that's it. But that isn't fair, because IRL, a player's ability can be affected by many factors.
Who's to say that an 18y old with 120CA will reach a 145PA? Who's to say that he won't reach an 135PA or an 155PA?

There needs to be a change in the current system. I don't know what changes can be done, but you should think of something a little bit more realistic.
Maybe, if we, as managers, meet certain requirements when developing a player (all these will be under the hood), will cause that player's PA to see an increase by 10 points at max, or the opposite. Why not?

[santy001]

@ilkork The big problem is still in FM, the journey from starting to CA to fulfilling PA is too easy for the right players, and the right players are too easy to identify for human players especially.

The rewards for good seasons are already there, acquiring CA, improved reputation, increasing value. 

I think I've made the point before, but PA should actually be completely hidden from the game, I don't know how they'd do it, but it really shouldn't be visible even the -X numbers we researchers set, if people want to edit it, then in the editor make a field that just overwrites the hidden researcher value. 

We get potential wrong all the time, its the one area of FM we'll never be able to forecast properly. There are mechanisms, peer reviews of data that help keep things a little more in check... but it's always going to be the area in which there are the most mistakes. But people gravitate towards it so much, when its not the area of the game that actually has the most pressing need for further refinement.

There also needs to be a realisation, at any point above 150CA you already have one of the worlds best players. It may not feel like it, especially considering over time the ~150CA players tend to end up becoming your fringe/squad players but that is really the case. I've definitely said it before, but any player over 130CA can cut it, and thrive in the top leagues in any country on FM - after that its all down to the spread of attributes. 

[ilkork]

@santy001 Well, making the PA hidden is something I don't like, but I agree that is more fair. (IIRC, @herne79 had a similar suggestion)
On the other hand though, having a standard PA in-game is something I also don't like and I think it's not fair.

And it doesn't have to do with the "130CA is a perfectly fine player" argument. Don't just think in terms of that.
What about a 21y old player with 95CA-100PA? Who's to say that he won't get past the 100PA mark? Who's to say that he won't fell short of expectations and see a decrease?
Why don't you give us the ability to alter it somehow via various factors? Or, if we fail when trying, have it see a decrease.
Set some limits, perfectly logical. For example, "PA for GKs is going to be dynamic till the age of X years", "Player X can only have an increase/decrease by X PA points, not more/less", etc.
Why not?

At last, I understand that you can't know a youngsters PA. We are humans, not fortune tellers. I don't blame any researcher for guessing a youngster's PA wrong and I will never do.
That's why you have to give us the ability to be able to affect PA, through our work as managers and various other factors.

[herne79]

28 minutes ago, ilkork said:

(IIRC, @herne79 had a similar suggestion)

Kind of.  My personal opinion is that CA/PA numbers should be totally hidden, however I appreciate a significant part of the community use the numbers for their own enjoyment and so may feel alienated if they were.

I can see an argument for perhaps letting the minus PA numbers have a wider range of actual PA to provide greater variety between saves, but on the flip side there then wouldn't be much point in researchers proposing their PA for these youngsters.  After all, nobody is closer to be able to provide forecasts than the researchers, so in them we trust and perhaps we should actually narrow the ranges.

What I completely disagree with is being able to alter PA once it has been set by the database in game.  PA is just that, it's potential - and in my opinion potential shouldn't be changed, it should be unlocked by developing a players' actual ability (CA).

I also assume there is some form of cap built into the database that prevents over populating "bands" of PA (if that's a correct term) in order to avoid having too many players with certain amounts of potential ability at all levels of the game.  If we (and the AI managers, why just restrict it to ourselves?) suddenly have the ability to influence PA in game, how would the database control the number of players with increasingly higher potential?  Power creep sets in and before you know it your database has shifted it's profile to being more and more top heavy.  Perhaps the database could reduce other players' PA accordingly to maintain ratios, but then all we're doing is setting our own database profile:- "hey database, I don't want to uncover a hidden gem at Tiny Utd FC, so you reduce his PA there and I'll take one of my own kids and up his PA to compensate".

I'm deliberately using a somewhat extreme example there, but hopefully you get the picture.

And just as a little anecdote - in a test save I did a little while ago, 40 years in the future I came across a goalkeeper coming to the end of his career.  He'd been in League 2 (English tier 4) his entire career, he'd played plenty of games each season (so no long term injuries), his CA was less than 100 but his PA was 195.  How he'd been missed by all the top clubs I have no idea, but these players are out there.  In other words, find these high potential players rather than trying to increase someone else's potential.

[santy001]

4 hours ago, ilkork said:

What about a 21y old player with 95CA-100PA? Who's to say that he won't get past the 100PA mark? Who's to say that he won't fell short of expectations and see a decrease?
 

If 100 is his potential that's his potential. It's meant to reflect his genetic limits. These limits apply to us in all walks of life. This is the thing, now in my late 20's and never having taken up running, I'm never going to come anywhere near close to what my 100m sprint potential was, but that's never changed. There is a time I could have run 100m at available to me at some point in my life if it had gone differently. Just like there's a maximum potential weight I can lift and so on. 

The only way to actually increase your "potential" is to go into the realms of doping. Definitely not something that would/should/could be touched by FM. 

That's what most people don't seem to be accepting, that players just have a limit. At the same time, a player can't ever lose potential. FM does a good job of emulating the aspects of it being too late to actually reach potential, like the goalkeeper @herne79 points out in his post above. That player always had the 195 potential, but he never realised it. That doesn't mean his potential was ever less than 195, it just means he never had the environment to enable him to live up to his potential. 

[Seb Wassell]

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what PA signifies here.

PA is not what a player will or even what he should become. It is an upper limit. A literal maximum on that player's ability.

Think of it as genetics. No matter how hard you train or how good your coaches you are not becoming faster than Usain Bolt. Bolt has a genetic advantage over you that is simply insurmountable. Similarly a player with 110 PA can have perfect hidden attributes, perfect training facilities, no injuries, etc. but he is never going to overcome the fact that Lionel Messi is just innately better at football.

A player hitting his PA should be seen as him reaching his natural limit. Only drugs and/or magic are getting him past that point.

A researcher that gives a young player a -9 is by definition saying "I am not sure where his maximum lies" but it is within 'this' range. A researcher that gives a player a 160 PA is not saying he will definitely become a 160 PA player, but rather that that is what he could reach given perfect conditions.