[Suggestion] PA Changes for FM18

[samdiatmh]

I also think people become too hung up on the numbers here
 

I (in FM14) had Darijo Srna, as a 36yo AMR (with a CA of around 105 [I actually bought the RTE to look it up, because my AssMan rated him 1star]) still racking up the assists in my CL-contending team
and then [in that same save] I sold my number 2 keeper to Atletico for 20m, because he always tended to concede a bunch of goals when he did concede - looked him up after he moved and he was actually a 180+CA player
I also (in another save) signed up a highly rated player, didn't play him and moved him on (he didn't develop as I'd hoped, so I thought I was lucky to get the fee I paid for him back) - 2 years later, with regular first team action at Valencia, he was one of the most valuable players in the world, and sought after by ManCity (for a fee of 10x what I sold him for) - his career probably would've stalled had I have kept him, but he moved on and flourished (hey wait... Luiz and Matic for Chelsea? or DeBruyne [Chelsea reject to ManCity's key player]?)

It's also VERY apparent that people get too hung up on the likes of a Vardy (who was in relative obscurity before his move to Leicester) and want him highly rated
If you apply that same rule to someone like Beckford (who also racked it up in the lower league, before flopping when he got to the Premiership)
Two examples of VERY similar players, that took almost identical pathways (you could actually say that Beckford had it better, joining a "better facilities" Leeds team) and yet the difference is remarkable

While I would like to see a "randomness" element here, where most players have the potential to be the next Messi/Ronaldo, I also think it should be realistic in that 99.999999% of them never get to that point (Zidane, Messi, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Henry are probably the only notable examples of a 190+CA in the past 15-20 years)

Making it more random would benefit the AI, as it would give them a LOT more chances to actually develop a world-beater (given how poor the AI are at developing players)
but the flipside to it is that the human manager would then become a factory of 190+CA players (which is unrealistic as only half a dozen of them have been around over the last 20 years - now you're looking at 50+ of them all created by the same team, which is no way near any sort of realism)

As for the "AI clubs always seek out the same player at the start of each save" - isn't that the point?
IRL right now, there's probably at least 10 clubs seriously chasing M'bappe (so will appear to "interested" for all those teams)
Obviously he can only end up at 1 club, so the others need to pursue different targets (and they do, if you snipe their targets) - go and become manager of Man Utd, and then see who Chelsea sign when you get their first summer signing

[Guest]

On 26/06/2017 at 09:53, santy001 said:

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. 

This could be the best idea I've ever seen posted on the FM boards, there is no reason for the FM user to know the PA value so it should be hidden in everything, including the editors.

[enigmatic]

Surely part of the benefit of an editor is being able to scan through existing values and see where, in your opinion, the researcher didn't get it right?

A ban on discussing values on the forum might be better, but a starting point might be wider realisation that for two young players with the same starting attributes, it's entirely possible (if not actively likely) that a player with excellent professionalism and ambition and few injury problems and a 139PA will have a higher ability level for most if not all of their career than a player with 149PA and a problematic personality or persistent injury problems.

[Preveza]

I would love for PA to be hidden. Just like in real life. Every signing is a gamble to an extent. Make it happen SI. And also agree with the randomness aspect. We need to have more Vardy and Beckford examples in the game. Current system is ofcourse good, but it definitely has huge scope for improvement. Won't mention AI squad building. Has been a thorn for a long time. But has had its improvements, but still is a long way off

[Seb Wassell]

22 hours ago, Preveza said:

I would love for PA to be hidden. Just like in real life. Every signing is a gamble to an extent. Make it happen SI. And also agree with the randomness aspect. We need to have more Vardy and Beckford examples in the game. Current system is ofcourse good, but it definitely has huge scope for improvement. Won't mention AI squad building. Has been a thorn for a long time. But has had its improvements, but still is a long way off

Technically PA is hidden, you're not meant to be peeking  

Last year we introduced a new (under the hood) system that should help with the randomness aspect. Perhaps this needs to be taken further?

On 2017-7-2 at 01:56, samdiatmh said:

Making it more random would benefit the AI, as it would give them a LOT more chances to actually develop a world-beater (given how poor the AI are at developing players)
but the flipside to it is that the human manager would then become a factory of 190+CA players (which is unrealistic as only half a dozen of them have been around over the last 20 years - now you're looking at 50+ of them all created by the same team, which is no way near any sort of realism)

I would contend that whilst there are certainly improvements to be made - it is an ongoing process - the AI actually has a much more "realistic" development success ratio than the human. I would argue that it is as much the human being too good at (read: often exploiting) the development system as it is the AI lacking in this area. 

[herne79]

7 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

I would contend that whilst there are certainly improvements to be made - it is an ongoing process - the AI actually has a much more "realistic" development success ratio than the human. I would argue that it is as much the human being too good at (read: often exploiting) the development system as it is the AI lacking in this area. 

I think that is an extremely important point to make, not just in relation to this topic but similarly to other areas of the game as well.

[fpgrafherzog]

Hello! I am new here! I am a longtime FM player and what I always found tedious and boring about it is the system of the PA. I really think that it makes the game repetitive and kills its longevity. One already knows which players are going to be good and one has to try his/her best to sign them. I think that some degree of randomness on the PA side has to be introduced to make the game more entertaining. For example, if the average rating of my player is relatively high/low, the potential ability has to be revised up/down accordingly. On the one hand, this will make the game less predictable. On the other hand, this feature will more closely match reality from my viewpoint. Potential ability should only indicate a tendency peculiar to the player rather than be a ceiling to his future development. The ability of the manager to bring out the best in a player has to be rewarded.  

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, fpgrafherzog said:

Hello! I am new here! I am a longtime FM player and what I always found tedious and boring about it is the system of the PA. I really think that it makes the game repetitive and kills its longevity. One already knows which players are going to be good and one has to try his/her best to sign them. I think that some degree of randomness on the PA side has to be introduced to make the game more entertaining. For example, if the average rating of my player is relatively high/low, the potential ability has to be revised up/down accordingly. On the one hand, this will make the game less predictable. On the other hand, this feature will more closely match reality from my viewpoint. Potential ability should only indicate a tendency peculiar to the player rather than be a ceiling to his future development. The ability of the manager to bring out the best in a player has to be rewarded.  

The game is only tedious due to the PA system if you fall into one or more of the following categories;

1. You look at the PA values in the editor or use recommended player guides that do the same.

2. You always buy the same players on every save &/or always start a new save with the same/similar club or in the same nation.

3. You quit to start a new save before newgen's form the majority or all of the player pool.

4. You trawl youth squads & hoover up the best prospects before their reputation is high enough to be noticed by AI managers. 

 

[fpgrafherzog]

42 minutes ago, Barside said:

The game is only tedious due to the PA system if you fall into one or more of the following categories;

1. You look at the PA values in the editor or use recommended player guides that do the same.

2. You always buy the same players on every save &/or always start a new save with the same/similar club or in the same nation.

3. You quit to start a new save before newgen's form the majority or all of the player pool.

4. You trawl youth squads & hoover up the best prospects before their reputation is high enough to be noticed by AI managers. 

 

Hi! Let me respond to your points.

1. By starting several careers, you can learn by experience the range of values for potential abilities even without recurring to editors or online guides. As a non-positive degree of randomness exists for most players (I exclude the ones with PA = -[number]), it is easy to figure it out what to expect from the players in your squad.

2. If I know that a player is good because of my previous experiences, why shouldn't I try to sign him?

3. The newgen mechanism reduces, of course, the predictability of saved games. However, I think that implementing some variability in the potential ability across seasons would make the game more interesting. In the end, this is simply what is accomplished year by year during the research stage when the potential ability of the players adjusts given their performance in the past season (though the PA is perceived as an immutable factor by most people). 

4. I argue that introducing some effect of manager ability on player's potential skills will reduce the behavior you mentioned. In particular, if I can improve up to some extent the young players in my team, I will be in a smaller need to plunder other teams. 

I have the following final remark. If the potential ability is some exclusively innate parameter connected to the player, why do researchers adjust it every year (excluding the obvious cases of measurement errors)?

[ilkork]

I couldn't respond earlier, I was banned for a month. So:

1st:

On 26/6/2017 at 13:45, herne79 said:

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.

 

On 26/6/2017 at 14:44, santy001 said:

That player always had the 195 potential, but he never realised it.

He never realised it, because he was coming to the end of his career! I am sure that at some point, e.g. when he was 28y old, he had something like 180CA and 200PA.
In the same fashion, if Messi has 195CA and 200PA now (didn't look for the exact numbers), when he will be 36y old, he will have something like 150CA and 200PA. Ok?
You can't have the same ability as when you were 28y old...

2nd:

On 26/6/2017 at 14:44, santy001 said:

That's what most people don't seem to be accepting, that players just have a limit.

 

On 26/6/2017 at 15:37, Seb Wassell said:

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.

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.

Ok. My only problem with that is, why do you think that, for a player to get a standard PA, is the right thing to do? If we don't know him?
We agreed that we can't know a players PA, because we are humans, not fortune tellers. So, why does the system give a standard PA when setting up a new game? Is that realistic?
NO! That's what I'm trying to say.

For example, if player X has -8PA pre game (130-160), setting it to 130PA, 145PA or 160PA(or whatever PA within that limit) when starting a new game, is not realistic!
You should think of something else, I don't know.
Maybe have all -8 players to start with a potential of 130 and if they meet the right conditions (all these will be under hood) he will be able to unlock 140PA and then 150PA and then 160PA. Same for all "-" categories.

[Seb Wassell]

12 minutes ago, ilkork said:

For example, if player X has -8PA pre game (130-160), setting it to 130PA, 145PA or 160PA(or whatever PA within that limit) when starting a new game, is not realistic!
You should think of something else, I don't know.
Maybe have all -8 players to start with a potential of 130 and if they meet the right conditions (all these will be under hood) he will be able to unlock 140PA and then 150PA and then 160PA. Same for all "-" categories.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your point is, apologies.

I think in your last part you are describing CA not PA. PA is the upper limit to CA. If a player meets the right conditions then he does indeed "unlock" 140CA, 150CA, 160CA and so on until he either runs out of time or hits his upper limit.

14 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Ok. My only problem with that is, why do you think that, for a player to get a standard PA, is the right thing to do? If we don't know him?
We agreed that we can't know a players PA, because we are humans, not fortune tellers. So, why does the system give a standard PA when setting up a new game? Is that realistic?
NO! That's what I'm trying to say.

I would say this is realistic. Indeed we cannot actually perfectly identify the real-life upper limit to Callum Chamber's potential. But it exists. We just do not know precisely what it is. No matter how well training goes for him however, I think we can say with certainty that he is not going to become Lionel Messi. Therefore his upper limit (PA) is less than Messi's (198 CA 200 PA). 

In order for the game to function we have to take this a step further. We have to trust researcher's judgements. We need to make an educated guess at this number. When it comes to the game, think of it as a god or higher power. It is all-seeing and all-knowing. The game does know a player's upper limit with perfect accuracy. The AI staff and human players are not meant to know this of course. They instead get a rough idea from reports and their own experience, which is how it works in reality.

[santy001]

Indeed @ilkork as Seb says you're confusing CA and PA. Potential is just potential, it never changes it never moves. It can either be fulfilled or it can be wasted. 

The main issue you seem to take exception with is that someone has to make these calls on potential and you don't agree with it, but there has to be a system that catches all players at all levels. Any kind of random system for youngsters would've meant there was a time when despite it being apparent they likely had bright futures ahead of them, Messi, Ronaldo etc could have been rated as only ever potentially being league 2 players. Any kind of unshackled system would just mean the likes of Jon Walters would race to the top of the pile with their hard working approach to the game. 

Someone ultimately has to make the decision, otherwise you get a game that while potentially very enjoyable, as the dice of fortune means your lower league team are destined to become world beaters, loses are semblance of reality. 

[ilkork]

29 minutes ago, santy001 said:

Indeed @ilkork as Seb says you're confusing CA and PA. Potential is just potential, it never changes it never moves. It can either be fulfilled or it can be wasted.

I am not confused. Check the following please.
 

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

I'm not entirely sure I understand what your point is, apologies.

My mistake. Let me explain myself better.

Player X has -8PA pregame. This means that once we set up a new game, it will become a standard number, something between 130 and 160.
But why do you think that such thing is the right thing to do?
Suppose Player X has 120CA and once we set up a new game he gets 130PA. Why do you limit him to only be able to reach 130CA (130CA and 130PA)?
What if he is so good, that he should exceed the 130PA?

Isn't something like the following, more realistic?


For example, a player with -7PA pre-game, will get a standard PA of 110 in-game.
Now, if he meets certain conditions during the season, he will be able to exceed the 110PA and go to the next level, 115PA, 120PA and so on. But his limit will be 140PA.
Some of these "conditions" will be visible. Such as average rating, injuries, some hidden stats (determination, professionalism, ambition), training progress, etc. But most of these "conditions" will be under the hood.
I am sure you can make it hard for us to develop world-class players all the time, which will be 100% fair.
And I am sure you can make a system by which Callum Chambers will never reach Messi's PA.

I just don't like the fact that a player gets 130PA in one save and 150PA in another. Not realistic.

EDIT: And to add to the previous.
That way, we are all happy.
Researchers can see their recommendation of a player's PA, in-game.
And we (the managers) can be happy that, with that system, issues like PA are solved. Once and for all.

[santy001]

23 minutes ago, ilkork said:

What if he is so good, that he should exceed the 130PA?

This sentence is where it all falls apart for me. Now the research system isn't perfect, but as said previously, its an educated guess. It gets a reasonable result for the game. 

Being "good" is a very out there idea, since it can obviously mean pretty much anything. But how can you be better than you potentially can be?
 

To use a flat example, player A can lift 100kg at his full potential, now no matter what training he does, no matter how good he looks like he can lift weights in the gym, no matter how good he looks in games or how strong he looks in games, he can never lift more than that 100kg. There's no magical "score in 10 matches running and now you can lift 105kg" that makes sense. 

But that is what your system is suggesting, that by playing well a player can pass better than he can potentially pass, that he can run faster than he can potentially run etc. 

The biggest issue of all though, is you're definitely attributing some kind limit to this PA (and by association a players CA) for what they can achieve in game. Of course more CA makes it easier to perform to higher levels, but nothing in the game stops these players from achieving anything. 

Another huge issue is your system outlined would essentially dehumanise, or strip away an element of uniqueness/assume all players are of a certain potential when they aren't. If every player in a -X PA band was assigned the same starting potential it would be bizarre. You can argue it would deviate across the course of the game but you'd be saying there's like 200, 300, 400 players who all have exactly the same potential, can only attain the exact same level of proficiency in the game as each other. Which just doesn't sound right. The -X is a dice roll mechanic, but your system still doesn't change what you don't like. 

In one save, a player would get 130PA, and in another he would get 150PA still. You'd want to have the whole system changed, just to produce the same end result. Yet is even more unrealistic because it puts everyone at the exact same potential on day 1.

But the least realistic part of all, is that you know this potential in the first place. It's very much part of whats becoming my fixed mindset that PA's need to be completely hidden from players entirely. It serves a very utilitarian purpose, and undoubtedly, overtime there will be changes, iterations that further refine the system but I don't see any drastic overhauls like what you're suggesting that seemingly normalises players by the thousands. All it then does is create a new series of checklists for each FM for the "-7 almost guaranteed to hit 140PA players" which is a horrible system to think of. 

In reality you shouldn't ever know what potential Messi has, what potential Callum Chambers has etc. They should simply be able to attain a level of ability if everything goes right, you should never be knowing if they've achieved it or not, you should never know that you got absolutely everything out of them or if there was a lot more to come that you just couldn't help the player unlock. The issue seems to stem from you gaining this knowledge and disliking that you now know it, if you never knew it at all, you'd be much happier. 

[ilkork]

7 minutes ago, santy001 said:

In reality you shouldn't ever know what potential Messi has, what potential Callum Chambers has etc. They should simply be able to attain a level of ability if everything goes right, you should never be knowing if they've achieved it or not, you should never know that you got absolutely everything out of them or if there was a lot more to come that you just couldn't help the player unlock. The issue seems to stem from you gaining this knowledge and disliking that you now know it, if you never knew it at all, you'd be much happier.

I think your last sentence sums it up.
And yes, to be fair, I shouldn't be able to know what potential any player has (just like irl).

But since I've seen it, I now:
A) Know that I don't like the fact that every player with -X PA, gets a different one between saves, and
B) Don't like the way you set that limit for a player. For players we don't know, the system sets a limit. Why? What makes that system so good and accurate @Seb Wassell?

And I am not saying that my system is perfect. I am saying that it's better than the current "set a standard PA for a -8 player"...
And I am also saying that if a player meets certain conditions, he should be able to exceed the "wrongly set PA in the first place", or not.

[Seb Wassell]

11 minutes ago, ilkork said:

I think your last sentence sums it up.
And yes, to be fair, I shouldn't be able to know what potential any player has (just like irl).

But since I've seen it, I now:
A) Know that I don't like the fact that every player with -X PA, gets a different one between saves, and
B) Don't like the way you set that limit for a player. For players we don't know, the system sets a limit. Why? What makes that system so good and accurate @Seb Wassell?

And I am not saying that my system is perfect. I am saying that it's better than the current "set a standard PA for a -8 player"...
And I am also saying that if a player meets certain conditions, he should be able to exceed the "wrongly set PA in the first place", or not.

I'm not sure I quite understand your question sorry?

[HUNT3R]

57 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Isn't something like the following, more realistic?


 

No. It will mean the negative value is pointless.

Looking at the player at the top, how can he possibly be better than the value in-game (170)? How can he be better than the best he can be? What's the point of having PA at all then?

With that range and your suggestion, if the game decides he is 170PA, he can end up with anything below 170CA, but also anything above it. So there will be no difference if the game decides he has 180PA for that save, because he can still get less than 180CA and also more than 180CA.

 

The negative value system is there for a reason - because researchers have an idea of how good a player will be, but cannot pinpoint it, yet.

[santy001]

I feel like perhaps there's been a slight slip of what this could really be about - opinions on players PA's, rather than the actual system itself. When you mention wrongly set PA's it does seem like this is one of the (more frequently done these days) ways of sort of taking exception at PA's set not by questioning the researchers directly due to knowing it will largely fall on deaf ears unless very well articulated (because its just an opinion vs opinion debate) to something that suggests the system is wrong and would be better if it could be manipulated in a way to create the outcome you want. 

We're straying into territory where its hard to discuss the realism, because you're talking about differences between games each time you start a new 2016/17 season. Of course, that in itself is unrealistic, but you accept that because its a game. There has to be the same realisation that for all players we can't be absolutely confident what we feel their PA should be, and that because its a game it will be left somewhat to chance within a certain scope. 

[ilkork]

Just now, Seb Wassell said:

I'm not sure I quite understand your question sorry?

This is what you said in an earlier post:

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

In order for the game to function we have to take this a step further. We have to trust researcher's judgements. We need to make an educated guess at this number. When it comes to the game, think of it as a god or higher power. It is all-seeing and all-knowing. The game does know a player's upper limit with perfect accuracy. The AI staff and human players are not meant to know this of course. They instead get a rough idea from reports and their own experience, which is how it works in reality.

If "the game does know a player's upper limit with perfect accuracy", then why do I get different upper limits between saves?
I am sure that the game, 9 out of 10 times, sets a lower PA for an 18y old Bolivian player than an 18y old Spanish one. Which is perfectly logical.
But why is it different between saves?
 

31 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

No. It will mean the negative value is pointless.

It won't. Researchers will continue to do whatever they've been doing. "We don't know the exact PA of player X, we think it's -8". Fine. Nothing's wrong with that.
What the game will do then, is to take the lowest value from the -8 range, which is 130, and set that as a player's PA in-game.
Then, if that player meets certain conditions in-game (these conditions will be under the hood), he will be able to exceed that 130PA.
And all this is because we can't know a player's PA and if the system sets it to 130 or 160, it's still unrealistic.
(I am talking about youngsters who have "-" PA and not older ones with a standard PA.)

 

26 minutes ago, santy001 said:

We're straying into territory where its hard to discuss the realism, because you're talking about differences between games each time you start a new 2016/17 season. Of course, that in itself is unrealistic, but you accept that because its a game. There has to be the same realisation that for all players we can't be absolutely confident what we feel their PA should be, and that because its a game it will be left somewhat to chance within a certain scope.

Ok. Fair enough.
Now, is there something else that you could think of for that system? Something a little bit more realistic? Perhaps, any changes you could recommend?

[Seb Wassell]

11 minutes ago, ilkork said:

If "the game does know a player's upper limit with perfect accuracy", then why do I get different upper limits between saves?
I am sure that the game, 9 out of 10 times, sets a lower PA for an 18y old Bolivian player than an 18y old Spanish one. Which is perfectly logical.
But why is it different between saves?

Cheers for clarifying.

I think you may have misunderstood me there. I mean the game after setup, when every player does have a set PA. The negative numbers are for the DB only. A negative PA is set when a player is either young or has not played much football, so that asking a researcher to pick one single number out of a possible 200 would be quite unreliable/unfair. Instead they select from PA brackets, which give an estimate of level but not an exact figure. As a player ages it is expected that a researcher will refine this figure until a single PA number is arrived at.

When it comes to negative PA the number chosen from the corresponding bracket for that particular save is random, there is no bias towards Bolivian, Spanish or any other nationality.

[ilkork]

Yes, I knew that (maybe not the answer I was expecting).
 

2 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

When it comes to negative PA the number chosen from the corresponding bracket for that particular save is random, there is no bias towards Bolivian, Spanish or any other nationality.

Well, the game should be biased.
I am Greek and I know that Spanish youngsters are better than the Greek ones, so, 9 out of 10 times they should get a higher PA in-game (the ones who have -X PA).
Now, that's realistic.

[Seb Wassell]

21 minutes ago, ilkork said:

It won't. Researchers will continue to do whatever they've been doing. "We don't know the exact PA of player X, we think it's -8". Fine. Nothing's wrong with that.
What the game will do then, is to take the lowest value from the -8 range, which is 130, and set that as a player's PA in-game.
Then, if that player meets certain conditions in-game (these conditions will be under the hood), he will be able to exceed that 130PA.
And all this is because we can't know a player's PA and if the system sets it to 130 or 160, it's still unrealistic.
(I am talking about youngsters who have "-" PA and not older ones with a standard PA.)

I think you might be crossing over into CA territory again. What you describe as "if that player meets certain conditions in-game (these conditions will be under the hood), he will be able to exceed that 130PA" is sort of what happens with CA.

Very loosely - A player cannot gain CA unless certain conditions are met. The rate at which he gains CA is then determined by further factors. Finally he is limited to X% of his PA for a period if he does not meet specific criteria. PA is simply the upper limit on this process. The end result is not far off what you suggest. Broadly speaking, players start at their lowest value (CA) gaining points until they either hit a ceiling (too old, didn't train hard enough, etc.) or reach their natural maximum (PA). We already have a variable ceiling so to speak, PA is just the upper limit of this. 

[Seb Wassell]

9 minutes ago, ilkork said:

Yes, I knew that (maybe not the answer I was expecting).
 

Well, the game should be biased.
I am Greek and I know that Spanish youngsters are better than the Greek ones, so, 9 out of 10 times they should get a higher PA in-game (the ones who have -X PA).
Now, that's realistic.

They do. The DB should be naturally biased according to real life football so that the game does not have to be. If two researchers agree that Greek youngster X and Spanish youngster Y both have a PA of -8 we can't change that based arbitrarily on nationality. We would however expect there to be many more Spanish youngsters given a -8 PA than Greek in the first place, therefore a larger number of better Spanish youngsters in game than Greek.

[ilkork]

26 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

I think you might be crossing over into CA territory again. What you describe as "if that player meets certain conditions in-game (these conditions will be under the hood), he will be able to exceed that 130PA" is sort of what happens with CA.

Very loosely - A player cannot gain CA unless certain conditions are met. The rate at which he gains CA is then determined by further factors. Finally he is limited to X% of his PA for a period if he does not meet specific criteria. PA is simply the upper limit on this process. The end result is not far off what you suggest. Broadly speaking, players start at their lowest value (CA) gaining points until they either hit a ceiling (too old, didn't train hard enough, etc.) or reach their natural maximum (PA). We already have a variable ceiling so to speak, PA is just the upper limit of this. 

We sort of (can't find the exact word, what's a synonym for something similar to recycle?) the same conversation, again and again.

All I am saying is that the system wrongly sets a standard PA in-game for players with -X PA pre-game. That's why it needs some changes, so it's more realistic.
Only for youngsters though, whom we can't know their exact PA for sure.

24 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

They do. The DB should be naturally biased according to real life football so that the game does not have to be. If two researchers agree that Greek youngster X and Spanish youngster Y both have a PA of -8 we can't change that based arbitrarily on nationality. We would however expect there to be many more Spanish youngsters given a -8 PA than Greek in the first place, therefore a larger number of better Spanish youngsters in game than Greek.

[Rash-forwards]

On 22/06/2017 at 06:03, Tnq said:

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.

Have to disagree with this, I believe there is good variety already in the game with the current PA system. A lot of it comes down to form. I had Carl Jenkinson in my palace save become a leading prem player valued at over £30m, all because he had 2 fantastic seasons with us, and have seen other players who I know to not have outstanding PA become fantastic players regardless. With regards to Jamie Vardy irl, I would argue he is a player who simply hit outrageous form at the top level for an unusual length of time, rather than someone who developed his game to become a much better player in a short space of time. This can be replicated with players in the game as it is currently. Also, the idea that every player should have up to 200 PA to give them then chance of becoming the world's best is preposterous. Putting aside how absurd this sounds in the real world, imagine how it would occur in the game. It would basically be like another batch of world class newgens, of which I think there are far too many anyway. I personally think the game should go the other way, and make it even harder to cultivate world class talent as the amount of 21 year olds who take over the top teams is frankly irritating and unrealistic. I would much prefer spending more time scouring the leagues for a player with the right potential and personality, battling with rival clubs for his signature and having to pay much closer attention to his training regime to ensure he made it to the very top. But that's just me. 

[jazzyboy]

On 6/26/2017 at 06:37, Seb Wassell said:

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.

How about having different upper limits for physical and mental abilities? IRL, the most obvious limit for footballers is their physical capabilities, so why not cap the physical stats and let the mental stats keep developing provided they reach "targets"?

[Seb Wassell]

On 13/08/2017 at 00:27, jazzyboy said:

How about having different upper limits for physical and mental abilities? IRL, the most obvious limit for footballers is their physical capabilities, so why not cap the physical stats and let the mental stats keep developing provided they reach "targets"?

That pretty much is how it works. Physicals will stop developing much earlier than Mentals. A player's Mentals can sometimes in fact peak as their Physicals begin to decline.

[Samaroy]

On 7/25/2017 at 07:06, Barside said:

The game is only tedious due to the PA system if you fall into one or more of the following categories;

1. You look at the PA values in the editor or use recommended player guides that do the same.

2. You always buy the same players on every save &/or always start a new save with the same/similar club or in the same nation.

3. You quit to start a new save before newgen's form the majority or all of the player pool.

4. You trawl youth squads & hoover up the best prospects before their reputation is high enough to be noticed by AI managers. 

 

This is so accurate.

The same can be said for downloading tactics - ofcourse its tedious if you start a new game in the same place and boot up the same tactic you havent created yourself buying the same players you havent scouted in game to create the same team you played with on your last save.

[Samaroy]

Is there a reason there isn't more PA ranges available to researchers?

why not for example have the following options (across all the negative ranges not just my examples)

 

-8 = 130-160
-80 = 135-160
-81 = 140-160
-82 = 145-160
-83 = 150-160
-84 = 155-160
-85 = 140-170

SO in essence it enables researchers to be like "okay well this player definitely will not be 130-135 he will be better than that but im not sure how much better" or "this player will almost certainly be the next kante 150-160"

 

I suppose in typing that though I am realising it almost means they should just guess a slightly high estimate of their PA and just put it in at that PA figure rather than using a range

[santy001]

The thing is @Samaroy while there is a difference between 150 and 160, its not much of a difference. We do set numbers we feel comfortable with, but if we could narrow it down to a 10-15PA window anyway, we'd probably be more likely to pick a number in that window. 

The bigger bands are a catch-weight, that degree of unknown in life that is especially true for younger players. It would also lead to the rise of endless potential discussions that researchers may feel compelled to have to explain themselves in as to why they gave a player a -83 instead of a -84 and a lot of people don't realise coming into research discussions that researchers haven't just arbitrarily thrown darts at a board. Usually by the time players get to see any numbers they've gone past the researcher, usually most of the leagues other researchers have been able to have a little nose at the numbers too, the head researcher, some others of SI's staff (I've had comments from Miles on Bojan forwarded to me in the past), SI's testing staff, and any external testers along the way also get a go at looking at the numbers.

With all that in place, someone would still say its wrong and that -83 should be a -84. 

-

To go off at a slight tangent, and hopefully to demonstrate ultimately just how little these numbers can mean to an extent. A couple of years back there was a discussion about Mangala compared to Smalling. Mangala had the higher CA and higher PA subsequently. Quite a few were in disagreement with this so I tried to help people then understand a bit more about the numbers. 

Mangala is/was rated physically as a very strong, very fast player. Smalling was more in the middle of the park on this front, so I completely ignored the physicals. 

If you imposed the mental and technical abilities of Mangala onto Smalling, Smalling would drop from a high 140's CA player, to the mid 120's. An over 20CA drop, so everything that technically and mentally comprised of being a defender for Mangala was a massive CA drop from Smalling.

If you imposed the mental and technical attributes of Smalling onto Mangala, then Mangala needed a CA in the high 160's or low 170's. That was up from mid 150's CA, and a PA capped somewhere in the low 160 to mid 160's range if memory serves. 

This was done in the researchers editor, so while I don't know the differences to the exact editor you get on the player side, its a case of getting to see all the information. 

So despite the cries of unfairness, incorrectness etc on behalf of players, Smalling was by far the better defender. No matter how well Mangala developed in any players game, he was never going to be as good a defender as Smalling. He was always going to be more physically imposing than Smalling, which at that time (haven't seen anything of Mangala in the last 18 months or so) was definitely the case and was right. Those attributes ate up a lot of the CA and his defensive toolkit suffered massively for that as a result. It did mean for Mangala to be an out and out better defender than Smalling, a better all-round defender, he would have needed a CA into the 180's. That's 30 more than where he was at, and would've been nearly 40 more to be a better player than a defender in the 140-150CA range.

[ilkork]

14 hours ago, santy001 said:

The thing is @Samaroy while there is a difference between 150 and 160, its not much of a difference.

Sure, but watching a youngster having 130PA in one save and 160PA in another, makes much difference.

Now, I understand the Mangala-Smalling reasoning, and you are right. Not all attributes "weight" the same.
But here, we are talking about the randomness of assigning a PA to youngsters who have -X pre-game and the reasoning behind that.
In fact, I kinda like Samaroy's suggestion. I don't completely agree with the ranges though. But I think having ranges such as 130-140, 140-150, 150-160, etc., is a lot better than 130-160.
Though, people would still argue "why 130-140 range for player X whom we don't know because he is 17y old", but I find it a bit more fair than the current ranges.

My original suggestion remains the "be able to exceed PA if we unlock various under the hood conditions (with limitations though)<--- this only for youngsters with -X PA pre-game", but I guess you won't do it.
So, maybe have smaller PA ranges?

[Samaroy]

On 15/08/2017 at 16:47, santy001 said:

The thing is @Samaroy while there is a difference between 150 and 160, its not much of a difference. We do set numbers we feel comfortable with, but if we could narrow it down to a 10-15PA window anyway, we'd probably be more likely to pick a number in that window. 

The bigger bands are a catch-weight, that degree of unknown in life that is especially true for younger players. It would also lead to the rise of endless potential discussions that researchers may feel compelled to have to explain themselves in as to why they gave a player a -83 instead of a -84 and a lot of people don't realise coming into research discussions that researchers haven't just arbitrarily thrown darts at a board. Usually by the time players get to see any numbers they've gone past the researcher, usually most of the leagues other researchers have been able to have a little nose at the numbers too, the head researcher, some others of SI's staff (I've had comments from Miles on Bojan forwarded to me in the past), SI's testing staff, and any external testers along the way also get a go at looking at the numbers.

With all that in place, someone would still say its wrong and that -83 should be a -84. 

-

To go off at a slight tangent, and hopefully to demonstrate ultimately just how little these numbers can mean to an extent. A couple of years back there was a discussion about Mangala compared to Smalling. Mangala had the higher CA and higher PA subsequently. Quite a few were in disagreement with this so I tried to help people then understand a bit more about the numbers. 

Mangala is/was rated physically as a very strong, very fast player. Smalling was more in the middle of the park on this front, so I completely ignored the physicals. 

If you imposed the mental and technical abilities of Mangala onto Smalling, Smalling would drop from a high 140's CA player, to the mid 120's. An over 20CA drop, so everything that technically and mentally comprised of being a defender for Mangala was a massive CA drop from Smalling.

If you imposed the mental and technical attributes of Smalling onto Mangala, then Mangala needed a CA in the high 160's or low 170's. That was up from mid 150's CA, and a PA capped somewhere in the low 160 to mid 160's range if memory serves. 

This was done in the researchers editor, so while I don't know the differences to the exact editor you get on the player side, its a case of getting to see all the information. 

So despite the cries of unfairness, incorrectness etc on behalf of players, Smalling was by far the better defender. No matter how well Mangala developed in any players game, he was never going to be as good a defender as Smalling. He was always going to be more physically imposing than Smalling, which at that time (haven't seen anything of Mangala in the last 18 months or so) was definitely the case and was right. Those attributes ate up a lot of the CA and his defensive toolkit suffered massively for that as a result. It did mean for Mangala to be an out and out better defender than Smalling, a better all-round defender, he would have needed a CA into the 180's. That's 30 more than where he was at, and would've been nearly 40 more to be a better player than a defender in the 140-150CA range.

Yeah can't argue with that explanation

[Neil Brock]

Reviewed so locked.