Are Newgens Too Good?

[Seb Wassell]

2 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

But in practice, if player X has a good attribute weighting for a central defender and moves from being competent to accomplished at central defender, he needs a higher CA to not suffer an attribute drop, as his (e.g.) high jumping is weighted more highly towards his CA than when he was only a MC. A compensating CA change so CA=[RCA with original attributes] and new position isn't really exploitable because the sole reason for the CA change is to prevent attributes from dropping. 

(also not really exploitable because positions are hard to learn and if anything the game errs on the side of making it too difficult, and teaching a player to play in a position they're poorly suited to or just to play on the other side of the pitch doesn't affect RCA anyway...).

Makes more sense to assume that (e.g.) Wan Bissaka the winger who was good at tackling and average at dribbling learning to become a defender was Wan Bissaka improving as a footballer (the increase CA to compensate for RCA difference model) than assume that Wan Bissaka learning to become a defender actually made him slightly worse at his ability to position himself and tackle and control the ball and run (the FM model of leaving CA as is when he hits "natural" and penalising his attributes as required to rebalance).

A usually small and normally invisible player CA bump from learning a different position they're well suited to would appear considerably less artificial than the widespread and visible attribute drop from learning a different position.

I think you're taking that out of context a little. In most situations a player like AWB is both improving and learning a new position, meaning no attributes decrease.

[enigmatic]

4 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

I think you're taking that out of context a little. In most situations a player like AWB is both improving and learning a new position, meaning no attributes decrease.

The CA bump and the position bump doesn't necessarily happen in the same month though.

Which means the day after he becomes better at a position, the UX shows a player with scary red down arrows everywhere who's got lower attribute values in some areas related to the defensive training he's been doing, all whilst coaches insist he's training well and has improved as a player recently,...

Edited August 20, 2019 by enigmatic

[Seb Wassell]

24 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

The CA bump and the position bump doesn't necessarily happen in the same month though.

Which means the day after he becomes better at a position, the UX shows a player with scary red down arrows everywhere who's got lower attribute values in some areas related to the defensive training he's been doing, all whilst coaches insist he's training well and has improved as a player recently,...

In the medium to long term this makes no difference. In the short term I can see how this appears out of sync. Something we will investigate.

[CowSimao]

6 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

That's an interesting example. The reason he is listed as a Ball Winning Midfielder is because that is the role is attributes are most suited to. So even though he has 16 Vision and 9 Tackling, he is judged to be better in the BWM role than any other. If you look at his other attributes (especially those highlighted for the role), this does make sense, Tackling (and somewhat Marking) aside, all his best attributes come in these areas. Perhaps Tackling should be weighted more heavily here? This is actually a separate (valid) discussion, to do with how we work out a player's best role rather than the generation of attributes.

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I've noticed a lot of MCs or DMs will easily have deep-lying playmaker rated as their best role. Which then has a knock-on effect because AI coaches will then train youngsters in the deep-lying playmaker role because they view it as the best role (for example, in my Benfica save the B team individual training is handled by AI and many of the midfielders have been trained like this). This can be bad for some players' development as they'll become very good passers but won't improve much in other areas like defense or shooting. However, if these players were trained differently, they could become good Mezzalas, box-to-box, ball-winning mids etc. 

It should be more difficult to be considered a playmaker. A player should really have exceptional passing/vision to be considered one (e.g. Xabi Alonso).

[Weston]

1 hour ago, CowSimao said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I've noticed a lot of MCs or DMs will easily have deep-lying playmaker rated as their best role. Which then has a knock-on effect because AI coaches will then train youngsters in the deep-lying playmaker role because they view it as the best role (for example, in my Benfica save the B team individual training is handled by AI and many of the midfielders have been trained like this). This can be bad for some players' development as they'll become very good passers but won't improve much in other areas like defense or shooting. However, if these players were trained differently, they could become good Mezzalas, box-to-box, ball-winning mids etc. 

It should be more difficult to be considered a playmaker. A player should really have exceptional passing/vision to be considered one (e.g. Xabi Alonso).

I've noticed this too but never really thought to articulate it as well as you have. I notice there is just a plethora of deep-lying and advanced playmakers at all three central midfield positions, but it can be very difficult to get any solid box-to-box or especially defensive types (ball winning, anchor man, etc). It seems like even the center mid newgens who have decent tackling / marking / physical attributes are shoehorned into becoming passing types as you mentioned. Of course this is anecdotal and my sample size is small, but this seems to me to be a reoccurring thing I've noticed across at least 3-4 past editions of the game.

[Seb Wassell]

4 hours ago, CowSimao said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned before, but I've noticed a lot of MCs or DMs will easily have deep-lying playmaker rated as their best role. Which then has a knock-on effect because AI coaches will then train youngsters in the deep-lying playmaker role because they view it as the best role (for example, in my Benfica save the B team individual training is handled by AI and many of the midfielders have been trained like this). This can be bad for some players' development as they'll become very good passers but won't improve much in other areas like defense or shooting. However, if these players were trained differently, they could become good Mezzalas, box-to-box, ball-winning mids etc. 

It should be more difficult to be considered a playmaker. A player should really have exceptional passing/vision to be considered one (e.g. Xabi Alonso).

Broadly speaking, the AI trains players in 1. the position/role they are being played, 2. their best role and 3. to overcome weaknesses. They will also retrain players to new positions (and roles) for a variety of reasons, including age, coverage and attributes being better suited. If you want your players to be trained in a specific way, take control of their training  
However...

2 hours ago, Weston said:

I've noticed this too but never really thought to articulate it as well as you have. I notice there is just a plethora of deep-lying and advanced playmakers at all three central midfield positions, but it can be very difficult to get any solid box-to-box or especially defensive types (ball winning, anchor man, etc). It seems like even the center mid newgens who have decent tackling / marking / physical attributes are shoehorned into becoming passing types as you mentioned. Of course this is anecdotal and my sample size is small, but this seems to me to be a reoccurring thing I've noticed across at least 3-4 past editions of the game.

This is something we can look into, cheers.

[Weston]

I appreciate you taking the time to chat with us about all of this, @Seb Wassell!

For what it's worth, I've compared the CA of all players in the starting database of July 2018 with June 2027, just short of 10 years later. If you don't want to see the CA / PA of the top 10 players in the starting database stop reading now.

Despite there being roughly 20,000 fewer players, we see a jump from 10 players at 180+ to 13 (which isn't that remarkable) and a jump from just 2 players at 190+ (Messi and Ronaldo, of course) to a staggering 7! The average age of these the best players in the world also has dropped dramatically, from 28.9 to 24.9 at 180+, and from 32.0 to 23.9 at 190+! So it does appear as if newgens not only reach their CA earlier, but they have far more of it (or at least far more players with lots of it). Interestingly, there are no longer any truly "world class" keepers, though not only is there now a stunning 199 CA, it's a center back (in fact there are two on this list, and they're both from England of all places)!

Of course, this is a small data set, etc., but intriguing nonetheless. I'm not even going to necessarily claim that this in and of itself is "unrealistic," as for all we know, there could be a golden generation of nearly 4x more Messi / Ronaldo level players in 9 years with the way the world is growing and improving (or just due to sheer randomness). But if this happens in every simulation across the board, then there is a clear unbalance. (In any case, I'm sad to see my replacement let Giacomo Fazio join PSG for a paltry 95m euro. He is the striker from the earlier example, whom I practically raised from birth like a loving father across two different Italian clubs).

Edited August 21, 2019 by Weston

[enigmatic]

9 hours ago, Seb Wassell said:

Broadly speaking, the AI trains players in 1. the position/role they are being played, 2. their best role and 3. to overcome weaknesses. They will also retrain players to new positions (and roles) for a variety of reasons, including age, coverage and attributes being better suited. If you want your players to be trained in a specific way, take control of their training  
However...

This is something we can look into, cheers.

I realise you're deliberately simplifying, but there are a lot of cases where the AI shouldn't be training players in their "best" role (e.g. a top division academy which acquires some big, strong but technically limited youngsters is always going to put effort into teaching them to play out of defence properly rather than encouraging them to stay "no nonsense", and coaches are more likely to give them super demanding training like "roaming playmaker" if they think they've got a lot of potential). Funnily enough the suggested example of training playmaker types to focus on playmaking isn't an issue I've really noticed (and is basically plausible) but the prevalence of newgen defenders with world class physiques and tackling/marking and semi-pro level composure, technical ability and crossing for fullbacks has long been an issue...

Is there some influence based on manager/coach preferred training styles and national footballing cultures too? Hard to imagine that Guardiola doesn't train all his defenders, regardless of starting template, to be ball players for instance, or that a British academy isn't more likely to train their 6'3 striker to focus on being a target man than a Spanish one.

[Seb Wassell]

On 21/08/2019 at 12:00, enigmatic said:

I realise you're deliberately simplifying, but there are a lot of cases where the AI shouldn't be training players in their "best" role (e.g. a top division academy which acquires some big, strong but technically limited youngsters is always going to put effort into teaching them to play out of defence properly rather than encouraging them to stay "no nonsense", and coaches are more likely to give them super demanding training like "roaming playmaker" if they think they've got a lot of potential). Funnily enough the suggested example of training playmaker types to focus on playmaking isn't an issue I've really noticed (and is basically plausible) but the prevalence of newgen defenders with world class physiques and tackling/marking and semi-pro level composure, technical ability and crossing for fullbacks has long been an issue...

Is there some influence based on manager/coach preferred training styles and national footballing cultures too? Hard to imagine that Guardiola doesn't train all his defenders, regardless of starting template, to be ball players for instance, or that a British academy isn't more likely to train their 6'3 striker to focus on being a target man than a Spanish one.

As mentioned, they don't just train players in their best role, they also train them in the role they are being played (often the most common) and to overcome weaknesses. They will also retrain a player to a new position and role if he is more suited there. I would expect Guardiola to be training his DCs as BPDs more often than not as that is how he plays them.

[Weston]

On 20/08/2019 at 22:22, Weston said:

I appreciate you taking the time to chat with us about all of this, @Seb Wassell!

For what it's worth, I've compared the CA of all players in the starting database of July 2018 with June 2027, just short of 10 years later. If you don't want to see the CA / PA of the top 10 players in the starting database stop reading now.

Despite there being roughly 20,000 fewer players, we see a jump from 10 players at 180+ to 13 (which isn't that remarkable) and a jump from just 2 players at 190+ (Messi and Ronaldo, of course) to a staggering 7! The average age of these the best players in the world also has dropped dramatically, from 28.9 to 24.9 at 180+, and from 32.0 to 23.9 at 190+! So it does appear as if newgens not only reach their CA earlier, but they have far more of it (or at least far more players with lots of it). Interestingly, there are no longer any truly "world class" keepers, though not only is there now a stunning 199 CA, it's a center back (in fact there are two on this list, and they're both from England of all places)!

Of course, this is a small data set, etc., but intriguing nonetheless. I'm not even going to necessarily claim that this in and of itself is "unrealistic," as for all we know, there could be a golden generation of nearly 4x more Messi / Ronaldo level players in 9 years with the way the world is growing and improving (or just due to sheer randomness). But if this happens in every simulation across the board, then there is a clear unbalance. (In any case, I'm sad to see my replacement let Giacomo Fazio join PSG for a paltry 95m euro. He is the striker from the earlier example, whom I practically raised from birth like a loving father across two different Italian clubs).

I've now holidayed through to July 2034 and the trend has continued. There are now about 1,000 fewer players than in 2027, and about 21,000 fewer players than in the starting database. I can't even fit all the 180+ CA players in one screenshot now!

There are now 8 players in the "Messi/Ronaldo Zone" of 190+, which is only an increase of 1 from 2027, but a pretty drastic 4x increase from the starting database. There are 20 in the 180-189 range, a pretty drastic 2x of the 10 from the starting database, and a sizable increase of 7 from 2027.

The average age of the 190+ range went back up to 29.3. Still not as high as the 32 average from the starting database, but still considerably higher than the 23.9 from 2027. Looks like maybe there was a pretty solid golden age of newgens that has carried through and not really been replaced yet.

The average age of the 180-189 range is 27.7, which just seems rather unremarkably in the middle between the starting database's 28.9 and 2027's 24.9.

[Seb Wassell]

3 hours ago, Weston said:

I've now holidayed through to July 2034 and the trend has continued. There are now about 1,000 fewer players than in 2027, and about 21,000 fewer players than in the starting database. I can't even fit all the 180+ CA players in one screenshot now!

There are now 8 players in the "Messi/Ronaldo Zone" of 190+, which is only an increase of 1 from 2027, but a pretty drastic 4x increase from the starting database. There are 20 in the 180-189 range, a pretty drastic 2x of the 10 from the starting database, and a sizable increase of 7 from 2027.

The average age of the 190+ range went back up to 29.3. Still not as high as the 32 average from the starting database, but still considerably higher than the 23.9 from 2027. Looks like maybe there was a pretty solid golden age of newgens that has carried through and not really been replaced yet.

The average age of the 180-189 range is 27.7, which just seems rather unremarkably in the middle between the starting database's 28.9 and 2027's 24.9.

Cheers for the examples.

[Weston]

1 hour ago, Seb Wassell said:

Cheers for the examples.

I don't know if any of this is useful at all but it sure is interesting to explore regardless!

[Seb Wassell]

16 minutes ago, Weston said:

I don't know if any of this is useful at all but it sure is interesting to explore regardless!

Our internal builds are obviously now quite different from FM19, so whilst we cannot use the examples directly (for which we would request a save) they are certainly useful anecdotal evidence to help guide our balancing. Thank you for your effort and input.

[ajw10]

I haven't read the whole thread but after two longish term saves I've found that the problems I've had with newgens are that they aren't varied enough. There's a lot of excellent South American midfielders. Most players don't have good leadership skills or jumping reach. On my Arsenal one which is in late 2030 I've noticed a real lack of left sided inside forwards. Just makes squad building really dull and affects the longevity of the save. This is the first FM (I didn't play 17 at all and barely played 18) where I've noticed a real issue with newgens

[Weston]

Holiday to 2042 and we see a huge shift in the opposite direction! Suddenly there are ZERO players in the Messi/Ronaldo range of 190s, and the 180s have decreased as well. Peculiarly, the top player in the world turns out for Sporting Braga of all clubs! So I guess that first newgen generation really was a golden age and once they died out they ushered in a bit of a drought of top class talent. Of course with this being a small sample size of one it's hard to tell if this is just how randomness works in unpredictable boom/bust cycles or if this really does reveal a lack of balance that swings too far in both directions.

Okay I'll stop now, I've had my fun  

Bring on FM20!

Edited August 25, 2019 by Weston

[ClemB]

Il y a 8 heures, Weston a dit :

Holiday to 2042 and we see a huge shift in the opposite direction! Suddenly there are ZERO players in the Messi/Ronaldo range of 190s, and the 180s have decreased as well. Peculiarly, the top player in the world turns out for Sporting Braga of all clubs! So I guess that first newgen generation really was a golden age and once they died out they ushered in a bit of a drought of top class talent. Of course with this being a small sample size of one it's hard to tell if this is just how randomness works in unpredictable boom/bust cycles or if this really does reveal a lack of balance that swings too far in both directions.

Okay I'll stop now, I've had my fun  

Bring on FM20!

This confirms my assumption made on page 2.

[Seb Wassell]

3 hours ago, ClemB said:

This confirms my assumption made on page 2.

I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Newgens are not generated to shift the quality of the gamewolrd one way or another.

11 hours ago, Weston said:

Holiday to 2042 and we see a huge shift in the opposite direction! Suddenly there are ZERO players in the Messi/Ronaldo range of 190s, and the 180s have decreased as well. Peculiarly, the top player in the world turns out for Sporting Braga of all clubs! So I guess that first newgen generation really was a golden age and once they died out they ushered in a bit of a drought of top class talent. Of course with this being a small sample size of one it's hard to tell if this is just how randomness works in unpredictable boom/bust cycles or if this really does reveal a lack of balance that swings too far in both directions.

Okay I'll stop now, I've had my fun  

Bring on FM20!

Interesting to see you have two consecutive examples so different to one another. It would be presumptuous to draw any conclusions from small sample sizes, but it encourages me that we can see this variance in a single save, just as in reality.

[majesticeternity]

Anyone looking for more realistic newgens would enjoy this: https://community.sigames.com/topic/467725-fm19-dr-gonzos-newgen-fix/

[Weston]

8 hours ago, majesticeternity said:

Anyone looking for more realistic newgens would enjoy this: https://community.sigames.com/topic/467725-fm19-dr-gonzos-newgen-fix/

Interesting... Are there any reviews of how other people have found it to work out? I'm hesitant to change something this drastic in my save (I was scared to even add a league last year for the first time ever) for fear of how it could mess things up, and I would probably need to see a lot more info before I could be convinced that this is truly better than the default, all things considered. But very cool that someone took the time to do this!

[Seb Wassell]

9 hours ago, majesticeternity said:

Anyone looking for more realistic newgens would enjoy this: https://community.sigames.com/topic/467725-fm19-dr-gonzos-newgen-fix/

 

1 hour ago, Weston said:

Interesting... Are there any reviews of how other people have found it to work out? I'm hesitant to change something this drastic in my save (I was scared to even add a league last year for the first time ever) for fear of how it could mess things up, and I would probably need to see a lot more info before I could be convinced that this is truly better than the default, all things considered. But very cool that someone took the time to do this!

This appears to focus on PA, which is a bit of a red herring. I'd be cautious and have not tested nor can I support it myself, but I would not wish someone to avoid playing the game in the way they wish. As a note, progression is tweaked constantly, most significantly between versions, so if this has not been updated and tested for FM19's latest update I'd be wary of massive unintended consequences.

[Bigpole]

14 minutes ago, Seb Wassell said:

 

This appears to focus on PA, which is a bit of a red herring.

I've noticed that only youth ratings were changed which is odd because almost any club with really good facilities and coaching can produce a wonderkid. I've seen Russians, Senegalese, Poles, Costaricans - the only thing that stood out was their club - it was always a club with at least good facilities and coaching (around 14-15).

The only thing about regens and youth rating that is unclear is the youth nation rating - I know what it means but it's a little bit inconsistent (if we look at it as raw nation potential to produce players). Like this famous Jordan - it has bigger rating than smaller countries (like Serbia and Croatia) but also bigger than bigger countries (China, India, Australia). I'd like the regens potential to concentrate more on Game importance and balance youth rating. Let's sort youth rating by population and concentrate mainly on facilities/coaching and game importance. Something like - I know that USA are capable with people (youth rating factor) economy and facilities (coaching/facilities factor) to produce quality players but football isn't national sport so talent's pool will be smaller than for example in Mexico or Nigeria.

[Weston]

1 hour ago, Bigpole said:

The only thing about regens and youth rating that is unclear is the youth nation rating - I know what it means but it's a little bit inconsistent (if we look at it as raw nation potential to produce players). Like this famous Jordan - it has bigger rating than smaller countries (like Serbia and Croatia) but also bigger than bigger countries (China, India, Australia). I'd like the regens potential to concentrate more on Game importance and balance youth rating. Let's sort youth rating by population and concentrate mainly on facilities/coaching and game importance. Something like - I know that USA are capable with people (youth rating factor) economy and facilities (coaching/facilities factor) to produce quality players but football isn't national sport so talent's pool will be smaller than for example in Mexico or Nigeria.

I have to say, one thing I found quite depressing (and, I think / hope, is unrealistic, but of course who knows), is that my United States still did not produce any top class talent even through to 2042! I don't think I saw anyone in 160s (maybe Pulisic scraped it), but definitely don't recall anyone 170s or above, and the overall CA numbers still looked pretty low for the bulk of the squad. I'd hope with the sport growing, the massive population growing, and the population growing more multicultural, that we'll get lucky eventually...

Edited August 27, 2019 by Weston

[enigmatic]

I've definitely seen world class talents emerge from the USA (more than it's ever produced IRL, although that's arguably fair given FM tends to produce more high potential newgens anyway and US association football is on the up)

 

2 hours ago, Bigpole said:

The only thing about regens and youth rating that is unclear is the youth nation rating - I know what it means but it's a little bit inconsistent (if we look at it as raw nation potential to produce players). Like this famous Jordan - it has bigger rating than smaller countries (like Serbia and Croatia) but also bigger than bigger countries (China, India, Australia). I'd like the regens potential to concentrate more on Game importance and balance youth rating. Let's sort youth rating by population and concentrate mainly on facilities/coaching and game importance. Something like - I know that USA are capable with people (youth rating factor) economy and facilities (coaching/facilities factor) to produce quality players but football isn't national sport so talent's pool will be smaller than for example in Mexico or Nigeria.

I think the newgens rating already is a fudge to compensate for the other factors, which is why Egypt stands out as having a remarkably high score (has a similar reputation, importance etc to other top African countries and shouldn't have any higher, but doesn't get as many players coming through top academies in France/Belgium/England/Germany and domestic teams have utterly terrible facilities, so the generous "youth rating" is supposed to balance all that out) despite it not obviously producing better youngsters than Holland, Portugal or England...

[Weston]

2 hours ago, enigmatic said:

I've definitely seen world class talents emerge from the USA (more than it's ever produced IRL, although that's arguably fair given FM tends to produce more high potential newgens anyway and US association football is on the up)

Interesting. Obviously my one save is a small sample size, I both assume and hope other people have experienced much stronger US teams in their saves by realistic probability.

[Ryo_Saeba]

These are the data from my save, and they already say all the problems of this edition.

current ability	june 2018	june 2024	newgen 2024	u24 real players in 2024	25-28 yo 2024	29+ in 2024
160	94	155	36	16	51	52
170	32	55	9	8	19	19
180	10	16	1	2	3	10

1) the PA is a too important factor, 90% of players with pa of 170 reach at least 160, in fact we are noticing an almost doubling of strong players                                                        
2) the negative potential system, sucks. Only 16 real under24 players reach about 160 in 2024. And of these, someone has a fixed potential such as the older players.
3) the newgens are op. 36 newgens in 2024 with a 160 CA, more than double of real young talents. They are younger but already stronger than real young people. And referring to point 1, i am sure that in just a few more seasons they will destroy the whole game. even 9 newgens with potential above 190. It's crazy. 9 Messi born in 6 seasons.          

Going into detail, there are few players with potential -9, ie the most promising young people in the world, even in reality, they are almost all relatively established. This means that you do a great job of scouting. But in game it is badly managed. -9 translates into a random fixed potential between 150 and 180. Example if I take Martinez Rashford or De Jong and the game creates a pa of 150. It means that they will be able to win all the games, make lots of goals and train to the maximum in the best club , but will remain forever with mediocre skills. And this is unrealistic as well as frustrating. In fact, if we look at the numbers above, the very young real players can't replace the older generations. In my save there are the misery of 7  real players created with PA of 170+ with an age of 18-   I would absolutely change this system. First and foremost the most promising players in the world must have a high potential, by definition. What needs to change is the ability to reach this potential. Example keep Martinez  2 years in u21 team, it will no longer be able to reach its maximum potential. Or if he succeeds he will have to recover that 2-year growth in 4 years of hard work, but only if with top personalities, top structures, top dynamics, top performance and at an advanced age. With a better growth mechanic, i would set the following values: 

potential	min	max
-10	185	200
-9,5	180	195
-9	170	185
-8,5	160	185
-8	150	170
-7,5	140	160
-7	130	155

So even a very lucky -85 could spawn with pa 185 but unlike an unlucky -10 also with pa 185, the former (in my idea), needs much more experience to raise skills. Example -10 improves by 1 CA every 5 games, while -8.5 every 10. An easy alternative is to be more generous in the original database (more -10, more -95 and so on) and prefer the fixed potential ability to the negative potential. Finally, if it's impossible to change the growth mechanics, simply create weaker newgen. They are op. This is resolved in two minutes, entering limits. Es every January the game creates the regens for the whole year, which then will appear in the various youth days. Maximum 10 players born in 2005 with a pa 170+. One in 30 of these top talents with pa above 190, and so on.

                                         

 

Edited September 7, 2019 by Ryo_Saeba

[Daveincid]

I am currently in a monster-save with all leagues loaded, playable and on max. details.

My experience is that it's actually true that there are more players with a higher CA and PA at a young age later ingame. But at the same time when they get into the early 20's they don't always move to bigger leagues (maybe no offers or no scout in the world have ever detected their real strenght and talent).  So it happends quite often that for example a young player from indonesia has 125/180, but he will never make a big career because nobody spottet him. So you could say, bad luck! And this is what the whole gameworld makes it to me extremely realistic! 

This is my conclusion. Other opinions are welcome:)

 

Cheers

Daveincid

[Seb Wassell]

8 hours ago, Ryo_Saeba said:

1) the PA is a too important factor, 90% of players with pa of 170 reach at least 160, in fact we are noticing an almost doubling of strong players                                                       

PA does not affect rate of progression.

[Gee_Simpson]

Thought I'd resurrect this instead of creating a new thread. Is there too many superstar newgens in the future? I know tests have been done by community members and the results are staggering, do SI consider this a problem yet?

Edited January 10, 2021 by Gee_Simpson

[Gee_Simpson]

@Seb Wassell Has this been looked into further or do you not consider it a problem at the moment?

[Cro-cop]

What i see now is massive improvement with inside forward type of players compared to FM19. Usually we would mostly get newgen wingers. But in 2030 now, i cant find a single ball winning mid. It seems all players are created or developed as playmakers. Too many, too good. No sweeper keepers either. Didnt make any test personally but it is what i see. Also its just one long term save so far, so it can mean nothing

[pow4h]

3 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

@Seb Wassell Has this been looked into further or do you not consider it a problem at the moment?

You can download mod that decrease quality of newgens. 

[Gee_Simpson]

2 hours ago, pow4h said:

You can download mod that decrease quality of newgens. 

Yeah I know but I was just wondering if SI actually see it as a problem themselves. They obviously do their own tests.