Revaluation of the CA - PA system

[Raptor Longe]

I opened the thread to discuss and find alternative solutions to the PA system, as I consider it a limit.

I have widely understood that for 2, 3 or 4 people it is a great thing for the current system.
I register their dissent on the proposal, but I would like to go further, and hear the other proposals of others.

[Cougar2010]

6 minutes ago, rosque said:

TOP 15 club in the world buys a kid for 1.5 million euros at 15 years old. You put his PA at 150. He plays few cup games and 10-15 games in first season as 15-16 year old. You put his PA at 160 for new iteration of FM. He plays 20-25 games in the league and performs remarkably well. Even stars in Europe in same season as 16-17 year old. You put his PA at 170 for new iteration of FM as designated club researcher. As 18 year old he is the driving force in that team's road to the champions of the Europe and triple title! You put him at 180 for his PA and even more maybe.

Thats an example of where the researcher got it wrong initially which we all accept happens and is a flaw in the system (& Raptor's for that matter) that nobody has come up with a solution for.

Its worth saying again though that because FM is released annually that this flaw isn't a major one because each year he is updated to reflect RL.  In the version where he is 15yo with 150 PA nobody had an issue with him having a PA of 150.  Its only several years down the line when you look back on that version that you see it as an issue but by then you are playing a more current version where he has been adjusted by the researcher.

 

 

6 minutes ago, rosque said:

So my question is...if you WOULD do that why are you so opposed to having another variable like professionalism that just says 'HEY, this player kicks the ball differently or thinks differently than others his age' which would allow for natural progression of player in same iteration of FM like he would in real life?

What benefit does the user get from having another variable added to the system?

The main concern here is not about adding another variable to the system (Raptor's idea of natural talent could be added to the current PA system as another variable) but about removing the PA and how it would affect the system.

Many of us feel that removing the PA would lead to an influx of super players like Ronaldo & Messi over the course of a save.

This could be controlled by a better CA development model but it needs to be one that doesn't create a spiral effect and one that can't be gamed by human users.  Raptor's proposal whilst adding a fixed variable into the development doesn't address the spiral effect and is no better than the current model for human users as they would just search the database for those players with high natural talent rather than high PA even if it was totally hidden in game.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

19 hours ago, santy001 said:

Now the big problem is still the AI's squad building nous at this point. They will, as I said, sign players from lower leagues who have the appearance of being better (whether this is through sustained good form, or actual ability is neither here nor there). The problem is once they get them they will often misuse them, or not even give them much of a chance. To me it suggests something isn't quite right with what targets players for a team to buy, and then what selects players for a team to use.

Not sure what the current state is (from posts by people from SI work has gone into over the last few years) but a few years back one of the problems was the Transfer and Squad AI were disconnected - so the transfer system would find a player with potential and sign him but when the Squad AI took over for picking the team it would see his CA wasn't good enough and the player would end up rotting away (or in some cases get sold among the big teams without ever really playing as the Transfer AI would rate him but the Squad one didn't).

[-Jef-]

My example was not a researcher messing up but rather game itself with a regen.

[Maaka]

7 hours ago, rosque said:

You just do not get it. Let me explain it in researcher terms.

 

TOP 15 club in the world buys a kid for 1.5 million euros at 15 years old. You put his PA at 150. He plays few cup games and 10-15 games in first season as 15-16 year old. You put his PA at 160 for new iteration of FM. He plays 20-25 games in the league and performs remarkably well. Even stars in Europe in same season as 16-17 year old. You put his PA at 170 for new iteration of FM as designated club researcher. As 18 year old he is the driving force in that team's road to the champions of the Europe and triple title! You put him at 180 for his PA and even more maybe.

 

5 hours ago, rosque said:

My example was not a researcher messing up but rather game itself with a regen.

 

By the language of it, it's not unreasonable to read your example to be that of a researcher "messing up".

[Maaka]

6 hours ago, Raptor Longe said:

I opened the thread to discuss and find alternative solutions to the PA system, as I consider it a limit.

I have widely understood that for 2, 3 or 4 people it is a great thing for the current system.
I register their dissent on the proposal, but I would like to go further, and hear the other proposals of others.

I'm not saying (nor have I said) that your proposal is a terrible, bad proposal, it's just that I don't see it, the way you've put it, as an improvement on todays system. Therefore I don't find it viable that a system that's working (sure, it has it's flawes, as most people in this thread seems to agree upon) should be replaced by something that would not be a change for the (significantly) better.
Like Cougar said (more than once), if it was about building this from scratch now, then your system would probably have a shot at being chosen ahead of todays system, but with the current system having been in place for such a long time, and your proposal (as stated before) not being that much superior, then the factors are in favor of staying with what we've already got.

And I'm not saying that I have the solution, or a proposal of a perfect system (because I don't), if somebody comes up with a way to not only fix, but massively improve today's scheme of PA, then I'm all for it.

[Cap'nRad]

Having read through the posts, the first thing I would like to say is that I believe that the discussion started nicely but has been muddled a bit, perhaps due to emotions. Everything can be improved upon further so the P.A system should not be immune to review and criticism, however unless the criticism is done with the mindset of pushing the game forward then it won't be very productive. Having said that, a devil's advocate is also useful in any discussion to harshly criticize ideas such as the one the O.P proposed, and ensure that they are indeed well thought out and a better alternative than the existing system. Basically what I'm saying is proponents of the proposal should welcome criticism and not take it harshly or personally (unless it is born of misunderstanding, of course) while those who do criticize should understand that the discussion is on the faulty P.A system and criticism of the proposed system would be useful if it is done with the intent of improving the current system, unless you truly believe that the P.A system is perfect and can't be improved, in which case you really don't have much to offer the thread.

 

Having said that, let's review how a "P.A" would work in real life. In footballer's career's, the most limiting factors to an otherwise endless P.A are time and genetics. Attributes like game understanding and technical ability, given endless amounts of time, can improve basically limitlessly, while physical attributes are dependant on age. I would interpret this as: A professional's technical growth is limited by his time, his physical development limited by his genetics, and his mental aspects potentially limitless (but often curbed by different case-by-case factors like attitude and surroundings). Of course these three aspects are in turn dependent on other factors like attitude, environment, etc. How I would interpret this in game is to have 3 different P.A parameters which combine to form his total P.A, one of which is the natural ability, and the other two which I will elaborate.

 

The first, his physical stats, fluctuate based on his age. Time restrictions may be placed on his pace and agility, meaning they might improve exponentially in his younger years, while as he gets older his balance and strength increase as his pace declines. Eventually at a certain age all his physicals start declining based on his natural fitness, professionalism, and ambition.

 

The 2nd, his technical ability, could be the "natural talent" proposal, as different players start off at different technical levels and develop technically at different rates, and remember it's the rate of technical growth which is important here, seeing as given endless time technique could be improved endlessly. This attribute could also be subject to age based fluctuations, maybe reducing by 1/2 after the age of 24, then by 1/4 after 26 or 27, finally peaking at 28 for most players (as cases where technique improves notably past this age are quite rare). Of course growth in this area is also subject to the usual professionalism, etc.

 

And finally, his mental stats. This is the most complicated proposal which, if workable, could potentially create those Vardy-esque cases as, though they may be given any value, their improvement is based almost solely on his attitude and environment, as well as an attribute similar to natural talent which we will call his mental potential. To elaborate, a value could be given to mental attributes, in various leagues, which are the highest they could possibly attain at that given level, eg. "14 Off the ball" for a League 1 striker. These higher attributes once attained, will not move any further (as they signal the league being "too easy" for the player thus he doesn't need to improve further in that area) unless he is brought to a higher level then the cap on these attributes is removed, and his improvement then again depends on his attitude and environment. Thus the level he plays at during his career will impact his career greatly, and might limit him from reaching his highest potential (instead of a set number being the limit). Great players could be identified by looking for these "maximum" attributes, however their improvement would not be guaranteed even with professional attitudes due to their mental potential. Some could explode further, while others would simply remain at that level or reach a level slightly higher. It would be more flexible.

 

Lastly, these 3 P.A components should be very hard to fully max out in a player's lifetime, so managers would have to choose between, for instance, trying to increase the technical ability of a player who clearly has low technical potential, or putting all his time on mental training and hoping it is enough to carry him to a decent level. If a player is deduced to have high technical potential, then training him in that fully might be a way to compensate for him having lower mental potential. It could create a more complicated layer of depth to player development.

 

So having thought about that for a bit, that's the bulk of my suggestion. Of course the biggest obstacle is how doable this is realistically, although I'll leave that to the S.I staff to determine. @Raptor Longe hopefully this somewhat expounds on your initial good idea, and hopefully if the idea makes sense it can be refined further.

 

P.S: Thinking of a kind of 'cap' for mental attributes to ensure they don't grow endlessly regardless of professionalism and ambition is challenging, since in my proposal age isn't a limit... Ideas on this would be welcome.

 

Edit: Wow, apologies for the absolute essay! This came out way longer than I anticipated! 

[kandersson]

I appreciate OP ideas and passion, but as already explained by others at the and of the day 'natural talent' is in fact PA. You can call it a mental trait instead of a value, or rate it 1-20 instead of 1-200, but that's what it is.

To replicate the Vardy/Toni cases, I think maybe a new hidden trait like 'late bloomer' could be introduced for a few random players (and regens) to add variety, but still the PA or natural talent must be there in first place.

[santy001]

@rosque I understood what you were posting at the time, I was still trying to highlight it wasn't something that could really be worked with comparing a 1 time assignment of PA vs several research phases.

@Cap'nRad It's a good thought and essentially having 3 PA's has been mentioned before a 'technical' a 'mental' and a 'physical' which there are some merits to. That could definitely work, and then the headline PA figure would be an average, or combination of the 3. It would make it a lot easier to distinguish but at the same time there are other concerns that are raised. 

It's not a flat out division between all 3 areas, you're not 1 third physical attributes, 1 third technical, 1 third mental, so 0-200 | 0 -200 | 0-200 or 0-67 | 0-67 | 0-66 wouldn't be right I feel. SI certainly has these differentiated for how they behave later in a players career, while a players pace might go his strength doesn't really diminish (which is quite fair tbh, strength with training is something that tends to peak closer to 40 than 20) and nowadays its often the case that the technical attributes are very much the last thing to go. 

It's something I could get behind, but its probably more likely there will be a more organic, and again subtle distinction in development again that may not be too prominent as it is. 

One issue I noticed with regens more than players we do the research for (on FM17) is often short, slight of frame players actually become very physical, like this guy on my old game:

Because he's only right footed, he has some obscene physical attributes and my gut feeling on that is that because he's only 1 footed, it green lighted his physicals improving a bit too much. I'd need to see how it is this year on FM17, but it shows that having a limit on PA overall is a good thing because in a game where those shackles are off, surely his attributes just keep climbing and climbing - even now he still appears to be improving mid-way through a season at age 28. 

[Cap'nRad]

52 minutes ago, santy001 said:

It's not a flat out division between all 3 areas, you're not 1 third physical attributes, 1 third technical, 1 third mental, so 0-200 | 0 -200 | 0-200 or 0-67 | 0-67 | 0-66 wouldn't be right I feel.

Hence why, as I mentioned earlier, each P.A will be different and technical growth rates will differ among the players. Also, with the manager now needing to focus on certain attributes at certain times and decide between training 1 of the 3 different attributes, the distribution will probably rarely end with a 1:1:1 ratio.

56 minutes ago, santy001 said:

SI certainly has these differentiated for how they behave later in a players career, while a players pace might go his strength doesn't really diminish (which is quite fair tbh, strength with training is something that tends to peak closer to 40 than 20) and nowadays its often the case that the technical attributes are very much the last thing to go. 

Interesting, I mainly notice decrease in all physical attributes, but I assume in some cases attributes like balance and strength should be increasing? And this is important for positional retraining, as a player can be moved from an area of the pitch that needs pace, to one that needs intelligence and strength. In any case, maybe I've just not had the luck of seeing my players improve their physicals as they age. 

 

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

It's something I could get behind, but its probably more likely there will be a more organic, and again subtle distinction in development again that may not be too prominent as it is.

I agree, I tried to model it as close to real life as I could, but even then it still seems complicated.

 

1 hour ago, santy001 said:

One issue I noticed with regens more than players we do the research for (on FM17) is often short, slight of frame players actually become very physical, like this guy on my old game:

Because he's only right footed, he has some obscene physical attributes and my gut feeling on that is that because he's only 1 footed, it green lighted his physicals improving a bit too much. I'd need to see how it is this year on FM17, but it shows that having a limit on PA overall is a good thing because in a game where those shackles are off, surely his attributes just keep climbing and climbing - even now he still appears to be improving mid-way through a season at age 28. 

Wow that's an impressive physical specimen, almost superhuman! Interesting that he's improving physicals at such an age but are you sure that it's any major improvement? I would wager it's simply a 0.1 or 0.2 incremental progress which happens at times in order to show his commitment to training, but ultimately means little. I would prefer some sort of redistribution mechanic from pace to strength (as it usually works in real life, unless he's some sort of uber professional like Ronaldo, and is able to gain pace at he age of 32). As I mentioned earlier, the physical attributes shouldn't all cap at the same age, with pace and agility capping first, and strength coming last before an ultimate decline. IMO that reflects most accurately physical development through a footballer's career.

[enigmatic]

The trouble with completely separate physical, mental and technical potentials is it's a lot more thought for researchers than "does this player A have a chance of becoming better than players B, C, and D?", because you've got to take into account the way that (many) players compensate for losing physical attributes by becoming a bit smarter at the very end of their career, and completely change how players are evaluated by the AI.

FM already tries to replicate the fact that even for high PA players, physical improvement normally happens quite rapidly at a young age, is much harder if a player already has high stats in an area and certain physical attributes are hard to improve if the player is short or skinny, whilst mental stats keep improving for a long time. It doesn't do it perfectly  (the issue Santy noted with high potential skinny regens often turning out ultra-strong was reported and acknowledged as a bug in FM17 - don't know if fixed for FM18) . But it might well still model that development better than researchers having to re-rate everybody with three sets of potential according to new guidelines which are mostly going to be re-implementing stuff already hardcoded into the game...

That said, I suspect some researchers do have some idea of which players with a high PA are exceptions to general rules about growth. For example some physically impressive 17-20 years olds still have plenty more growing to do (like young Cristiano Ronaldo did), and some physically unimpressive 17-20 year olds are pretty much fully physically mature and thus aren't going to improve much in those areas even if their technical and mental abilities go all the way to world class (peak Scholes was as small and asthmatic as teenage Scholes). The more common cases of course are physically imposing teenagers who are basically full grown adults who won't get much taller or stronger and teenagers with low physical stats who basically still have a child's frame but will have a growth spurt before they're 21 even without much game time. So there might be a good case for a completely optional physical maturity variable within the existing PA parameters which defines young players' chances of significant physical improvement in certain areas even without necessarily having ideal facilities or match experience. (Could also be integrated it into the in game scouting/coaching system so those who are really good at judging potential sometimes advise that young players' physical weaknesses will always be a problem or might go away in future)

There might also be a case for a "experience" variable to reflect undeveloped players' existing level of match experience. This could of course have plenty of uses in game, but one of them would be to allow for players with low "experience" to improve certain acute weaknesses (e.g. concentration, decisions, passing) very rapidly if given game time and assume that players with already high "experience"  will improve in a more balanced and gradual way with any acute weaknesses they have being more likely innate traits that always stay quite low.

[BruceyNTFC]

I really, really like the idea of researchers being able to weight PA to certain groups of attributes. Often when looking at a player for a while, you can see where there game has developed, and being able to focus on that and weight that in the dataset would be so useful. 

Also their are players who you can see have the scope to really push a certain area of their abilities. I had a player in my dataset this year who was horrendously out of shape, due to the fact he’s known not to be a great trainer. Now I can amend his professionalism to reflect that, but I also know he has the potential, if he unlocks it, to be much better, however it would be mainly in that area. If I could have had the option to specify that, I would have done.

[Raptor Longe]

I am glad that finally proposals are being made, and not just criticisms because "PA and Natural Talent are the same thing" or "The system is all right." I hope that we continue in this direction. 

My basic idea, with which I presented my proposal, that I remember everyone includes three different variants in the game:
- Elimination of PA.
- Introduction of new growth parameters, including Natural Talent and balance of parameters already presented.
- Introducing a 50% growth reduction achieved by CA 160 points, and 80% reaching CA 180 points.

 

 

Now I also see an interesting proposition as to differentiate the growth speed of the 3 main features: Physics, Mental, Techniques.
This proposal is also interesting, but basically it should include the elimination of PA, otherwise it would also be castrated.

The three parameters could be: Natural Talent for Technical Abilities, Natural Athlete for Physical Abilities and Tactical Intelligence for Mental Abilities. Each of these parameters could adjust the personal growth rate of a player by working with parameters already in play (for example, a "Natural Athlete" could physically improve faster and maintain physical abilities over 30 years, for example, Cristiano Ronaldo or Javier Zanetti). In addition, the parameter "professionalism" would always remain the property of growth, but it only affects training and the desire to improve even if the three parameters are low.

In short, I find that there are some interesting ideas that SI Sport should evaluate, as they could lead to an improvement in the dynamics of the game, the same Game Save could still be different from the others Saves.

[ham_aka_stam]

PA may well be a flawed concept.  However my understanding is that it is so well accounted for in the game code that almost all of its flaws are gone.  The fact that you can have a world-class player with 150PA and a stinker with 175PA is of absolute credit to the way the game works.  As is the fact that most players never reach their PA.  As is the ability for a player to restructure their game as they age.

Assuming my above understanding is correct, to read that researchers are so obviously misunderstanding a) what PA represents and b) how it works within the game, is disappointing.

The idea of a mental, a physical and a technical PA would be even better by the way, and would more realistically match the way an athlete's genetics affect the ceiling of their abilities.  But you're making a researcher's workload larger by doing that.

[santy001]

@enigmatic some good thoughts there, it's hard to put it in quite the right words, but obviously any kind of change would have to be extremely well done because while it could pre-dispose a player towards something like physical development (and in retrospect another draw back to the 3 way split of PA) it would have to be very careful of imposing any kind of restriction on it. 

Gareth Bale is the stand-out example in my mind, there was nothing too him for the longest time, since joining Real Madrid especially he seems to have developed physically (more of a glass cannon this season mind) when young I don't think anyone would particularly have highlighted him to become as physically exceptional as he has/had up until this season. 

It's why I think it's never moved towards anything on that front. The problem is then that there becomes more ways for researchers to get it wrong, thereby increasing the likeliness of getting it wrong, with increasingly dramatic effects in the game. 

It again comes back to the very organic, very subtle things that SI tend to choose down this route. 

[Cap'nRad]

3 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

PA may well be a flawed concept.  However my understanding is that it is so well accounted for in the game code that almost all of its flaws are gone. 

Hmm I don't think it's flaws are gone, just hidden with each yearly release and data update. There are so many players who going back to previous fm's have the most random P.A values (especially in the lower leagues) that no matter the distribution would never reflect the players' real life abilities. The only reason it seems fine is they are updated yearly to more closely reflect real life, so people tend to forget how random P.A values can be. For a few examples, just look at Ousmane Dembele (one of the world's biggest talents) in fm15, which is just 2 or 3 years before now. Or at the Leicester group who won the title that same season. Or at those who rise from lower leagues as adults and have their C.A and P.A adjusted to compensate.

 

3 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

The idea of a mental, a physical and a technical PA would be even better by the way, and would more realistically match the way an athlete's genetics affect the ceiling of their abilities.  But you're making a researcher's workload larger by doing that.

That's my problem as well, that it might get a lot more complex for everyone. Although seeing as the researchers work for free, I would assume they enjoy what they do, and thus might like the added thought put into it. As @BruceyNTFC shows above.

[enigmatic]

5 hours ago, santy001 said:

@enigmatic some good thoughts there, it's hard to put it in quite the right words, but obviously any kind of change would have to be extremely well done because while it could pre-dispose a player towards something like physical development (and in retrospect another draw back to the 3 way split of PA) it would have to be very careful of imposing any kind of restriction on it. 

Gareth Bale is the stand-out example in my mind, there was nothing too him for the longest time, since joining Real Madrid especially he seems to have developed physically (more of a glass cannon this season mind) when young I don't think anyone would particularly have highlighted him to become as physically exceptional as he has/had up until this season. 

It's why I think it's never moved towards anything on that front. The problem is then that there becomes more ways for researchers to get it wrong, thereby increasing the likeliness of getting it wrong, with increasingly dramatic effects in the game. 

It again comes back to the very organic, very subtle things that SI tend to choose down this route. 

That's why I'd prefer an optional variable to a "Physical PA" and would assume it would come with researcher recommendations about it being completely optional and recommended only for specific situations where a researcher is confident the player is a relatively early or late physical developer for their age or has some other anomaly in their development that needs to be accounted for.

(As @Raptor Longe correctly notes this is similar to his idea of a "natural talent" in that it's a (physical) growth speed parameter rather than a limit (except I'd also keep the PA with it's far more easily-interpreted and benchmarked effects as well)

I'd suggest visually representing it in the editor as a dropdown (or mutually exclusive checkboxes) rather than a number as well as its effects might not simply be a continuous number e.g. as well as as well as "Physically very mature", "Physically fairly mature", "Likely to continue growing" you might also get "Injury impaired" for players whose physique has been marked down as they've been out of the game for an extended period but might rapidly recover it in the right conditions, "Past physical peak" for players who have had premature body breakdowns. Though I must admit I'm struggling to think of an appropriate euphemism for "plenty of excess weight to lose" which might actually have the most potentially interesting possible effects on a player's future development.

Bale's an unusually late developer into a physical monster but also a bit of an exception to the rule that high PAs are rarely ever too harsh: IIRC his first fixed PA was about the same as Evra's which looked generous at the time (though tbh his ability as a fullback never has been that great!)

[ham_aka_stam]

16 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

Hmm I don't think it's flaws are gone, just hidden with each yearly release and data update. There are so many players who going back to previous fm's have the most random P.A values (especially in the lower leagues) that no matter the distribution would never reflect the players' real life abilities. The only reason it seems fine is they are updated yearly to more closely reflect real life, so people tend to forget how random P.A values can be. For a few examples, just look at Ousmane Dembele (one of the world's biggest talents) in fm15, which is just 2 or 3 years before now. Or at the Leicester group who won the title that same season. Or at those who rise from lower leagues as adults and have their C.A and P.A adjusted to compensate.

That's my problem as well, that it might get a lot more complex for everyone. Although seeing as the researchers work for free, I would assume they enjoy what they do, and thus might like the added thought put into it. As @BruceyNTFC shows above.

They are not flaws in the PA system, but flaws in the abilities of human beings (researchers are human, I believe :D) to predict the future.  They're also flaws that would be present in any of the other proposals present in this thread or anywhere else.

The game data is a snapshot of time, it cannot be expected to remain true to real life in all aspects as there are far too many variables at play.  Just like it can't be used to predict a team's performances, it can't be used to predict the potential of any given player.

The only difference between PA in FM and a player's potential in real-life, is that the curtain is lifted in FM such that we know it exists.  In real life every athlete, nay, every human has a "PA" for any given sport.  An absolute peak ability that they will only reach should all the various "stars align" and the environmental factors allow it.

The fact that a researcher often under-rates a given player's PA simply means they under-rated him at the time.  No different to if they get his Injury Proneness incorrect, or his level of Professionalism.  It may be the case that players reach their PA slightly too easily in FM... and researchers may be under-rating PA because of that, but that is a different issue altogether.  

If PA has a flaw, it is the flaw of CA: that a high CA player isn't always better, it just means he has higher attributes on average (with weighting applied).  Which also seems to have confused some people in here complaining that their world class players aren't improving any more

EDIT:

Assuming that someone who works for free will be willing to do more work for free is a dangerous path.  Perhaps this discussion should be for the researchers to have with SI...

[Dorin]

5 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

They are not flaws in the PA system, but flaws in the abilities of human beings (researchers are human, I believe :D) to predict the future.  They're also flaws that would be present in any of the other proposals present in this thread or anywhere else.

The game data is a snapshot of time, it cannot be expected to remain true to real life in all aspects as there are far too many variables at play.  Just like it can't be used to predict a team's performances, it can't be used to predict the potential of any given player.

The only difference between PA in FM and a player's potential in real-life, is that the curtain is lifted in FM such that we know it exists.  In real life every athlete, nay, every human has a "PA" for any given sport.  An absolute peak ability that they will only reach should all the various "stars align" and the environmental factors allow it.

The fact that a researcher often under-rates a given player's PA simply means they under-rated him at the time.  No different to if they get his Injury Proneness incorrect, or his level of Professionalism.  It may be the case that players reach their PA slightly too easily in FM... and researchers may be under-rating PA because of that, but that is a different issue altogether.  

If PA has a flaw, it is the flaw of CA: that a high CA player isn't always better, it just means he has higher attributes on average (with weighting applied).  Which also seems to have confused some people in here complaining that their world class players aren't improving any more

I think the discussion has reached the point of discussing individual beliefs about what potential is and how it works  Some believe it's a set thing, that's possible to achieve if everything goes right, others believe that potential is not a set thing and it is determined more by circumstances, environment & other individual traits (hard work, etc). Don't know if there's any point discussing this further since it's clear people have different beliefs and the current model works well for some and not well for others, and if this is changed it will just reverse the groups that will be pleased with the change and those that won't be

[ham_aka_stam]

13 minutes ago, Dorin said:

I think the discussion has reached the point of discussing individual beliefs about what potential is and how it works  Some believe it's a set thing, that's possible to achieve if everything goes right, others believe that potential is not a set thing and it is determined more by circumstances, environment & other individual traits (hard work, etc). Don't know if there's any point discussing this further since it's clear people have different beliefs and the current model works well for some and not well for others, and if this is changed it will just reverse the groups that will be pleased with the change and those that won't be

Potential has a definition, there's no belief in it.  It's something that may happen.  When talking about a sportsperson's potential you talk about the point they could reach.  Their actual performance/trajectory is influenced by circumstances, they may not reach their potential because of injuries, poor coaching, poor life-decisions, bad luck, but the potential was always there.

SI even provide advice on what they want PA to be measured as.

[Mikado911]

The topic is interesting to look at if we consider what we are looking for. Assuming that the aim of FM is to model real life football as closely as possible is flawed. The aim is to provide the best gaming experience for as many users as possible. This, of course goes through an experience that looks as realistic as possible to the player but also allow him a modicum of control so that he can feel an impact to his choices. Having some problems, like a player that can only improve marginally because he reached his potential very early and so despite his very dedicated attitude he cannot overcome his inherent limitations looks to me like slightly frustrating but also generates a very good story to tell and some role play that can be built around which is what FM does best. Claiming this to be unrealistic is unfortunately a mistake. I knew some kid that were dedicated and hard working but nonetheless could never learn to read (and his environment was not bad with good teachers). This was his inherent limitation and you could not change that whatever you did.

I will try to give an overview of various system to model progress that I came across during my gaming life. My job is to design models and my hobby is to adapt some of them to sports and so I study whatever I come across. I will try to point out what I think are the benefits and problems with them. The aim is to provide some ideas with which to work with.

I have to point out nonetheless that I fail to see where the proposition @Raptor Longe has effects that improve the end result or change it at all (depending on the way I understand it, see below). I agree with the arguments pointed out by @Cougar2010.

Let's get started and enjoy your read, I kept the most interesting ones at the end.

 

The endless grind:

Example: Football Tactics

This is the MMO style development system. Anyone can become anything, you just have to put in the work. While popular for its egalitarian point of view, i.e. every player has the same chances to become great, it becomes quite uninteresting as everyone is just rushing forward. Adapted to a football setting, you could see it as every player is giving a starting point and then get some experience point for every game he plays, every training session it attends and so on. Of course the number of point can be mitigated by the level of the opposition, the quality of the performance, of the infrastructures, of the coaching staff, etc... The limit is reached at a certain aged and then the player retire.

The result if fairly linear progression which does not provide a really interesting way of playing.

Pros: Everyone is equal except for the starting point.

Cons: Everyone is the same so its boring and does not generate good stories.

 

The peaking age grind:

Example: PES a few years back (haven't played recently)

Player progresses similarly to the previous one except that they have a peak age at which they start to stagnate and then decrease. This creates a fairly predictable way of development but with the interesting case where the player start regressing at an unknown time. Of course progress could also be stalled by other factors such as lack of playing time or injuries.

Pros: You cannot know when the player will stop.

Cons: Every player develops more or less the same way until he stops so still boring.

 

The FM system (CA-PA):

Example: Football Manager (of course)

Players have two attributes describing the current state of development with respect to the maximal reachable one. Development speed if development there is is decided by a large combination of factor, especially mental attributes. Players do not necessarily reach their max potential but cannot go further. I would put the @Cap'nRad's modification to three factors in this category. It would provide more varied development patterns which would be interesting.

Pros: The resulting distribution of talent is similar to what should be expected and development is strongly differentiated between players. It can allow for sometimes for late bloomers as the CA may not increase early on due to bad conditions, thus letting some margin for latter development.

Cons: The limit can be seen as arbitrary and development can appear stopped for no appearing reason except that CA = PA. This creates a state of "no-hope".

 

@Raptor Longe's proposition (first understanding):

The system is similar to the previous one except that PA are replaced a fixed new attributes called natural talent. Development speed is then capped by this talent, taking also into account all the other parameters. The effect, in my opinion, is a relatively linear and uninterrupted development of the player to reach some kind of peak which is now defined only by this natural talent and the starting point. See @Cougar2010 various posts for explanation on the math side. In other words, you have a hard limit set by your starting point, the natural talent and the age at which the player peaks. Unless you have a mechanism to encourage sudden burst of growth later in career, you will not have more late bloomers but you will probably loose the early wonder kids turned bust type.

Pros: No blunted growth due to a hard limit easily viewable.

Cons: Fewer patterns of development within an obfuscated hard limit fixed by a collection of parameters less easily identifiable leading to less frustration but the same end result.

 

@Raptor Longe's proposition (second understanding):

The new attribute can evolve during the game. This gives a more dynamic development rate possibilities. In fact, an interesting thing might be an attribute that vary depending on the age and some patterns. For example, a late bloomers will be able to progress very quickly between age 26 and 28 for example while not so much around it but only if given the adequate condition at the time.

Pros: More dynamic growth and varied patterns.

Cons: A nightmare for the researcher which will now have to predict the speed at different ages instead of the global reachable level.

 

The dynamic PA with various events:

Example: Out of The Park

Players have a potential for each attribute (in this case the attributes range from 1 to 200) which can actually be above the maximal value. Training and development of the player occurs as the current attributes increase. At the same time various events can modify the potential value and thus the maximal reachable value. Usually this induce a decrease following injuries, a sequence of random events (such as shooting yourself in the foot while cleaning your gun) and very rarely some events can lead to an increase in potential. For example, fixing a technical flaw or finding peace in yoga meditation. (I would like to point out that those positive one very rarely occurs). The whole system is coupled with a completely bling scouting system. You get to see the current estimate of the value by your scouts. Never do you see the actual attributes. There is always a margin of error. The consequence is that a lot of players are seen as having tons of potential and most of them will never reach anything to being useful for a first tier team (very accurate description for baseball, maybe less for football) and a few under the radar players can pop later on, either by being inadequately scouted early on or some random bizarre event. Of course, the training, match experience, level of play, coaching staff attributes, mental attributes and so on influences the evolution of attributes.

Pros: Lots of unpredictable development and various patterns.

Cons: Suitable for baseball where almost nobody reaches its potential and statistics are much more prominent. Not sure how it can be adapted to football.

 

The soft attribute cap with grind:

Example: Tennis Elbow (Manager or not)

Every players has a potential value for each attributes. Every day, they lose some part of their attributes (more the higher the attribute is and a lot more if it is above the potential cap) and these have to be regain by training. Training being impossible during injuries and more costly in terms of experience points the higher they are. Efficiency is modified by other parameters such as training facilities and coaches. Therefore, it is possible to temporarily go beyond the maximum potential but not for a sustained period of time. Age also increases the loss for every day training.

Pros: No hard limit and a fixed profile for each player. Early problems can lead to quite late blooms.

Cons: Very "gamey" system that can be easily abused by players in a Football Manager setting.

 

The quintuple attributes:

Example: My own projects (on a very small scale)

Every attribute has five different values. One is the current state of development (the actual level of the player) which can not exceed the "potential + bonus - decay" value which is fixed. The potential is the natural maximum the player should be expected to reach. The bonus value is a positive addition to the potential due to favourable circumstances such as having an excellent mentor. The decay on the other hand represents permanent loss of potential due to bad events such as severe injuries or old age. A fifth value is given by the boost attribute which represent a temporary minor modification due to either good form or minor injuries that will heal well. Note that the actual used in the engine is development + boost. Also, the development value goes down when the decay increase.

Pros: Allows for a lot of different patterns and potential very late growth.

Cons: Not really realistic and probably not suited for football.

 

Conclusion:

All these systems have various advantages and some can provide good new ideas if adapted correctly. In my opinion, one of the main problem is with real life players. Various of these systems, including the current FM systems are pretty good for regens but it will always be difficult to predict the development of real players. Some strong random events can also be viewed negatively when applied to real players. (I still got one of my player to be forced to retire due to injury in CM03-04 and that got me a hefty insurance payment). The most promising way to improve thing for me is to have a slightly variable maximal potential tied to random factors that are outside the control of the players. This could reinforce realism but at the price of an increased feeling of non-control by the player which might not be desirable. For the proposition from @Raptor Longe, if the natural growth is fixed then I think it will have probably close to zero impact to the actual system and more probably a bad effect with a levelling of the way player develop, leading to more uniform pattern making the game less interesting. If the attribute is however variable and tied to other factors, then it can be an interesting setting as could be a slightly more random PA. However, this does not solve the difficult problem of giving accurate predictions for real players which will always be a problem.

[Cap'nRad]

7 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

They are not flaws in the PA system, but flaws in the abilities of human beings (researchers are human, I believe :D) to predict the future.  They're also flaws that would be present in any of the other proposals present in this thread or anywhere else.

The game data is a snapshot of time, it cannot be expected to remain true to real life in all aspects as there are far too many variables at play.  Just like it can't be used to predict a team's performances, it can't be used to predict the potential of any given player.

I'm not sure you understand the O.P's problems with the current system. The problem with the current P.A isn't the fact that it can't predict the future, but that in a lot of cases, it simply does not allow for the future to happen. Every player, given a hundred different lifetimes, will probably turn out different than he is now. With a fixed P.A, there is only one path, one hard capped potential which he cannot succeed even with a thousand lifetimes. The discussion is aimed at ensuring that other different paths are possible, not only downward (failing to meet P.A) but upward (exceeding what the P.A would have been set as). Which in turn varies gameplay from save to save, and makes for a more realistic game experience. 

 

7 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

The only difference between PA in FM and a player's potential in real-life, is that the curtain is lifted in FM such that we know it exists.  In real life every athlete, nay, every human has a "PA" for any given sport.  An absolute peak ability that they will only reach should all the various "stars align" and the environmental factors allow it.

This is a "nature vs nurture" discussion, and I think the common consensus is that it's a bit of both. Nature (genetics) vs nurture (environment); which we're trying to model. However turning "nature" into a mensurable number seems flawed and unrealistic to me.

 

7 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

The fact that a researcher often under-rates a given player's PA simply means they under-rated him at the time.  No different to if they get his Injury Proneness incorrect, or his level of Professionalism.  It may be the case that players reach their PA slightly too easily in FM... and researchers may be under-rating PA because of that, but that is a different issue altogether.  

If PA has a flaw, it is the flaw of CA: that a high CA player isn't always better, it just means he has higher attributes on average (with weighting applied).  Which also seems to have confused some people in here complaining that their world class players aren't improving any more

I believe it means something different. To me it means that they have little idea of what a player will become in future, which wouldn't be a problem if there were no P.A number. If they are familiar with his current ability, strengths, and weaknesses, then they can allow the game to model a path for him to take, different in every save, but still produced by the same variables.

 

7 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

Assuming that someone who works for free will be willing to do more work for free is a dangerous path.  Perhaps this discussion should be for the researchers to have with SI...

You're right, although i think the word dangerous is a bit strong... I'm guessing some may be willing, some may not; it just needs to be discussed. 

[Cap'nRad]

1 hour ago, Mikado911 said:

In my opinion, one of the main problem is with real life players. Various of these systems, including the current FM systems are pretty good for regens but it will always be difficult to predict the development of real players.

This is where I think the proposal confuses some people. The aim isn't to accurately predict the development of players, but to ensure that all development paths are accounted for using the researcher's knowledge. The P.A as a fixed number restricts that.

1 hour ago, Mikado911 said:

Having some problems, like a player that can only improve marginally because he reached his potential very early and so despite his very dedicated attitude he cannot overcome his inherent limitations looks to me like slightly frustrating but also generates a very good story to tell and some role play that can be built around which is what FM does best. Claiming this to be unrealistic is unfortunately a mistake. I knew some kid that were dedicated and hard working but nonetheless could never learn to read (and his environment was not bad with good teachers). This was his inherent limitation and you could not change that whatever you did.

That situation is quite realistic and hopefully we can figure out a way to model situations like that without the use of P.A. The problem arises when it is the only possible outcome out of thousands of different lifetimes, then I would say that it's unrealistic.

[Cap'nRad]

1 hour ago, Mikado911 said:

For the proposition from @Raptor Longe, if the natural growth is fixed then I think it will have probably close to zero impact to the actual system and more probably a bad effect with a levelling of the way player develop, leading to more uniform pattern making the game less interesting. If the attribute is however variable and tied to other factors, then it can be an interesting setting as could be a slightly more random PA. However, this does not solve the difficult problem of giving accurate predictions for real players which will always be a problem.

I think great impact can only come as a result of the removal of P.A. The impact would be more variation among the players and removal of limitations to the variability of player progression paths.

Also, the aim is less to give accurate predictions (as I think the probabilities of accuracy are quite low) but to mirror different real life player progressions which are currently not in the game.

[enigmatic]

39 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

I'm not sure you understand the O.P's problems with the current system. The problem with the current P.A isn't the fact that it can't predict the future, but that in a lot of cases, it simply does not allow for the future to happen. Every player, given a hundred different lifetimes, will probably turn out different than he is now. With a fixed P.A, there is only one path, one hard capped potential which he cannot succeed even with a thousand lifetimes. The discussion is aimed at ensuring that other different paths are possible, not only downward (failing to meet P.A) but upward (exceeding what the P.A would have been set as). Which in turn varies gameplay from save to save, and makes for a more realistic game experience. 

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't.

Young Jamie Vardy in early FMs: potential of ~100

Young Jamie Vardy in hypothetical system: "natural talent" rated very lowly because he's a failed youth prospect playing in the lower divisions where all he needs is speed, professionalism rated very lowly because he turns up to training drunk, ambition rated very lowly because he spent three consecutive seasons earning £30 per week at Stockbridge Park Steels. CA never improves above 100 in game because the game development model ensures that Conference standard players in their mid twenties with low starting ability, low natural talent, unprofessional attitudes and lack of ambition only improve very slowly and as a 24 year old he's only got five years of improvement possible in the best case scenario. In some saves he gets released and fails to find another contract, in some saves he reaches the heady heights of League Two but fails to get into the team, in a couple of saves he actually loses some of his rawness but under absolutely no circumstances does the range of possible development paths allow someone with his starting attributes to become an England star.

So if you're setting development speed parameters, there's still a maximum limit of ability most players can reach in the best possible FM game situation based on a function of their starting ability, age, an development parameters like natural talent, mental attributes and other factors like position. And assuming SI wants to stop most players with good attitudes and moderate talent becoming world class then the effective limits for most players will actually be quite low. Only now the researcher probably doesn't understand what that limit actually is when setting it, which is probably a step further backwards

[Cap'nRad]

3 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

But as has been repeatedly pointed out, it doesn't.

Young Jamie Vardy in early FMs: potential of ~100

Young Jamie Vardy in hypothetical system: "natural talent" rated very lowly because he's a failed youth prospect playing in the lower divisions where all he needs is speed, professionalism rated very lowly because he turns up to training drunk, ambition rated very lowly because he spent three consecutive seasons earning £30 per week at Stockbridge Park Steels. CA never improves above 100 in game because the game development model ensures that Conference standard players in their mid twenties with low starting ability, low natural talent, unprofessional attitudes and lack of ambition only improve very slowly and he's only got five years of improvement possible. So there's still a maximum limit a player can reach in the best possible FM game situation, only now the researcher doesn't understand what that limit actually is...

I was talking more about the 3 variables in tandem, not just natural talent in isolation.

In real life, Jamie Vardy improved due to an improved attitude. He always had the physical talent (aka high physical rating), but lacked the professionalism and ambition. In the current system, once he hits the age of 24, he's done for. The best case scenario is he's a lower league striker. In the proposed system, if he improves his attitude (see below) and works hard in training (with the manager focusing on his physical attributes) then he might improve his physicals despite being over 24. A boost maybe high enough to make him overperform in his league, get picked up by a bigger team, and then improve his mentals faster due to playing in a higher league and being more dedicated to it. Sure, he might never reach Leicester levels but that would vary from save to save. And of course this would all be in the best case scenarios, which is fortunately what his real life was for him: simply one of the best case scenarios given his situation in the lower leagues. 

As you can see, in the proposal, there is the possibility for some upward variability, which even though it may not reflect real life exactly, is still more realistic and variable than the current system in which he would be doomed to retire at 26.

 

PS: This is a good example of another problem with the current 'age-limiting' system: Above a certain age, players attitudes are very hard to improve. It shouldn't be very easy, but possible; in game it's near impossible. Although I'm not sure if this is the thread for that.

[Dorin]

2 hours ago, ham_aka_stam said:

Potential has a definition, there's no belief in it.  It's something that may happen.  When talking about a sportsperson's potential you talk about the point they could reach.  Their actual performance/trajectory is influenced by circumstances, they may not reach their potential because of injuries, poor coaching, poor life-decisions, bad luck, but the potential was always there.

SI even provide advice on what they want PA to be measured as.

Potential= "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future."
That's the definition. Potential is a concept that by the very definition of it cannot be measured since none of us can accurately predict the future. Therefore you or anyone else cannot say if a certain person has reached his/her potential simply because nobody ever accurately measured what that potential is, it's not presented to you or anyone else when you are born. So therefore in my opinion this discussion tends to go in a loop.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Dorin said:

Potential= "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future."
That's the definition. Potential is a concept that by the very definition of it cannot be measured since none of us can accurately predict the future. Therefore you or anyone else cannot say if a certain person has reached his/her potential simply because nobody ever accurately measured what that potential is, it's not presented to you or anyone else when you are born. So therefore in my opinion this discussion tends to go in a loop.

In FM, it's the best you can ever be.

[Dorin]

Just now, HUNT3R said:

In FM, it's the best you can ever be.

Yes, that's in FM, and that's why this whole discussion is about maybe changing the way it works in FM too.

[enigmatic]

8 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

I was talking more about the 3 variables in tandem, not just natural talent in isolation.

In real life, Jamie Vardy improved due to an improved attitude. He always had the physical talent (aka high physical rating), but lacked the professionalism and ambition. In the current system, once he hits the age of 24, he's done for. The best case scenario is he's a lower league striker. In the proposed system, if he improves his attitude (see below) and works hard in training (with the manager focusing on his physical attributes) then he might improve his physicals despite being over 24. A boost maybe high enough to make him overperform in his league, get picked up by a bigger team, and then improve his mentals faster due to playing in a higher league and being more dedicated to it. Sure, he might never reach Leicester levels but that would vary from save to save. And of course this would all be in the best case scenarios, which is fortunately what his real life was for him: simply one of the best case scenarios given his situation in the lower leagues. 

As you can see, in the proposal, there is the possibility for some upward variability, which even though it may not reflect real life exactly, is still more realistic and variable than the current system in which he would be doomed to retire at 26.

 

PS: This is a good example of another problem with the current 'age-limiting' system: Above a certain age, players attitudes are very hard to improve. It shouldn't be very easy, but possible; in game it's near impossible. Although I'm not sure if this is the thread for that.

He always had the talent, but there's no way a researcher would have known that.  

He didn't get a 145PA, after all. So he wouldn't get the 20  "natural talent" needed to give a 24 year old Conference-standard striker a non-zero chance of improving rapidly enough to to play football at the high end of the Premier League in three years time. (Also, the game generally doesn't significantly improve players' professionalism from 24 onwards).

 

[Cap'nRad]

7 minutes ago, Dorin said:

Potential= "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future."
That's the definition. Potential is a concept that by the very definition of it cannot be measured since none of us can accurately predict the future. Therefore you or anyone else cannot say if a certain person has reached his/her potential simply because nobody ever accurately measured what that potential is, it's not presented to you or anyone else when you are born. So therefore in my opinion this discussion tends to go in a loop.

You're right, it cannot be measured but only guessed. And guessing potential can be tricky in some cases, and straightforward in others. In the case of a technically excellent wonderkid, one can guess his potential by assuming he improves significantly mentally and maybe physically. The same goes for the mental and physically gifted ones. Imo, the tricky (almost impossible) part comes in gauging how much their mentals can improve, as this can significantly influence a player's level and is something that is not always very evident. This is probably where in real life assumptions have to be made, especially with signing young wonderkids.

[HUNT3R]

12 minutes ago, Dorin said:

Yes, that's in FM, and that's why this whole discussion is about maybe changing the way it works in FM too.

Yes. Let's let players be better than they can ever be. Chaos ftw.

Everyone has a limit. That limit needs to be there. That limit is PA.

[Cap'nRad]

Just now, enigmatic said:

He always had the talent, but there's no way a researcher would have known that.  

He didn't get a 145PA, after all. So he wouldn't get the 20  "natural talent" needed to give a 24 year old Conference-standard striker a non-zero chance of improving rapidly enough to to play football at the high end of the Premier League in three years time. (Also, the game generally doesn't significantly improve players' professionalism from 24 onwards).

 

I'm not talking about only natural talent, hopefully you read my full reply... I said that regardless of natural talent he had physical talent which could potentially carry him higher than what the game currently can, if he is dedicated enough to improve it.

[Cap'nRad]

2 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Yes. Let's let players be better than they can ever be. Chaos ftw.

My issue is thinking of some sort of limiting factor to growth besides P.A. With such measures in place it might be more chaotic, but also hopefully more controlled, varied and fun.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Cap'nRad said:

My issue is thinking of some sort of limiting factor to growth besides P.A. With such measures in place it might be more chaotic, but also hopefully more controlled, varied and fun.

So... not PA at all, but changes to CA.

[Dorin]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Yes. Let's let players be better than they can ever be. Chaos ftw.

Everyone has a limit. That limit needs to be there. That limit is PA.

I understand this is your opinion, but take it as that... your opinion. That very assumption to me it means that you know from the start what the very best a player can be. My opinion of  how potential works in real life differs from yours: I believe that I or anyone else can never really know what is the best somebody is capable of.  I understand physical limits and talent, but the mental aspect is 95% of what leads to a player's success again, in my opinion. How determined they are to succeed, how hard working they are and disciplined and motivated can have a much bigger impact on how high their potential should be set.

[HUNT3R]

Just now, Dorin said:

 That very assumption to me it means that you know from the start what the very best a player can be. 

This is where it goes wrong. You don't know this. The researchers set it.

[Cap'nRad]

13 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

So... not PA at all, but changes to CA.

Well, yes, since hopefully P.A would be nonexistent by that point...

[Dorin]

3 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

This is where it goes wrong. You don't know this. The researchers set it.

In this case I was referring to game generated players, as I had mentioned earlier in the thread, not real players with stats set by researchers.
But also, with real players: The fact the researchers set the PA based on what they know at that time to be true doesn't mean that it should be the final decision of the potential for that player, ever, in the game - that's how the game treats it now after you start a new save. That PA won't change from year to year in game.

Following this logic in real life game development, you would only need to set a database of players once and their potential ability rating should never change after that from one FM edition to the next, just their other stats can change up to the limit that equals their PA (the PA set the first time they were scouted by researchers). But, this doesn't happen that often with the majority of players during multiple years of FM development, does it? From one FM edition to the other researchers often correct and re-set different PA values as they see fit to better match their expectations based on what they learn later about that player during the course of the year.
And if that's true in many cases from one edition to the other, why should there be a different logic behind setting PA in the game only once and not readjusting it from time to time? I, personally, don't find the logic in this inflexibility.
 

[enigmatic]

15 minutes ago, Dorin said:

From one FM edition to the other researchers often correct and re-set different PA values as they see fit to better match their expectations based on what they learn later about that player during the course of the year.
And if that's true in many cases from one edition to the other, why should there be a different logic behind setting PA in the game only once and not readjusting it from time to time? I, personally, don't find the logic in this inflexibility.

I don't see the logic in assuming that because researchers correct their perceptions of potential based on real world information, the game should randomly alter potential based on no real world information...

[Dorin]

1 minute ago, enigmatic said:

I don't see the logic in assuming that because researchers correct their perceptions of potential based on real world information, the game should randomly alter potential based on no real world information...

That's a fair point. And I'd like that the game should not randomly alter potential because it has no real world information, shouldn't randomly alter PA at all, but it should alter PA based on the "game world" that has evolved at a later date in the game taking into account changed circumstances for different players, if that makes sense  .. the example of drastically changing environment for a player who is already playing at a CA close to his PA and after a transfer to a better team with better training&coaching setup & after enough match experience vs better opposition, where he is likely to still grow if all goes well and no injuries occur.
Might be a model too advanced to simulate, but one can at least suggest it

 

[perpetua]

2 minutes ago, Dorin said:

That's a fair point. And I'd like that the game should not randomly alter potential because it has no real world information, shouldn't randomly alter PA at all, but it should alter PA based on the "game world" that has evolved at a later date in the game taking into account changed circumstances for different players, if that makes sense  .. the example of drastically changing environment for a player who is already playing at a CA close to his PA and after a transfer to a better team with better training&coaching setup & after enough match experience vs better opposition, where he is likely to still grow if all goes well and no injuries occur.
Might be a model too advanced to simulate, but one can at least suggest it

 

A player's potential doesn't improve because he moves to a bigger club, a player transfers to a bigger club because he has potential.

[Cap'nRad]

14 minutes ago, perpetua said:

A player's potential doesn't improve because he moves to a bigger club, a player transfers to a bigger club because he has potential.

Players with low potential in fm move to big clubs all the time. Their ability and potential boosts come after the fact. 

[Maaka]

10 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

Players with low potential in fm move to big clubs all the time. Their ability and potential boosts come after the fact. 

But their potential was always the same, the move just made it a bit easier to reach that potential.

[Cap'nRad]

14 minutes ago, Maaka said:

But their potential was always the same, the move just made it a bit easier to reach that potential.

I didn't explain properly. I meant players with low potential in fm move to big clubs in real life all the time. After which their fm ability and potential is boosted.

[perpetua]

23 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

Players with low potential in fm move to big clubs all the time. Their ability and potential boosts come after the fact. 

A player moving to a big club in real life signals he may have a higher potential than researchers initially thought, so the estimate may be revised.

A player with a sufficiently low PA will not get shortlisted by a big club and not bought by said big club in the game because the player will be deemed not to have enough potential.

If the game starts to increase the potentials of players transferred by big clubs, what is to stop a 50 PA player from being bought for pennies by Real Madrid and then have his PA boosted as a result?  Clubs don't have a magic potion to improve players' potential.  They look to help players realize their potential.

[Cap'nRad]

6 minutes ago, perpetua said:

A player moving to a big club in real life signals he may have a higher potential than researchers initially thought, so the estimate may be revised.

Yes, however this highlights one of the disadvantages of a P.A number, which I've mentioned several times already.

7 minutes ago, perpetua said:

If the game starts to increase the potentials of players transferred by big clubs, what is to stop a 50 PA player from being bought for pennies by Real Madrid and then have his PA boosted as a result?  Clubs don't have a magic potion to improve players' potential.  They look to help players realize their potential.

The proposal was never to randomly increase P.A, but to replace it with a better system. So this scenario isn't really relevant.

[CFuller]

6 minutes ago, perpetua said:

If the game starts to increase the potentials of players transferred by big clubs, what is to stop a 50 PA player from being bought for pennies by Real Madrid and then have his PA boosted as a result?  Clubs don't have a magic potion to improve players' potential.  They look to help players realize their potential.

Precisely this. 

Bebé's potential didn't suddenly increase when he joined Manchester United. Neither did Cohen Bramall's when he went from Hednesford to Arsenal.

[Cap'nRad]

Just now, CFuller said:

Precisely this. 

Bebé's potential didn't suddenly increase when he joined Manchester United. Neither did Cohen Bramall's when he went from Hednesford to Arsenal.

 

2 minutes ago, Cap'nRad said:

The proposal was never to randomly increase P.A, but to replace it with a better system. So this scenario isn't really relevant.

 

[ham_aka_stam]

3 hours ago, Cap'nRad said:

I'm not sure you understand the O.P's problems with the current system. The problem with the current P.A isn't the fact that it can't predict the future, but that in a lot of cases, it simply does not allow for the future to happen. Every player, given a hundred different lifetimes, will probably turn out different than he is now. With a fixed P.A, there is only one path, one hard capped potential which he cannot succeed even with a thousand lifetimes. The discussion is aimed at ensuring that other different paths are possible, not only downward (failing to meet P.A) but upward (exceeding what the P.A would have been set as). Which in turn varies gameplay from save to save, and makes for a more realistic game experience. 

This is a "nature vs nurture" discussion, and I think the common consensus is that it's a bit of both. Nature (genetics) vs nurture (environment); which we're trying to model. However turning "nature" into a mensurable number seems flawed and unrealistic to me.

I believe it means something different. To me it means that they have little idea of what a player will become in future, which wouldn't be a problem if there were no P.A number. If they are familiar with his current ability, strengths, and weaknesses, then they can allow the game to model a path for him to take, different in every save, but still produced by the same variables.

You're right, although i think the word dangerous is a bit strong... I'm guessing some may be willing, some may not; it just needs to be discussed. 

It does allow the future to happen.

There isn't only one path, there is only one maximum CA he can reach.  Firstly, CA is not the be all and end all.  This is the maximum the researcher thinks that player could reach.  It doesn't mean he's going to reach it, or follow a path that allows him to reach it.  If  he languishes in the lower leagues, he'll never reach it.  If he chooses to play for teams who play him out of position, he may perform badly and never reach it.  If he gets a bad injury, he may never reach it.

Nature is not the PA, nature is your assumption that they have a fixed path regardless of environmental factors.  That simply isn't the case in FM.

You mention a player getting passed what his P.A. would have been.  Can you not see how daft that is?  If players could be better than their maximum possible ability, then you'd just grab any high CA youngster from the lower leagues, play them, and they'd improve indefinitely.

2 hours ago, Dorin said:

Potential= "having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future."
That's the definition. Potential is a concept that by the very definition of it cannot be measured since none of us can accurately predict the future. Therefore you or anyone else cannot say if a certain person has reached his/her potential simply because nobody ever accurately measured what that potential is, it's not presented to you or anyone else when you are born. So therefore in my opinion this discussion tends to go in a loop.

I read that definition too, but I'm not sure how it disproves what I said.  

And you've hit the nail on the head with: nobody ever accurately measured what that potential is.  You're not meant to know what an FM player's PA is.  It's just meant to sit there as a hidden, invisible, unknown maximum that that player could reach.  Or, the maximum capacity that player has to develop to something in the future.  If you lot had no way of seeing PA, you would never know whether your player had reached  their potential, you would never know if he had room for improvement, you would never know just how good he could have been had you had slightly better coaches, or played him in that cup game a year or two earlier, or not over-played him as a teenager and saw him suffer over-use injuries.  This is exactly the way potential is meant to work, and the way it works in real life.

I may have a 180 PA, but I was never any good as a kid (low initial CA), so I never got adequate football training, never played in the 1st team, never got spotted by a bigger club, never got scouted by a pro team, never joined the youth ranks etc. etc.  That is how PA is meant to work.

And you're right it can't be measured, but neither can a player's injury proneness, determination, teamwork.  Researchers simply have to put a number to these things or game wouldn't exist.

2 hours ago, Dorin said:

Yes, that's in FM, and that's why this whole discussion is about maybe changing the way it works in FM too.

But why? No-one has pointed to a reason why which isn't immediately disproved.  Equally no-one has offered an alternative which is any better.