Player development makes zero sense to me in this game.

[Sharkn20]

Player development is great as it is, don't nerf it please.

People that have 0 idea about futbol are talking about outliers here, obviously 0 input or insight about the hundreds of thousands players that follow normal curves.

Ignore them, keep it as it is.

[FlorianAlbert9]

40 minuti fa, Sharkn20 ha scritto:

Player development is great as it is, don't nerf it please.

People that have 0 idea about futbol are talking about outliers here, obviously 0 input or insight about the hundreds of thousands players that follow normal curves.

Ignore them, keep it as it is.

Try to ask to professional scout if they make their report on Young players taking in account their 'potential ability' attributes.

[goranm]

1 hour ago, bowieinspace said:

But you’re talking about two different players who will develop in different ways at different times, with different ceilings. If the game was so simple that players developed exactly as you expected them to it would be very boring 

But the development is very boring and they do develop as expected (as I would expect the game to develop them, not how I would expect players IRL to develop). Players will max out at 24ish and already at 19/20 I pretty much know how a player will turn out. The DLP in my example above I already know won't ever be good enough for my squad, and I knew since he was 19. Coaches are still reporting that he's a 4 yellow star talent, but I know that as soon as he hits 22/23 they'll very likely re-evaluate down to 3-3.5 stars. If you play the game long enough, you'll even start picking up on the underlying starting attribute patterns of newgens.

The point of that example was to show that first-team experience and match performance doesn't strongly influence the development. The player only has to get first-team experience, and they don't even have to get a lot of it. It's essentially a 1 or a 0 with match experience and performance, there's not a lot of nuance to it. Because if match experience and performance does strongly influence development, then there's no reason why BPD with more than double the minutes, 10x the international experience etc. shouldn't develop at least at approx the same rate as the DLP, given that everything else is the same (age, personality, morale, coaches, facilities etc.). But in fact he has been developing at a slower rate over the past 3.5 years. Hence it is the underlying pattern that is dominating the development.

Edited January 4, 2021 by goranm

[Platinum]

13 minutes ago, goranm said:

But the development is very boring and they do develop as expected (as I would expect the game to develop them, not how I would expect players IRL to develop). Players will max out at 24ish and already at 19/20 I pretty much know how a player will turn out. The DLP in my example above I already know won't ever be good enough for my squad, and I knew since he was 19. Coaches are still reporting that he's a 4 yellow star talent, but I know that as soon as he hits 22/23 they'll very likely re-evaluate down to 3-3.5 stars. If you play the game long enough, you'll even start picking up on the underlying starting attribute patterns of newgens.

The point of that example was to show that first-team experience and match performance doesn't strongly influence the development. The player only has to get first-team experience, and they don't even have to get a lot of it. It's essentially a 1 or a 0 with match experience and performance, there's not a lot of nuance to it. Because if match experience and performance does strongly influence development, then there's no reason why BPD with more than double the minutes, 10x the international experience etc. shouldn't develop at least at approx the same rate as the DLP, given that everything else is the same (age, personality, morale, coaches, facilities etc.). But in fact he has been developing at a slower rate over the past 3.5 years. Hence it is the underlying pattern that is dominating the development.

Each player has different "key development years", which will determine the ages a player will develop most. For most players this is their teens and early 20s for other players it includes their mid and later 20s. This is hidden from us so we cant see it and because this you cant make this type of comparison.

On top of that at 24 years old you can have a very good idea on the level a player will reach for the vast majority of players. Players that reach much higher levels later in their career are a rare exception

Edited January 4, 2021 by francis#17

[goranm]

4 minutes ago, francis#17 said:

Each player has different "key development years", which will determine the ages a player will develop most. For most players this is their teens and early 20s for other players it includes their mid and later 20s. This is hidden from us so we cant see it and because this you cant make this type of comparison.

Yes, that's the point of what I am saying, that the hidden hard-coded development pattern dominates development over match experience and match performance.

7 minutes ago, francis#17 said:

On top of that at 24 years old you can have a very good idea on the level a player will reach for the vast majority of players. Players that reach much higher levels later in their career are a rare exception

That's not what the issue is. The issue is that players after age 24 pretty much stagnate. It's not about players reaching much higher levels, it's about reaching just higher levels. Right now I can give you 10 players off the top of my head that are/were noticeably better at or after age 27/28/29 than at 24: Suarez, Modric, Pirlo, Van Dijk, Mane, Lewandowski, Xavi, De Bruyne, Sneijder, Robben. If you go from club to club you'll find plenty of players that were/are better at 27 than at 24.

[herne79]

7 hours ago, goranm said:

Because if match experience and performance does strongly influence development, then there's no reason why BPD with more than double the minutes, 10x the international experience etc. shouldn't develop at least at approx the same rate as the DLP, given that everything else is the same (age, personality, morale, coaches, facilities etc.). But in fact he has been developing at a slower rate over the past 3.5 years.

Everything else is not the same.  You even prove that yourself by your last sentence: "in fact he has been developing at a slower rate over the past 3.5 years".  If everything were the same he wouldn't have developed at a slower rate.

I said this to you earlier, there are many variables in a very complex model which nobody but SI fully understands.  It is that complexity which produces such varied results.  So yes, players with more match experience may tend to develop "better" than others with less experience, but that is no guarantee they will and it is perfectly possible for players with less experience to develop better.  But that also does not mean that development is keyed in before events such as matches take place, development is still a result of events.

7 hours ago, goranm said:

The issue is that players after age 24 pretty much stagnate.

The best thing that anyone can do who sees this issue is to start a thread in the bugs forum, upload your game saves to the ftp server, describe the issue in the thread and let SI take a look at it.  Instructions of how to do that are in the bugs forum.  SI need this evidence if they are to do anything - yes they run their own soak tests but those tests will never be as extensive or with such variety as the millions of game saves us users create.

Discuss it here by all means but if you want SI to review things that's the only way it'll happen.

[enigmatic]

5 minutes ago, goranm said:

I gave an example above in which two players, of same age (21), training the same amount of time with the first-team (18-21), of the same personality (Fairly Professional), in the same unit (defensive), except one has more than double the minutes of the other, more than 10x the international experience, and performed better on average by far. Intuitively, the one with more experience should improve at least at the same rate as the other, yet with only the "are they playing enough at the right level" we the get counter-intuitive result that the player with less experience, less minutes, less pretty much everything improved more. According to that information, and at least in that example, the ME has little to no impact on development, and the predetermined hard-coded development curve completely dominates whichever development information the ME outputs.

Alternatively, we could conclude that FM's development model includes more than just number of matches played. Which is not particularly surprising, since real world player development is also not a simple relationship whereby players who play more games always develop more than their peers.

 

6 minutes ago, goranm said:

No, because "cooking a lot" doesn't give you information about anything except that B was in the kitchen a lot. You don't know if Person B was cooking a lot badly. Person A might as well just read the recipe and make better scrambled eggs than B who maybe spent years improvising on the recipe and picked up bad habits because nobody else was tasting their food.

I mean, you've gone to some lengths to disagree with me, but insisting that it isn't reasonable to assume that somebody has never cooked before is less likely to win Masterchef than a regular cook because they might have a recipe for scrambled eggs is a whole new level 

 

32 minutes ago, goranm said:

No, it's not, because you have all the information across all the period of time the player was with you. Confirmation bias is about having some of the information about some of the period of time. You not only see a player convert, you also see him fail. If someone fails at a much greater rate than they succeed in a skill (in relative terms for the skill that they're undertaking), they generally will not become better in the future.

You don't have information on a player's future performances. Assuming that because someone has failed at a much greater rate than they succeeded, they will not become better (or vice versa) is classic confirmation bia

 

9 minutes ago, goranm said:

As I've said, this is a very rudimentary model with flaws, I didn't spend more than 2 minutes thinking about it. Insisting that this is actually how I want it implemented just shows that you're arguing in bad faith

I'm not sure the fact that you couldn't be bothered to spend enough time checking the one detail of your model you specified didn't flatly contradict your own bizarre insistence that no player improves their football ability until after they make their professional debut shows that I am arguing in bad faith 

 

20 minutes ago, goranm said:

Again, you can have a correct weighing that does not have correlate with how the ME produces actions. The point is to simulate development, not to carbon-copy the ME. For example, there are several types of difficult passes, each has their own probabilities assigned in the ME. For the purposes of development, you could group them all in a single group and assign a single score to that group.

Yes, you could do this, but clearly the weight for specific passes would be incorrect even if the weight for the group was on average correct. The score would most likely overrate the difficulty of the harder passes in the group and underrate the difficulty of the weaker ones. This would benefit the development of Passing more in players who attempted more of the higher probability passes in the difficult group and fewer of the lower probability ones. I am not sure why you would want to do this, but it certainly isn't something which would result in more realistic development.

 

19 minutes ago, goranm said:

In the realm of all possibilities for development models, saying that this is the only way to be done requires some evidence.

We're not talking about all possible development models though, we're talking about development models driven by the delta between a performance target and actual performance in a simulation. No 'evidence' is required to understand that the actual performance can only exceed the performance target on average if at least some performance targets are lower than the true average performance the simulation is calibrated to produce. It's basic maths.

Admittedly, you'd now rather argue a never-cooked-before individual with a recipe for scrambled eggs might stand a chance on Masterchef than cease mindlessly and pointlessly contradicting me, so I think you're probably up to the task of arguing that the laws of maths should also be changed.  

[Gramm0]

I spent way too much time reading this thread, so I might as well make a few  comments:

1. Players shouldn't have a CA boost because they played well. They played well with the CA level they have already. Similarly if a player suddenly plays a bad season, they shouldn't have their CA lowered, as this will create a downward spiral, and they will play worse next season. They were perfectly capable of playing bad with their current CA. If players get a boost to attributes after a data update because they have been playing well, it is only because the human researcher got it wrong in the first place. Guessing how much a player improved last season or will improve next season is really difficult for researchers.

2. Players also learn from their mistakes. Sometimes they train harder after a bad game. Therefore a bad performance shouldn't stop them from learning.

3. Players spend so much more time in training than they do in matches. So they practice technical attributes (long shots, free kick taking etc.) 100 times more in training, than they do in game. Similarly with physical attributes. So match time shouldn't improve these much. I do however believe, that games improve some of the mental attributes in a way, that training cannot. Since the CA is tied between these categories (this is the best model we have, since it allows researchers to model players to play like they do in real life), match experience also matters in the development model today. Perhaps there could be separate CA for these categories for new-gens.

4. One reason a lot of players haven't experienced development after the age of 24, is probably because the player manager is so good at developing them before that age, and are mostly buying youth instead of older players for this reason. This is myself included. I usually buy young and sell early. But I have seen improvements in reserves older than 24, who I have suddenly had to rely on. In my experience, really high PA players keep improving through, unless they are as good as Mbappe when they are young. If you want to experience more Jamie Vardy's and Luca Tony's, you need to be a small club that takes a gamble on an over-performing lower league player, and give him playing time, even when he loses form

Is SI's model perfect? Probably not, but it is pretty good, and I'm sure they continually improve it and listen to feedback from us. 

 

[Sharkn20]

On 04/01/2021 at 01:27, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Try to ask to professional scout if they make their report on Young players taking in account their 'potential ability' attributes.

Are you a professional scout? Or do you know a professional scout? Or do you even know what tools a professional scout uses? Or by that matter, do You know what a professional scout does?

Professional scouts are paid to guess the future development of a player, and if they are likely to achieve it based on traits and work ethic, among other factors. I could expand a lot more on this as am fairly knowledgeable in this subject. But I don't think You would understand.

I suggest You to read a little bit about the matter, before starting a discussion with someone more versed than You in those aspects.

So tired of reading Amateurs voicing pointless conocerns when they have no base to support their arguments.

[FrazT]

I have already had to post a warning in this thread only 2 days ago, so last warning here.  If you all cant discuss, debate and disagree with other users without resorting to digs at each other then further action will be taken and the thread closed.

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, Sharkn20 ha scritto:

Are you a professional scout? Or do you know a professional scout? Or do you even know what tools a professional scout uses? Or by that matter, do You know what a professional scout does?

Professional scouts are paid to guess the future development of a player, and if they are likely to achieve it based on traits and work ethic, among other factors. I could expand a lot more on this as am fairly knowledgeable in this subject. But I don't think You would understand.

I suggest You to read a little bit about the matter, before starting a discussion with someone more versed than You in those aspects.

So tired of reading Amateurs voicing pointless conocerns when they have no base to support their arguments.

Yeah, i know two pro scouts. 

I talked with them 2 year ago. 

And they told me there was NO tool that can tell them the genetic potential limit of a player (that is the game PA)

Are you tell me that in that 2 years someone has development  a such tool? 

If yes, ok, my mistake. 

But if there is no tool that can analyze the genetic limit of person, then It's Better you starting to think before post. 

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by FlorianAlbert9

[DarJ]

I've only read a few comments from when this was initially posted and I agree that player development is very fast and it stops really early, however, we have to keep in mind that realistically most people don't play a save for even up to 10 seasons and the game comes out every year so it makes sense. If you're only going to play a save for 5 seasons or 10 at most then you would never see a player reach his full potential if SI have to implement some of the suggestions people have given here

[Jervaj]

On 03/01/2021 at 12:00, WeePaul said:

Isn't that realistic though? When discussing that particular kind of development curve, everyone talks about Vardy. He's the go-to example. And that's because there are very, very few players with the kind of development curve like he's had. 

I think there is another factor though for Vardy been rare. Been the context that caused that kind of curve is rare itself.

Meaning, players with a good potential akin to what we could assume Vardy have will either be discovered early and have the opportunity to tap onto that potential early as a consequence, or will not be discovered early and will never tap onto their potential, as top teams are way less likely to take risks with older players hoping they may improve. So this doesn't neccesarily mean that player with potential of developping later are that rare.

The thing is, and I know I say the following just based on a limited personal experience and the input of others, that it doesn't seem like that can happen in FM21 right now. Because even milder instances of late development seem very rare.

I happened to have started using the editor in game more understand how some things work that aren't really apparent at first. Mostly to observe changes. And I have seen that most players my team started with had remaining potential. I think in fact that only the keeper was truly "capped" at least CA wise. In over two seasons though, all the 24+ players have seen almost no improvements. Like we are talking top 1-2 attribute point total increases in 2 and a half seasons. This with great coaching, facilities, playing time, results and even personalities in some cases. Its a small sample, but it fells like if there was decent chances of players of this age developing notably at all someone should have improved more. This is reinforced again by the community comments. It might not be true, but the suspicion so far goes this way.

Also, funny fact. There is actually an exception to what i said before. The actual oldest player been almost 38 yo now. He has actually grown a bunch of points. Thing ia this has been paired with notable losses on the physical side, so it feels the game its not reluctant per se at letting attributes themselves change.  It just seems to want CA not to grow. As his ca has not really changed, he has changed skills around. I assume also affected by him having a great personality other wise he would have had a net lose most likely.

 

To wrap this up. The thing is also that in practice most players actually have their best years just before they start declining. Or even after they started declining physically because other gains more than compenaate for that. Specially for good players, someone been as good at 23 as they were at 28 are as rare if not more than a "Vardy". Its true though that this development tends to be loopsided in what aspects it effects. But its there or most players wouldnt have their best years so often later on.

Also Vardy is often thought of because he is a more extreme example. But almost all top leages have several cases of more "normal" players that became relevant later in their careers (at their relative levels).

Now, one could say that this maybe its supposed to be represented with other aspects that dont count in CA. Thing is, of attributes I believe the only two that dont count are agressiveness and flair which dont feel like they represent this growth and also dont seem to change much though the years. Theres personality but changes there seem more based on external factors from the team than any sesnse of growth through time. Some people have seen tendencies in tests though (ambition more likely to go down and proffesionalism/loyalty more like to go up).

Consistency and big matches could really fit the bill, but while they can change seemingly by getting game time consistently, it seems there isnt usually big changes or a sense of growth from what I have read. I havent had the time yet (or paid the attention) to try to check it in my games. It seems very easy for any youngster to be good at those already from the get go though, and them overall been far more dependant on the particular player than in growth over the years and experience.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by Jervaj

[Sloak]

8 hours ago, DarJ said:

I've only read a few comments from when this was initially posted and I agree that player development is very fast and it stops really early, however, we have to keep in mind that realistically most people don't play a save for even up to 10 seasons and the game comes out every year so it makes sense. If you're only going to play a save for 5 seasons or 10 at most then you would never see a player reach his full potential if SI have to implement some of the suggestions people have given here

This is something I don’t know if I’ve seen in the thread. FM is an excellent simulation game, but it’s a game to be played for fun. Realism =/= fun, and while I would love a more “realistic” development model I acknowledge it wouldn’t necessarily be more fun for most players. I believe there was a post on here a long time ago that polled players on how long their average save lasted, and I want to say most players capped out around 3 years.
If I’m right, SI probably knows this too, and have designed their development system to fit their player base. The majority of those players who are playing for less than 3 years will never have a regen on their first team, and if they do the regen will need to either be generated as an excellent player or need to have developed incredibly quickly (notice how the first intake or two are considered stronger than later ones, and how our current system allows for rapid growth). This system of rapid development is ideal for real life players as well, as well known young players with massive potential (Greenwood, Erling, Havertz) can develop quickly and reach the levels FM players want to see them reach.

I don’t want this to be viewed as a complaint, just my thoughts on why we have the system we currently do. It makes sense to me that as FM has caught a more mainstream audience who are less inclined to play many seasons than the older player base the system has changed to match. FM does an excellent job of simulating world football IMO, and if some allowances need to be made to game’s “realism” to make the game more fun, I’m more than ok with it.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Sloak

[roykela]

9 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Yeah, i know two pro scouts. 

I talked with them 2 year ago. 

And they told me there was NO tool that can tell them the genetic potential limit of a player (that is the game PA)

Are you tell me that in that 2 years someone has development  a such tool? 

If yes, ok, my mistake. 

But if there is no tool that can analyze the genetic limit of person, then It's Better you starting to think before post. 

 

 

 

But scouts aren't judging their genetic potential limit of a player. They are scouting players with their own perceived potential limit of a player.
They will never, ever know the genetic potential limit.
That will vary between different scouts. As it does in-game. 

Real life: Each player has their own genetic potential. It is unknown.
Game: Each player has their own genetic potential (PA). It is unknown, until you look under the hood.

Real life scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent. Qualified guesswork and some are better than others.
Game scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent (PPA) - Perceived Potential Ability). Qualified guesswork.

Reason i say this is because of two points.
1. Don't confuse PA with PPA. They are not the same and can potentially be very different, depending on the scouting/coaching eyes that see and judge the players.
2. I base my writing here on having had an agent in the past myself and having conversed with another agent; albeit, quite a bit longer than 2 years ago.

When a real life scout is talking about a player's potential they are not talking about his actual genetic potential limit (PA). They're talking about the potential they see him having. Their own perceived potential rating (PPA).

[tts0]

57 minutes ago, roykela said:

But scouts aren't judging their genetic potential limit of a player. They are scouting players with their own perceived potential limit of a player.
They will never, ever know the genetic potential limit.
That will vary between different scouts. As it does in-game. 

Real life: Each player has their own genetic potential. It is unknown.
Game: Each player has their own genetic potential (PA). It is unknown, until you look under the hood.

Real life scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent. Qualified guesswork and some are better than others.
Game scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent (PPA) - Perceived Potential Ability). Qualified guesswork.

Reason i say this is because of two points.
1. Don't confuse PA with PPA. They are not the same and can potentially be very different, depending on the scouting/coaching eyes that see and judge the players.
2. I base my writing here on having had an agent in the past myself and having conversed with another agent; albeit, quite a bit longer than 2 years ago.

When a real life scout is talking about a player's potential they are not talking about his actual genetic potential limit (PA). They're talking about the potential they see him having. Their own perceived potential rating (PPA).

The thing with in-game PPA is that oftentimes it seems completely without any corelation to actual attributes. As a hobby scout myself I gotta say, there is no chance I could rate a player high without actual visible indicators of his supposed talent. It could be anything - certain body frame, natural pace, technique, passing range, reflexes or whatever, but it has to be there. In FM there are plenty of high PA newgens(rated high by scouts too) without any sort of base attributes presented. This doesnt make any sense to me.

And getting to the developement point of the discussion. I would like to see some sort of base attributes for developement too. For example - a player with 20 technique should be able to develop other technical skills(passing, finishing etc.) quicker. Player with good teamwork should develop tactical attributes quicker. Player with certain body frame and natural fitness should develop strenght, balance or whatever quicker etc. Right now it seems random.

[pejocho]

En 4/1/2021 a las 2:46, francis#17 dijo:

Each player has different "key development years", which will determine the ages a player will develop most. For most players this is their teens and early 20s for other players it includes their mid and later 20s. This is hidden from us so we cant see it and because this you cant make this type of comparison.

 

Hey, I'm very interested in it, seriously, there is any SI member that has confirmed it, or it is only a supposition? 

[roykela]

32 minutes ago, tts0 said:

The thing with in-game PPA is that oftentimes it seems completely without any corelation to actual attributes. As a hobby scout myself I gotta say, there is no chance I could rate a player high without actual visible indicators of his supposed talent. It could be anything - certain body frame, natural pace, technique, passing range, reflexes or whatever, but it has to be there. In FM there are plenty of high PA newgens(rated high by scouts too) without any sort of base attributes presented. This doesnt make any sense to me.

And getting to the developement point of the discussion. I would like to see some sort of base attributes for developement too. For example - a player with 20 technique should be able to develop other technical skills(passing, finishing etc.) quicker. Player with good teamwork should develop tactical attributes quicker. Player with certain body frame and natural fitness should develop strenght, balance or whatever quicker etc. Right now it seems random.

That might very well be. I can't really say specifically much as i don't give too much thought about it myself when i'm playing.
Scouts do their job and with time i get everything revealed to me, based on the scouts report.
I do my analysis of attributes, reports, personality, stats etc. and come to one of the conclusions of yes, no or maybe. In the end i'm using my PPA to come to a decision.
I've had prospects failing miserably and i've revived the career of older players, and everything in between.
I haven't really noticed anything out of the ordinary compared to what i've experienced in real life as a former player and former coach (youth players).
But that might also be because of real life experience, which i use in FM as well.
Everything and anything that i do in FM is what i would've done in real life. So i'm treating it as real life situations. Makes it more fun for me.

If i would see no correlation to actual attributes i would spot that myself and call the report just bs. The scout/coach is simply wrong.
I don't mind no base attributes.
Reason i say that is that just because a player naturally is, and is regarded as, a SC doesn't mean it's his best position.
When i was a coah for a youth team i took the team's captain and top scorer and changed him to a Central Defender as he was much better at that than the other players.
In FM that would've been an SC with (relative) high defensive attributes. Most likely would have been reported as a bug/error.
But it happens in real life.
And i'm thinking of that player being created as a newgen in FM.

I am a bit torn myself there though from the realism vs FM experience.

The development side is the same. Torn.
I'd say that a player with 20 technique should be able to have the potential of developing other technical skills.
Just because a player is good at one aspect of the connected technical attributes doesn't necessarily mean he'll develop the others. Neither very quickly, slowly or perhaps at all.
Plenty of one-trick-ponies out there.

Myself as a player; tiny, pacey winger with good technique, vision, passing and teamwork.
As much as i focused my training on finishing i never got better. Couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo. Still can't.
But if you're doing a run i can still find you with a precision pass, for some reason....as long as it's during training or a match and given no time to think

Even though i was never put to do it, there was one thing i always improved on which would've been regarded highly illogical in FM.
Long throws. I could throw the ball very far. Something i never did during training sessions with the clubs i played in, nor ever did in a match.
I did that training on my own in my spare time outside the organised footie.
Now, i don't have any idea whether FM reflects that or not but i assume it doesn't. What i do, however, should i see an "illogical" improvement for a player is that
I wouldn't second guess it, as i know perfectly well myself that players can improve on "illogical attributes".
My closest friends knew about my long throws but nobody outside that "circle" as i was never given the task to do it.
Might be a bad example but hopefully you get the picture i'm trying to paint.

For some players some attributes go up quicker and others slower. Different stages of their careers for different players.

But it's a delicate balance there. I'm sure it can be improved. Wouldn't have a clue how myself though.

I probably won't continue discussing this as i'll probably end up derailing the entire discussion. Not my intention. Nor do i want to.
It's a good discussion which i enjoy reading.
Just wanted to give you my thoughts and experience, for better or worse  If it helps one way or the other, then great. If not....ah well

[FlorianAlbert9]

3 ore fa, roykela ha scritto:

But scouts aren't judging their genetic potential limit of a player. They are scouting players with their own perceived potential limit of a player.
They will never, ever know the genetic potential limit.
That will vary between different scouts. As it does in-game. 

Real life: Each player has their own genetic potential. It is unknown.
Game: Each player has their own genetic potential (PA). It is unknown, until you look under the hood.

Real life scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent. Qualified guesswork and some are better than others.
Game scouts: Each scout are judging young players from their own perceived perspective of a players max talent (PPA) - Perceived Potential Ability). Qualified guesswork.

Reason i say this is because of two points.
1. Don't confuse PA with PPA. They are not the same and can potentially be very different, depending on the scouting/coaching eyes that see and judge the players.
2. I base my writing here on having had an agent in the past myself and having conversed with another agent; albeit, quite a bit longer than 2 years ago.

When a real life scout is talking about a player's potential they are not talking about his actual genetic potential limit (PA). They're talking about the potential they see him having. Their own perceived potential rating (PPA).

 

I know that real life scout cannot know genetic limit. at least, all scout a part of Sharkn20, that seems to have a sort of tool that tell him that genetic limit.

You miss the point that in-game scout use actual PA in their PPA report. 
While real-life scout no. 

That's the point to get rid of PA, the concept of PA is irrealistic.

The genetic limit of a person (a part of some phisical att, of course), currently, has the same reality of the concept of God. 
Nobody use God for the tactic. Nobody use genetic limit for scouting. 
It is not important if there is or not that limit (or God). That is not used in real life.

Edited January 6, 2021 by FlorianAlbert9

[Platinum]

1 hour ago, pejocho said:

Hey, I'm very interested in it, seriously, there is any SI member that has confirmed it, or it is only a supposition? 

I got this information from a post Seb Wassel (an SI employee) made on these forums. If you go on his profile and look at his post history you will find it.

I might try and find it later on

[Platinum]

33 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

 

I know that real life scout cannot know genetic limit. at least, all scout a part of Sharkn20, that seems to have a sort of tool that tell him that genetic limit.

You miss the point that in-game scout use actual PA in their PPA report. 
While real-life scout no. 

That's the point to get rid of PA, the concept of PA is irrealistic.

The genetic limit of a person (a part of some phisical att, of course), currently, has the same reality of the concept of God. 
Nobody use God for the tactic. Nobody use genetic limit for scouting. 
It is not important if there is or not that limit (or God). That is not used in real life.

It's been confirmed by Seb Wassel and other SI staff that in game the scouts do NOT use PA when making their PPA.

So your point here is wrong and PAs only role is the genetic limit of a player which no one in the game is aware of or has access to.

[FlorianAlbert9]

23 minuti fa, francis#17 ha scritto:

It's been confirmed by Seb Wassel and other SI staff that in game the scouts do NOT use PA when making their PPA.

So your point here is wrong and PAs only role is the genetic limit of a player which no one in the game is aware of or has access to.

No. 

It's been confirmed that scouts don't use ONLY PA. 

it is not the same thing. 

and you can easily prove by yourself. 
and otherwise there would be not sense in JudPlayerPotentialAbility attributes in scout 
(example: a player with max in professionalism and determinato but with 100 PA=CA would rating better than an identical player with less professionalism but CA100 and PA200. But it's the contrary for the most of the time/test)

[zZzZzZzZzZzZzZz]

2 hours ago, pejocho said:

Hey, I'm very interested in it, seriously, there is any SI member that has confirmed it, or it is only a supposition? 

 

1 hour ago, francis#17 said:

I got this information from a post Seb Wassel (an SI employee) made on these forums. If you go on his profile and look at his post history you will find it.

I might try and find it later on

Not only that, but I think it is even mentioned as a tip on loading screens within the game too.

@Seb Wassell Can you confirm that players do indeed have different "development paths" generated at game start?

[Platinum]

8 hours ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

No. 

It's been confirmed that scouts don't use ONLY PA. 

it is not the same thing. 

and you can easily prove by yourself. 
and otherwise there would be not sense in JudPlayerPotentialAbility attributes in scout 
(example: a player with max in professionalism and determinato but with 100 PA=CA would rating better than an identical player with less professionalism but CA100 and PA200. But it's the contrary for the most of the time/test)

Yeah I think you are right that it's not the only thing they use. And if it only plays a small part then it's really not an issue. 

Edited January 6, 2021 by francis#17

[FlorianAlbert9]

1 ora fa, francis#17 ha scritto:

Yeah I think you are right that it's not the only thing they use. And if it only plays a small part then it's really not an issue. 

Yes, it's really not an issue. 

And probabily to obtain a right balance in the game It Is the best solution. 

But, without the PA, It would be a harder challange develop young players 'cause attributes really matters. But probabily It needs a better AI that currently we don't have.

[Platinum]

7 minutes ago, FlorianAlbert9 said:

Yes, it's really not an issue. 

And probabily to obtain a right balance in the game It Is the best solution. 

But, without the PA, It would be a harder challange develop young players 'cause attributes really matters. But probabily It needs a better AI that currently we don't have.

Also remember PA and a players ability to reach the PA are two different things, lots of players apprently dont reach their PA

[Sharkn20]

Just now, francis#17 said:

Also remember PA and a players ability to reach the PA are two different things, lots of players apprently dont reach their PA

Because the AI isn't smart enough to develop them well enough.

Not saying every player should reach their PA as that is unrealistic. But is also unrealistic how bad the AI is developing talent now.

[ViG1980]

There is no doubt that match experience should play a key role for development. Physical attributes don't really go up after 23/24 IRL but mental ones should. That's why players peak in their late 20s on average - they've played more games, they have a higher match intelligence because they've experienced many more match situations. Maybe they've won trophies and they "know how to do it" or are not overwhelmed by big matches anymore because they have been there. All of that contributes to the fact that they are better at 27/28 than 23/24. I'd argue that most players that have not had been hindered in any way are better at 27/28 than 23/24. 

In the Vardy example, he is a very rare example but I have little doubt that better training facilities, better medical teams and a high level of football were key in him staying this good for this long. And they were key in him becoming better later on in his career - he made the jump to the highest level fairly late. Is he better than he was at Leicester 4-5 years ago through? Not sure but 4-5 years ago he was 27/28. What is special about him is that at 33 he does not seem to have lost any of his physical attributes.

In conclusion, under normal conditions, physical development should probably peak around 23/24 and stay until 30 or so. Mental development should continue until early 30s. After that, there should be exceptions for when physical declines happen and what the mental development curve looks like based on playing time, playing level, injuries, personal attributes  such as determination and professionalism etc.

Just my 2 cents...

[bielsadidnothingwrong]

Here are some random disconnected thoughts that sprang to mind reading this thread:

 

It's really silly that players lose strength after 30. If anyone knows anything about strength sports, many athletes can continue putting up weight well into their 30s. While powerlifters and footballers are different athletes, the principle of strength is still the same. And though this may not be "development" related, I do think it is part of the wider problem of the way the game treats attributes.

As others have said, peak performance for footballers begins around 25 (later for some, especially keepers) which in its earliest stage should represent (assuming all other things have been perfect in development) a player in the physical peak with good technical skills and decent mentals. From 25-30, it should be all technical and mental development depending on the training program used by the manager (side bar: tactical training should do more than increase tactical familiarity, it should also grow mentals like decisions and anticipation, even if artificially). 

Certain PPMs like "plays one twos" should not be PPMs and instead need to be the results of certain things. It would be nice to see PPMs be more fluid and develop according to how the player is used. If you play a DLP in the DM slot with a PPM of "plays short simple passes," that PPM should go away after a season (probably less) of playing (successfully creating chances, etc) and training at DLP. Another example would be strikers played as target men should develop the "plays with back to goal" PPM just by virtue of being played as a target man for so long (either in your tactic or his career). And on the subject of PPMs, you can't teach an EPL player how to curl a ball? 

 

 

[Impacto]

I remember the times where players didn't become useless when they become 30. I had a save on FM 08 and in the year 2020, I had Ronaldo, Messi, Fabregas, Rooney and so many more that I have forgotten, all around 33-35 age range still being good, having Pace and not being useless. This was my favorite save of all time. Now when players reach the magic number 30 they just do nothing. They lose all their pace, but they don't improve their mentals to compensate like it's supposed to be. 

In another save on FM 08, I remember Thierry Henry gaining CA at 30+ years of age. He was in mad form, scoring every game. My memory could be failing though, it was a long time ago. I'm almost certain though that he was gaining CA, why would I remember this for so long otherwise?

Both of those cases are absolutely impossible in current FMs. Sure, maybe it was a bug with FM 08, but it was fun to play. And this is the problem. Everything with player development is soooo predictable. Predictable is not fun in a game. And there is no reason to use a 30 year old player over a 20 year old player. The latter one will improve and is worth more, while the experience of the 30 year old counts for nothing. And it's also nowhere near realistic. 

It's not normal for players to stop improving once they become 24. Maybe they should only increase their mental attributes from that point on, but they should be improving. And it's not normal that players fall off a cliff when they become 30. Some do, but not all. 

But this is nothing new and I'm not saying the current system is bad. It's okay. But it's old. And you can't tell me there isn't a better way to do this. Problem is, SI doesn't want to find a better way. They like this one and it's here to stay. Otherwise it would have been improved a long time ago.  

 

[afailed10]

I think the problem with this is more fundamental like what is natural talent and how do players develop? Let's go through some of the greats of recent past:

Zidane - Slight improvement after 23 in mentals especially hidden attributes.

Maradona - No improvement of note he was already God

Ronaldo 9 - Slight increase in Anticipation and Off the ball after 23

Messi - Barely any improvement just different understanding of roles.

CR7 - Some increase in technical attributes, and big ones in mentals such as Off the ball and Anticipation but not that much after 23 or 24 (when he left UTD)

Vardy - Imo he improved his mental attributes, smarter without the ball but the pace and technical attributes were already there.

So the general pattern between elite players is that they are almost the finished product by the age of 23. Improving just a bit in tactical attributes and in some cases like Vardy and Zidane I'd say hidden mental attributes as well, professionalism in some cases, pressure, big games in others. In FM it would be a +2, +3 sometimes more in those said mental attributes which can be quite dramatic as 12 decisions is much different than 16. I think that right now it's hard to happen in the game so imo it's something SI needs to revisit.

 

[Jervaj]

On 05/01/2021 at 21:55, Sloak said:

This is something I don’t know if I’ve seen in the thread. FM is an excellent simulation game, but it’s a game to be played for fun. Realism =/= fun, and while I would love a more “realistic” development model I acknowledge it wouldn’t necessarily be more fun for most players. I believe there was a post on here a long time ago that polled players on how long their average save lasted, and I want to say most players capped out around 3 years.
If I’m right, SI probably knows this too, and have designed their development system to fit their player base. The majority of those players who are playing for less than 3 years will never have a regen on their first team, and if they do the regen will need to either be generated as an excellent player or need to have developed incredibly quickly (notice how the first intake or two are considered stronger than later ones, and how our current system allows for rapid growth). This system of rapid development is ideal for real life players as well, as well known young players with massive potential (Greenwood, Erling, Havertz) can develop quickly and reach the levels FM players want to see them reach.

I don’t want this to be viewed as a complaint, just my thoughts on why we have the system we currently do. It makes sense to me that as FM has caught a more mainstream audience who are less inclined to play many seasons than the older player base the system has changed to match. FM does an excellent job of simulating world football IMO, and if some allowances need to be made to game’s “realism” to make the game more fun, I’m more than ok with it.

This is something I thought of later on yesterday, specially given some people in this topic did hint already similar things. There may well be a meta gameplay reason for development and I couldn't really blame SI for it. Developping players is one of the things that makes the game "fun" for a lot of people including myself. Sense of progress is a big deal in entertaiment in many games. And it seems to be true that most saves are indeed not that long. Even if you play a lot you may do different saves trying different teams/situations, and longer saves tend to have a good share of journeyman ones.

If players peaked more realistically in their later years it would take 10-13 seasons in the same team to see a newgen from your earlier generations becoming a world class player. Right now even when you are playing at a high level you can start seen your youth in the first team after 1-2 seasons even if it is as reserves/fringe players, and after 4-6 they can be a mainstay. It would be true that a more progressive system would mean that you would have some sense of progression still, due to a wider array of players still improving without having to wait for the youth to come through, but the satisfaction of seen your youth prospects populate your senior team or the higher leagues around the world would not be there for most players and saves.

[Marko1989]

Here, this is the reason why I have opened this thread and why I hate  player development in new FM's so much.

Because development is so awful, I had to try something to make players develop better because I didn't want to stop playing the game. So what I did is mass edit - all players of age 26 and younger who had minimum PA 120, I have increased their PA to 170, ambition and profesionalism to 16.

So, now in my save there is about 12.000 players who have PA 170; ambition 16 and professionalism 16. I thought that would gave chance to players older than 23 to develop a bit.

I have created a save with Werder. This is my first season. We, are completely overachieving.

 

This is my form:

Yeah, a bit boring. Then, I have this striker, Selke. He is 25y old at the start of the game.



He is scoring almost every game. He is the top Bundesliga scorer, and he is first when it comes to average rating.

 

Because almost the season is over, because we are in the insane form, because he has PA 170 now, because he is the best player in Bundesliga right now, because he is playing the football of his career, because he is now clearly the better player - I have expected that at least some attributes have increased. Of course, not by a lot, he is 25, but if nothing, his finishing could be better. BUT NO. When I have checked him NOT A SINGLE attribute has increased, his attributes are even decreasing!

Why!? WHY? My ass man is taking care of a training and if the training was not good we would not win the league with ease. If he had season like this in real life, SI would increase his finishing to 17. But here, I have no idea what is the point of building my team around my best player next season when he is getting worse. Some of his attributes will drop.

20 years in FM it was, if you player plays good, if he is better than ever, if your team is in good form, player attributes would increase. But no, here is "Hey, this player is in top of his form, let's decrease some of his attributes"

And this player is just one more example of what I am experiencing starting from FM 2019.

I don't care what nonsense is reason behind that, attributes relocation or some stupid feature like that, this is not logical, this is not fun, this makes no sense at all.  Man.. I don't know what else to say, I have no idea what is the point of playing long term saves anymore if only wonderkids are improving.

I am so frustrated and disappointed.

Edited January 7, 2021 by Marko1989

[Haiku]

Hold up. Wait a minute. Your striker performances are tightly bonded to the tactics you use and the attributes he poses. That means if he scores that much, it's because his attributes and your team/tactics allow him to score that much. If lets say he had 18 finishing instead of 13, he would score even more than that. Capisce? His performances are determined by his attributes and not vise versa. Yes if this guy score 20+ goals in Bundesliga IRL he will rightfully get an improved profile for FM22. But If you are calling for realism, you must see the bigger picture. Werder IRL would never win the league with this squad, let alone with 2 loses. They are 14th currently, closer to relegation than Continental football places. It's unrealistic that the game allows you to win titles with sub-par team, but you seem to not complain about that?

[afailed10]

28 minutos atrás, Marko1989 disse:

Here, this is the reason why I have opened this thread and why I hate  player development in new FM's so much.

Because development is so awful, I had to try something to make players develop better because I didn't want to stop playing the game. So what I did is mass edit - all players of age 26 and younger who had minimum PA 120, I have increased their PA to 170, ambition and profesionalism to 16.

So, now in my save there is about 12.000 players who have PA 170; ambition 16 and professionalism 16. I thought that would gave chance to players older than 23 to develop a bit.

I have created a save with Werder. This is my first season. We, are completely overachieving.

 

This is my form:

Yeah, a bit boring. Then, I have this striker, Selke. He is 25y old at the start of the game.



He is scoring almost every game. He is the top Bundesliga scorer, and he is first when it comes to average rating.

 

Because almost the season is over, because we are in the insane form, because he has PA 170 now, because he is the best player in Bundesliga right now, because he is playing the football of his career, because he is now clearly the better player - I have expected that at least some attributes have increased. Of course, not by a lot, he is 25, but if nothing, his finishing could be better. BUT NO. When I have checked him NOT A SINGLE attribute has increased, his attributes are even decreasing!

Why!? WHY? My ass man is taking care of a training and if the training was not good we would not win the league with ease. If he had season like this in real life, SI would increase his finishing to 17. But here, I have no idea what is the point of building my team around my best player next season when he is getting worse. Some of his attributes will drop.

20 years in FM it was, if you player plays good, if he is better than ever, if your team is in good form, player attributes would increase. But no, here is "Hey, this player is in top of his form, let's decrease some of his attributes"

And this player is just one more example of what I am experiencing starting from FM 2019.

I don't care what nonsense is reason behind that, attributes relocation or some stupid feature like that, this is not logical, this is not fun, this makes no sense at all.  Man.. I don't know what else to say, I have no idea what is the point of playing long term saves anymore if only wonderkids are improving.

I am so frustrated and disappointed.

I understand the frustration but the only problem here is player evaluation that is made by the SI researchers because IRL, very few players have drastically improved their technical attributes after 24 or so.

[Marko1989]

1 minute ago, Haiku said:

Hold up. Wait a minute. Your striker performances are tightly bonded to the tactics you use and the attributes he poses. That means if he scores that much, it's because his attributes and your team/tactics allow him to score that much. If lets say he had 18 finishing instead of 13, he would score even more than that. Capisce? His performances are determined by his attributes and not vise versa. Yes if this guy score 20+ goals in Bundesliga IRL he will rightfully has improved profile for FM22. But If you are calling for realism, you must see the bigger picture. Werder IRL would never win the league with this squad, let alone with 2 loses. They are 14th currently, closer to relegation than Continental football places. It's unrealistic that the game allows you to win titles with sub-par team, but you seem to not complain about that?

Have you missed the part where I said "boring"? Yes, winning like this is boring to me. 

I have created this save to test what would happen if I do that mass edit before I star lower league team save. I am not calling for complete realism. I am calling for realism + fun. 

I wrote that a couple of times already in this thread. This development system in FM is not realistic nor it is fun. It should be a little bit of both. Like it is every other part of the game. From tactics to tranfers. 

I had some great ideas for long term saves but there is no way I will play lower leagues in this FM edition, it is just a waste of time since only wonderkids can improve, until they are 23.

[Marko1989]

24 minutes ago, afailed10 said:

I understand the frustration but the only problem here is player evaluation that is made by the SI researchers because IRL, very few players have drastically improved their technical attributes after 24 or so.

Hm, I don't know what researchers have with this, they didn't make the development system in FM. This current system is making 23+ y old players almost impossible to improve, and players in top form will also even get worse because of how strange the system works. 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Marko1989

[Haiku]

1 hour ago, Marko1989 said:

I had some great ideas for long term saves but there is no way I will play lower leagues in this FM edition, it is just a waste of time since only wonderkids can improve, until they are 23.

Not true. Even the description wonderkid means nothing when it comes to how much and far will the player develop.

[Marko1989]

I don't know for what you are saying "not true"; players of age 23,24,25 will very rarely improve and that is absolutely true. 

I am struggling to understand how people can defend this developing system.

1) Currently we have system where player above 23/24 are almost impossible to improve. Which is absolutely unrealistic and not fun in a slight.

2) We could have a better system, where more players of that age could improve, which would lead to more interesting long term saves since players would improve further

And people still choose 1) and defend this system. How can anyone find development stopping at 23/24 more fun than developing until early 30s more fun, I simply can't understand. 

Even FM tips say that the players will enjoy their best footballing years between age of 27 and 32, that was true in previous versions, now it is not true. 

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Marko1989

[Platinum]

14 minutes ago, Marko1989 said:

I don't know for what you are saying "not true"; players of age 23,24,25 will very rarely improve and that is absolutely true. 

I am struggling to understand how people can defend this developing system.

1) Currently we have system where player above 23/24 are almost impossible to improve. Which is absolutely unrealistic and not fun in a slight.

2) We could have a better system, where more players of that age could improve, which would lead to more interesting long term saves since players would improve further

And people still choose 1) and defend this system. How can anyone find development stopping at 23/24 more fun than developing until early 30s more fun, I simply can't understand. 

Even FM tips say that the players will enjoy their best footballing years between age of 27 and 32, that was true in previous versions, now it is not true. 

To me, people who say it would not be more fun to have more flexible development, just look like some kind of pretending. "Look at me, I am so hardcore FM player that I love this strict development, we don't need to make it more fun and improved" 

Please provide widescale proof (not one or two examples) of the vast majority of players having 0 or close to 0 attribute improvements after age 23. I haven't seen this in my experience so it would be good to know why you think this.

[Haiku]

They still improve after 25, given they haven't maxed out their PA. Even if so, in later years in their careers they begin losing physical attributes in exchange of mental. Regular players increase in leadership and hidden attributes like consistency, which makes them better players albeit not quite visible. For me consistency along with personality and some mental attributes like Determination, Teamwork and Work rate are top priority when acquiring players. For example players like Morten Thorsby (Sampdoria), Nahitan Nandez (Cagliari),  Roman Zobnin (Spartak Moscow) will walk in the midfield of any team I manage and will perform, even though they do not have great technical abilities or high CA. Ok, I went off topic a bit, but my point is, players still develop after 25, in many cases it is not quite obvious, but they do. And years 27 to 30-something (depends how professional the player is) are indeed the best years in terms of playing performance. After 32 they begin losing quickness quite noticeably, but then again, you can squeeze a couple more years from professional players. They lose value fast, which is understandable, so you have to make a decision whether you want to cash in or let them finish their career at your club. That's my 2 cents.

[Marko1989]

2 hours ago, francis#17 said:

Please provide widescale proof (not one or two examples) of the vast majority of players having 0 or close to 0 attribute improvements after age 23. I haven't seen this in my experience so it would be good to know why you think this.

I will if I finish a couple more seasons in this save, I will provide some examples. You were maybe checking 23y old players with insane PA like Gabriel Jesus, Frenkie De Jong and such, they will improve slightly, I am mostly talking about player that not so famous.

The flaw of this system is - if some mid range club overachive, and they keep overachieving and for example their best player is 23 at the start, and no matter how good he plays, no matter what the team wins, no matter even he wins 3 Ballon d Ors in a row, if does not nave very high PA, he will not improve. Or he will improve just by a little.

But if that scenario happens in real life, SI will increase his attributes greatly. That is why Dynamic Potential is a must in this game.

[Marko1989]

1 hour ago, Haiku said:

They still improve after 25, given they haven't maxed out their PA. Even if so, in later years in their careers they begin losing physical attributes in exchange of mental. Regular players increase in leadership and hidden attributes like consistency, which makes them better players albeit not quite visible. For me consistency along with personality and some mental attributes like Determination, Teamwork and Work rate are top priority when acquiring players. For example players like Morten Thorsby (Sampdoria), Nahitan Nandez (Cagliari),  Roman Zobnin (Spartak Moscow) will walk in the midfield of any team I manage and will perform, even though they do not have great technical abilities or high CA. Ok, I went off topic a bit, but my point is, players still develop after 25, in many cases it is not quite obvious, but they do. And years 27 to 30-something (depends how professional the player is) are indeed the best years in terms of playing performance. After 32 they begin losing quickness quite noticeably, but then again, you can squeeze a couple more years from professional players. They lose value fast, which is understandable, so you have to make a decision whether you want to cash in or let them finish their career at your club. That's my 2 cents.

Only a couple of players by default will improve after 25 and those are players with very, very high PA.

Even if I am wrong, this system is getting old, when I think about development in FM i always remember what one of the moderators here wrote. I have saved that paragraph. This was when I have complained about how my player, Vinicus Junior, in my Lyon save, after insane season and Champions League win got worse at some key attributes even he was probably the best player in the world that year.

I will quote that moderator: 

"Specifically with Vinicius I'd suggest that overall he cannot develop any further - his CA has reached it's maximum allowed by his PA.  So you'd imagine that his attributes would no longer be capable of change right?  Wrong.  Rather confusingly, his attributes are still capable of change but - because his CA is at it's maximum - in order for an attribute to increase, a different attribute must decrease to compensate."

"in order for an attribute to increase, a different attribute must decrease to compensate."

Nothing can convince me that is logical and that the development part of the game is great.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Marko1989

[Nick_CB]

Could anyone tell me if I can still believe in an evolution of this player? Players are peaking very fast
I don’t use INGAME editor to know with accurate, wanted a help

[HUNT3R]

3 hours ago, Marko1989 said:

Only a couple of players by default will improve after 25 and those are players with very, very high PA.

Even if I am wrong, this system is getting old, when I think about development in FM i always remember what one of the moderators here wrote. I have saved that paragraph. This was when I have complained about how my player, Vinicus Junior, in my Lyon save, after insane season and Champions League win got worse at some key attributes even he was probably the best player in the world that year.

I will quote that moderator: 

"Specifically with Vinicius I'd suggest that overall he cannot develop any further - his CA has reached it's maximum allowed by his PA.  So you'd imagine that his attributes would no longer be capable of change right?  Wrong.  Rather confusingly, his attributes are still capable of change but - because his CA is at it's maximum - in order for an attribute to increase, a different attribute must decrease to compensate."

"in order for an attribute to increase, a different attribute must decrease to compensate."

Nothing can convince me that is logical and that the development part of the game is great.

I get you're frustrated, but it's best to take a step back and look at it again. I'll make a few points around your recent posts.

"I don't know for what you are saying "not true"; players of age 23,24,25 will very rarely improve and that is absolutely true." -  That's just isn't true. Players can and do develop after 23/24/25. You cannot just put out a blanket statement like that. 

Now, I know which moderator wrote the part you quoted and that's a different case where a player (age does not matter here) has reached their PA so they are the best they're going to be. That's the entire definition of PA - the best a player can ever be, given the right circumstances (facilities, coaches, match time and match level etc) so a player cannot be better than they can ever be.

So is there nothing you can do to squeeze a bit more out of the player? No. That quote touches on it. You can re-focus some of the attributes and while a player won't then gain CA (or PA), he could perform even better if the spread of attributes are improved. 

Other areas can still improve too. If your player has reached his peak and is putting in consistent fantastic performances, you could see Consistency and Important Matches improve. which will also make him a better player overall, even if the attributes did not change.

[HUNT3R]

2 hours ago, Nick_CB said:

Could anyone tell me if I can still believe in an evolution of this player? Players are peaking very fast
I don’t use INGAME editor to know with accurate, wanted a help

It's not possible to tell you. Only by looking at the CA and PA numbers under the hood, you'll know for sure.

Like IRL, you have coaches to rely on and also by observing these players to see if they do improve more. As long as we don't look at those numbers, things aren't as certain anymore and that's the part I love... or hate when I am trying to develop a dud. 

[Marko1989]

3 hours ago, HUNT3R said:

I get you're frustrated, but it's best to take a step back and look at it again. I'll make a few points around your recent posts.

"I don't know for what you are saying "not true"; players of age 23,24,25 will very rarely improve and that is absolutely true." -  That's just isn't true. Players can and do develop after 23/24/25. You cannot just put out a blanket statement like that. 

Now, I know which moderator wrote the part you quoted and that's a different case where a player (age does not matter here) has reached their PA so they are the best they're going to be. That's the entire definition of PA - the best a player can ever be, given the right circumstances (facilities, coaches, match time and match level etc) so a player cannot be better than they can ever be.

So is there nothing you can do to squeeze a bit more out of the player? No. That quote touches on it. You can re-focus some of the attributes and while a player won't then gain CA (or PA), he could perform even better if the spread of attributes are improved. 

Other areas can still improve too. If your player has reached his peak and is putting in consistent fantastic performances, you could see Consistency and Important Matches improve. which will also make him a better player overall, even if the attributes did not change.

At the very start of my thread I've listed Bastoni as an example of the player not improving after those years in some key areas, since in many, many, simulations I've made he would always end up with 16 marking. 

And that is the player with very high PA. I would very rarely see any difference when he is 23 and 30+. I thought, if one of the best defenders does not improve in key areas between age of 23 and 30 what is with the rest of the players then.

Maybe that was just coincidence and you  guys who don't agree are right; It is very time consuming to simulate 10 seasons a couple of times but I will try to get some more examples during next few weeks. 

I know Vinicus example and that quote is something different, but that does not change the fact that the attributes compensation is very illogical and I've mentioned that because to me, the whole development system is very limited as a whole. 

But ok, if you guys like it, good for you, I just think that it is very strict and that it could be better. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Marko1989

[HUNT3R]

4 minutes ago, Marko1989 said:

At the very start of my thread I've listed Bastoni as an example of the player not improving after those years in some key areas, since in many, many, simulations I've made he would always end up with 16 marking. 

Your screenshot shows that he has improved, but you also only show his technical attributes and nothing else so we're not given the complete picture and it doesn't seem like you're looking at the bigger picture.

[Sharkn20]

41 minutes ago, HUNT3R said:

Your screenshot shows that he has improved, but you also only show his technical attributes and nothing else so we're not given the complete picture and it doesn't seem like you're looking at the bigger picture.

This whole thread of criticism is really opportunistic, vague and baseless.

I really hope SI doesn't nerf the model because of it. That would make a lot off of veterans angry, who know indeed how to develop players.

Edited January 8, 2021 by Sharkn20

[Marko1989]

1 hour ago, HUNT3R said:

Your screenshot shows that he has improved, but you also only show his technical attributes and nothing else so we're not given the complete picture and it doesn't seem like you're looking at the bigger picture.

His Marking and Tackling didn't improve from age of 23 to 30. And below that I wrote a scenario where it would be strange that he remains defensively the same between age of 23 and 30+.