[Discussion] More dynamic potentials for youth players

[Its_Adam]

I feel that this needs to be improved because the star potentials for some players don't always match their in game form for the youth teams. I sometimes get regents who finish top scorer for my u18s, but still with only 2* potential. 

[Vänsterback]

You mean that performance in the youth team should affect your staff's perception of the player's potential ability more than it currently does?

[Abdullah Patel]

Set to discussion to allow more opinions on this

[Piperita]

In terms of the PA itself I am currently on the "keep it fixed"-train. I understand the design choice SI made, even though I still think there should be rare events that give it a light nudge upwards or downwards. More on that below the break.

However, I think scouts and coaches should have more uncertainty in how they rate and see prospects, factoring in development, form and match results. For example: I have a young striker age 17. In the past year he improved his key skills by two points or more. In the youth league he scores more than 2 goals/game on average. Yet my staff is (correctly) completely sure this player will never be more than a backup and has already almost peaked. So when offers come or I must choose between him and his backup, it is obvious he'll sit out. My coaches should rate him more highly until he either stops developing or his match stats drop. Other team's scouts who don't see him day to day should have even more uncertainty.

----------------------------------------

There are already rare freak events that make newgens' mental stats change dramatically. Like a 10 point Determination drop or similar. There could be similar freak events in rare circumstances that "reward" or "punish" players who develop very fast or slow. As the game is now, way too many highly-talented players make it ultimately and years of bad form or other significant setbacks only slow them a bit.

One example could be the aforementioned youth striker. Conditions for him to get a low chance at low increases would be_
1) Young player
2) Close to hitting his CA
3) Match stats and training rating way above expectations
4) High Ambition and Determination
5) He gets called up and performs well in his early games

With all these conditions fulfilled, the event *could* fire. Similarly, lazy players or players who constantly underperform or fail to make significant progress over a length of time should get the opposite event "[Player] is unlikely to ever reach his full potential now". This could help against the inflation of top talents in longer saves as the increase mechanism should be way rarer than the opposite and is harder to perform as well.

This would also help in putting an even higher focus on training and individual development, as well as training happiness in general.

[Not the topic here but something similar could go for older players who successfully retrain a new position unlike their old (i.e. neither on the opposite side of a natural position nor a position any natural position they possess can form partnerships with) -- They can get a minor boost to help them with their recalibrated CA or, if they have "spare" value, they get gifted an increase in mental ability.]

[Egecann]

 

On 10/08/2021 at 12:06, Its_Adam said:

I feel that this needs to be improved because the star potentials for some players don't always match their in game form for the youth teams. I sometimes get regents who finish top scorer for my u18s, but still with only 2* potential. 

Form is temporary, class is permanent.

Let's say Mbappe is injured for 2 years. His potential should be 195 in FM23 as it is in FM21. It should not change. And let's say this injury collapsed him mentally. So he can't reach 195 CA but we seen his potential 2 years ago. My point is PA shouldn't be affected by playtime or ratings etc. 

Edited September 8, 2021 by Egecann

[Michael Sant]

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. Potential Ability is an area that does get a lot of suggestions raised from the community, and how this should be more flexible. In this instance however, it seems like there is some confusion about how staff in game judge potential. Staff opinions can change over time and more importantly, they can be incorrect. Given that the OP hasn't come back to this with any further follow ups after this we've reviewed it at this stage and welcome any additional or supplemental ideas in a new thread.