Suggestions for future FM games Part 1: More rational and responsive player growth.

[Sealionborn]

This is the first post in what will be a series of posts detailing ways I would like to see the Football Manager games improved. I have written about some of these ideas in previous posts, but I hope this will be a more cohesive and well structured improvement on those posts.
When I refer to attribute numbers in these posts I will be using the 1-100 scale that's actually used to calculate a player's current ability, not the 1-20 numbers we see displayed. Just divide the numbers I give by five and round up to get the displayed value.

The first issue I would like to discuss is player growth/development. This is the core of FM to me and many other players -- there's nothing quite like seeing a youngster from your academy blossom into a world class player after all.
While the current growth system is decent I feel like it depends too much on seemingly random factors.
I like to create players using the pre-game editor and play out their careers at my club. As I did that I found that even near-identical players would develop in radically different ways, even when given effectively identical training and match experience. As an example: One player would grow their work rate by 4, while the other grew it by 1 in the same period after having the same general and individual training schedule.
This suggests that there must be a significant amount of randomness in how players develop. I think this takes away from the fun of the game; why pay attention to training if the results are more or less random?

I have an idea for a system which removes the element of random chance while still providing varied outcomes. This system is based around two kinds of "points" I call Experience and Priority. Experience points are responsible for improving attributes whereas Priority points decide where the Experience points are allocated.
Experience points would largely be earned through match experience, though training does contribute, especially for players who train well.
Priority points are earned almost exclusively through training, though some attributes like Leadership and various Set Piece attributes should also improve when used in a match setting.
Every week (ideally calculated at 00:00 every Monday) the player's total Experience should be distributed across their attributes according to how many priority points each attribute has.
If improving an attribute would cause the player to exceed their Potential Ability score that attribute should be frozen, all excess Experience should be distributed to the remaining viable attributes until progression becomes impossible.

Of course the issue with this system is that it would be extremely predictable and therefore boring. There needs to be some dynamism to it and I have some ideas.

The simplest is making some attributes require more Experience to grow than others, even if they all start at the same number.
Attributes like Bravery are difficult to improve IRL and that should be reflected in the game. Other attributes should be made more or less difficult to grow depending on other attributes and the player's body. For example: A 190cm tall player should have an easier time getting to 80 Jumping Reach than a 180cm tall player would.
Some attributes may be "tethered" to each other. It would make sense for a player with high Technique to have an easer time improving their First Touch than someone with worse Technique.
This could also stop "free" attributes from growing out of control. By "free" attributes I mean the attributes which don't contribute to a player's Current Ability score. If the growth of Flair is limited by Dribbling and Technique we shouldn't see a bunch of old centre backs with 15+ Flair because that was an attribute they could still improve without exceeding their Potential Ability rating.

The more complex idea is what I call the "Development Archetype" system, I'll just be referring to them as Archetypes for brevity. The Archetypes give a boost to Priority point generation for various attributes, it does NOT affect total Experience gain.
The Archetypes are inherent parts of the player's DNA and they cannot change over time.
An Archetype is made up of two parts: The Positional Archetype and the Stylistic Archetype.

The Positional Archetype designates a player as a natural at a specific position. A player who can only play DM may generate as a "Defensive Midfielder" or "Midfielder", these Archetypes boost the priority of different attributes to varying extents. Every position should have at least two Archetypes attached to it. Think "Winger" and "Wide Forward" for the AML/AMR positions, one more focused on wide play and another more suited to cutting inside.
These Archetypes may even boost the same attributes, but the extent to which every attribute is focused on will be different. This should prevent things like strikers massively improving their Marking and Tackling while Finishing is stagnant, even when their training schedule is well balanced.

The Stylistic Archetype gives further focus to a smaller group of attributes. These attributes are responsible for a specific part of the game, say press resistance or elusive 1v1 dribbling.
These groups should consist of at most 5 or 6 attributes. Individual attributes like Dribbling should be represented in multiple attribute groups. Every attribute should be a part of at least two groups, the more the merrier.
I'll discuss the groups in more detail in the upcoming training focused post as they form the backbone of much of my thinking there as well.

Combining the two Archetypes should form a descriptor like "Press Resistant Midfielder" or "Tricky Winger" letting a manager know what kind of role the player would have an easier time developing into.
The full descriptor should only be visible at 100% player knowledge, but the Positional Archetype should be visible for any scouted player.

By combining the Stylistic and Positional Archetypes it becomes possible to create varied developmental outcomes without relying on randomness.
If two players start with the exact same attributes but entirely different Archetypes they will develop into very different players, even with the same training schedule.
If I train two players with identical starting attributes as Box to Box Midfielders their whole careers, but one player is an "Aggressive Defensive Midfielder" and the other is a "Press Resistant Midfielder", they will naturally develop into different players in a predictable yet compelling way.
The Aggressive player might have a 50% priority boost to Tackling and Aggression, while the Press Resistant player might have a 50% boost to First Touch and Balance.

In my opinion this system would be a massive improvement to the way development works at the moment.
It's a rational system in the sense that it doesn't rely on randomness, but it still provides varied outcomes.
It's a more responsive and engaging system which would work both with the current training mechanics and with my upcoming suggestions for changes to this system.

Please tell me what you think of my ideas, constructive criticism is very much welcome.