If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
Something that has always bugged me about CM/FM is that there is a hidden value behind a player that determines how good he his (or how good the AI thinks he is). Its not his attributes, or his performances but a number that you can't see, although the AI can. It bugs me that I might have a player that has all the right attributes for his position, the right attitude, youth on his side, no one seems to rate him except me! He can't get into the national team (even though he outperforms all other players in his position), he never wins player of the year. It doesn't make sense, the performances of a player should have a much bigger influence on how the AI rates them.
I can see that this simplified way of summing up a player is much easier for programming purposes but it annoys me. I personally rate a player in real life according to his performances. If he is playing really well, lots of man of the matchs, I tend to think he is probably a good player. From this I work out his 'potential' purely according to age. So if the lad is playing really well and he's 17 I'd say to myself, he's got bags of potential. To me its that simple.
The development of a young player according to a fixed potential 'ability' seems a bit daft to me. Would it not be better to simulate a players development entirely instead of using the simplified CA/PA?
By this I mean, not having a CA or a PA. A player would have attributes, these attributes would change according to the training / experiences had in the game. The limit shouldn't be imposed by a random PA, it should be imposed by a players personality, dedication to training, relationship with a manager/players, experiences, natural fitness, adaptability, etc. Basically the same things that restricted my footballing career! I think that this would subtly change the interaction with players. Things like being able to spot a player and think that he'd be perfect for a particular part to play in your team. Say for example a Defensive midfielder, a young hard-working professional, with pace and strength. He might not be able to jump very high, or cross balls, or hit a double decker bus with a shot but say he fits my tactics perfectly. So perfectly in fact that his average rating over a couple of seasons is 7.60. (say for example a Makelele of the lower leagues, not that good a player really, but very very good at what he does best) At the moment, the CA of this player could only be 80 (PA also 80) where the other players average 100. so the coaches don't like him, no one rates him at all. except me. In real life you would expect some one to get better with that kind of set up. slowly adding to his game, building on experience. but no. he's hit his ceiling he's never going to get better even though he is only 20 and he's never going to leave league 1.
The opposite is true as well. A player with a CA but with all the wrong attributes still gets played over someone with a worse CA, but better attributes for his position. Think a central defender with high finishing, off the ball, flair, creativity, crossing who has no positioning, can't jump, mark, tackle. not the best choice! I know the regen rules have been tweaked to ensure players attributes are linked to their position, but isn't that the wrong way around? Players get most of their defining attributes when they are born (both mental and physical) over the years through training and experience you settle on a position that suits them best.
I think this change would be great. I'd love to be able to take a youngster who has no future in the game and turn him into an alright player. fair enough he might never be a world beater, but isn't that down to his mentality and my ability as a coach? and not just a random number.
What does everyone else think? Does my ranting make sense? or am I being a bit over the top?!
I totally agree with what you have said a player should definetly not have a fixed value, which would also stop people cheating looking at "hidden values" which would make me
I've just created a 17yr old goal keeper, added him to Northwich Victoria in the BSP, gave him a CA of 90 and a PA of 200, put every attribute at 20 except all the goalkeeping one which are at 1.
so really, he's rubbish.
He was first choice all season, even though he conceded 60 goals in 40 games. Although he got an average rating of 7.0 (suprisingly!) He was also captain of the England u19s and has just secured a big money move to Derby.
One is "That CA and PA exist" .. and the second is "That the AI can see them."
We've had some very good discussions about the latter recently, and in fact the 8.0.1 patch includes a change by which our scouts (at least - and hopefully the AI as well) do not get to "see" PA as clearly, based on a discussion we had here in GQ.
I also wrote about that. that ****es me off, too. just isn't realistic.
I totally agree with you. there are attributes (talent) and peronality, which determine how good some player is/ will be. ok, also a factor of luck, league he is playing and stuff like that.
I allways remeber back on some of the CMs, when I first used editor becouse of Zidane; he was realy bad, played left wing back, lol...
You'll be suprised on people coments here about you wrote
In FIFA06 for the playstation two, everyone has a CA, but no PA.
Why is this bad, you ask?
Well, I did an experiment. I set it on easy and I took a player from Maccy Towm (English League 2) who was really awful, aged 23, and made him the best striker in the world.
Now, if we could do that on FM, where would be the challenge of scouting players?
Big teams sign youth players all the time - this doesn't mean that they are or are going to be exceptional players. big clubs also release many youth plays who fail to impress.
I like your thinking and I agree with almost all that you've written, but I still feel that it is a bit over the top.
The reason I feel that way is because I think it will take a few revolutions of the program to achieve that and it can't happen as fast as we most probably would like it. It can certainly be a target to achieve sometime in the far future.
In the meantime, it might be a good idea for SI to produce a separate game entirely, titled 'Football Trainer', and try to emulate what you've described above and then maybe in time merge the two games in one or make them compatible somehow.
All in all, I'd love to see this evolution happening in this game!
We all know the quality of players like Bojan, Saivet, Aguero. Without these being set as good players, there would be no good players thread, we wouldnt know who we see on Match of the day and Global Football television programmes.
We would all have a first team eleven of players no one has heard about but we have used a fixed formula for creating world class players we bought at 16 years old from cheltenham town (like in past versions).
I know what you mean. There is an issue that the AI can 'see' the CA/PA. It bugs me when I know I've a decent young player because there value is twice the value of a more established star of my team...
I just think that the entire CA/PA way of working is flawed.
two strikers, one with a CA/PA of 80, he is big,strong, slow, good in the air - a perfect target man. the other is small fast, tricky, lots of flair but with a CA/PA of 120. I play a 4-5-1 formation, with the striker holding the ball up. Obviously I know which of the strikers I prefer up front. The fans know which striker they'd prefer up front (purely based on the average rating) but my assistants / coaches / scouts tell me that the small player is twice the player of the big fella.
That annoys the hell out of me! The assistant/coach/scout should look at the average rating and think, "hmmm, based on recent performances, the big lad is better." or point out why the little fella isn't performing, or suggest that I try and persuade the little fella to convert to a winger, or suggest that I sell him because "although he's an established player, he doesn't fit your tactics".
I find the CA/PA too simplified for the complex game surrounding it.
You've just reminded me of a great player I had in CM3, a certain "Tom Jones". He was a DM with a PA of 90. He had 20s for tackling, jumping, and a couple of other important stats were all very high. He couldn't cross, he had no flair, nor could he pass, but he won all his headers and just got stuck in all over the place. He was getting ratings of 7.4-7.6 a season in the Premier League, but not one club ever put in a bid for him. All because his CA meant that they thought he'd be no good...
CA/PA - time for a change? 
I think that this would subtly change the interaction with players. Things like being able to spot a player and think that he'd be perfect for a particular part to play in your team. Say for example a Defensive midfielder, a young hard-working professional, with pace and strength. He might not be able to jump very high, or cross balls, or hit a double decker bus with a shot but say he fits my tactics perfectly. So perfectly in fact that his average rating over a couple of seasons is 7.60. (say for example a Makelele of the lower leagues, not that good a player really, but very very good at what he does best) At the moment, the CA of this player could only be 80 (PA also 80) where the other players average 100. so the coaches don't like him, no one rates him at all. except me. In real life you would expect some one to get better with that kind of set up. slowly adding to his game, building on experience. but no. he's hit his ceiling he's never going to get better even though he is only 20 and he's never going to leave league 1.
Linear Mode
