retired_l27579

If you remove PA, which I do agree is flawed in certain areas, how do you recommend SI to implement a new variable that specifies the natural talent in a player? You cannot say Messi or rooney or any other young star should have the same development process?

That is why we need PA. The only alternative would be to have everyone's PA set at the maximum but put in several factors that affect the speed at which the player matures, but even then you're going to have problems with young stars since if they continue at the rate they start off with when they are 17-21, then they should be perfect by 26. You can't exactly slow them down later either since it wouldn't be fair... you can't implement a "peak early / lasting" sort of system like in PES because you can never know when a player will start to relapse etc.

So i'm afraid PA is the best solution there is and has worked considerably well till now

retired_ajcace

Messi performed exceptionally well in matches, at a very high level, and no doubt worked his balls off in training.

But I do concede your point that with two players, one the very young Messi, one an identical player at the same club, you'd want certain players to have something intagible to BE ABLE to seperate themself. Even if they played at the same level.

Off the top off my head I'd make another hidden attribute, like Consistency, and call it say NATURAL ABILITY. Rate it out of 20. And players would have thier improvements skewed by this.

You might call it "PA by another name" but I wouldn't.
First of all, players would need to perform and train hard PRIMARILY, this would just be a knock on effect. Currently PA does not work like that. It's the horse before the cart - the difference between CA - PA determining the improvement primarily.

And secondly, perhaps much more importantly, *I would not allow Scouts to see NATURAL ABILITY*. It's something that affects the players development, but can't be seen, except through seeing how the player improves because of it.

Currently everyone and his wife can see PA and the computer just makes decisions, and scouts reports, almost solely based on it.

Let's see performances and improvements as the true measure of what a scout sees. Not some hidden stat they shouldn't even be privy too.

And PA has "worked considerably well"? I have to object to that Azmodai. And besides, you don't improve by standing still. I might say that's been SI's problem the last 3/4 years.

(See my "Regens - how bad they still are" thread at the top of the board for further, but related, evidence).

retired_rangelaa

If i had been trained by man u since i was a kid never got injured and played european competitions i dont think my PA would be over 4 as i have no natural talent so you cant limit it to 100

retired_ajcace

All the responses like such are irrelevant. You'd never be picked to be part of the Man U youth system. Players with some talent would be. If Man U say nothing in them they wouldn't be there. Same with every other club.

Players who are part of the Man U youth system should be beyond the level of the best players most of us played with as a kid.

retired_dolphin_1209

this matter could be changed slightly without having to completely overhaul the C.A./P.A. system.

first of all keep C.A. i dont really see any major flaws in this atm.

then instead of having a defined P.A. give everyone a negative P.A. like the youth players have. this would mean that you could have someone trained at Man U at the top of their P.A. barrier while someone trained at Cambridge (no offence) at the bottom of their P.A. barrier.

i dont think this would be the great answer that everyone is hoping for but i do think it is a slight change that could improve the system. i do think that player's performance should effect how they turn out but it may be hard to differ between form and class in this case.

retired_echater

But their upbringing wasn't PERFECT was it? For it to be perfect they must have played for Man Utd in the EPL and in the UCL. </BLOCKQUOTE>Arguing that a player with a PA of &lt;100 could have done better if they'd been given Champions League football is like arguing that your local amateur team could win the FA Cup if they reached the final.

The reason they didn't get to play in the EPL and the UCL is because they weren't good enough, and never would have been. Numerous players that had limited opportunities as youngsters nevertheless earned themselves the right to play regularly in the Premiership. And plenty of players showing early promise that earned them first team opportunities then ceased to develop.

Compare, for example, the career trajectories of Ian Wright and Ian Selley. One played Sunday League football until the age 22 and became one of the best strikers in the country; the other made 42 appearances for the Arsenal first team between the ages of 18 and 21 before finding his level in non-league football.

To draw a loose real life comparison, Giuseppe Rossi is better than Lee Cattermole...

The whole point of PA is that it represents every possible variable other than a players' starting ability, attitude and luck.

Some of these (like the likelihood of a player continuing to develop physically, or the existence of a bad habit they're unlikely to be able to eradicate) can be assessed quite easily. And whilst other qualities are harder to spot, it is possible to evaluate to what extent players performances rely on what they have been trained to produce and what comes naturally.

I'd warrant a top scout can judge with reasonable accuracy which of the better U16s at a top club definitely won't make it and which of the weaker ones nevertheless stand a chance of Premiership football.

I'd agree that the ability of scouts to predict potential is a little too high, but if scouting really takes months to work then you're going to need a long time in game time to make any decisions, which reduces playability.

All the responses like such are irrelevant. You'd never be picked to be part of the Man U youth system. Players with some talent would be. If Man U say nothing in them they wouldn't be there. Same with every other club.

Players who are part of the Man U youth system should be beyond the level of the best players most of us played with as a kid. </BLOCKQUOTE>Actually they're not irrelevant. Because in FM I can sign someone who is slightly below the level of the best players I played with as a kid (a weaker member of a Conference National youth side) for the Man Utd youth system. Should that individual have an ability to consistently improve to at least Championship standard? Should every reasonably professional player that is slightly better than their peers at 16 be a guaranteed first team star provided they avoid serious injury get first team football?

retired_cnaisnice

A monkey (and most of us) will never understand quantum physics regardless of the training. Likewise, some players will never become Ronaldo.

retired_adge1475

CA should be kept, but I think instead of PA, SI should implement "natural talent" which would mean that a player with higher "natural talent" would respond better to training. This would be a PERCENTAGE with 100% meaning they will be a world class player assuming perfect training/luck with injuries etc.

Now let's take a player with 50%. With the right training and good performances, the player can be become a world class player but he has a lesser chance of becoming world class because he has half the talent the other player had- but it should still be a possibility.

A player with 1% doesn't mean there's a 1% chance the player will be world class. The scale would downgrade so a player with 1% would be EXTREMELY unlikely to ever improve.

1-10%= unlikely to improve
20-40%= will slightly improve. Still there is a remote possibility that a world class player will be produced.
40-50%= average academy player for Man U, for instance. They will likely improve a significant amount but not beyond L1/Championship level. Some may be lucky and become premier-quality players.
50-70%= very good talents, quite the possibility that they can develop into first-teamers. Then again, they could flop but they are LESS LIKELY to flop than the players with lower percents.
80%+= unusual talents like Vela, Bojan, Anderson... essentially the -10s. I think Bojan would have the highest percent in the game.

These percents would apply to both youth and regular players. If you think a player will not improve, give them a lower percent. If you think they can, regardless of age, give them a higher percent.

What this does: it means that players aren't ensured to be stars. Yes, Bojan seems amazing, but he could flop. It would be unlikely, but still possible using percentages- just like in real life.

Also:
-training is much more important because players with high percents respond better to good training. Also, lower percentage players have a better chance to improve.
-The game is more random; you can't buy the same player every time and expect it to always work.
-old players won't automatically deteriorate if trained well. Obviously, most will have lower percents than an equally talented 18 year old.

Please evaluate this; I see no faults with it. Remember that the percents represent capacity to improve, they aren't a fixed potential.

retired_lbils

I'm not sure there is too much difference between this and PA (if you multiply the % by 2), just slightly less rigidity. In any case, if you don't look at PA, the problem isn't there. Some players simply will not progress however much quality training they get. I think the current system is fine in concept, just needs tiny tweaks.

retired_echater

One of the most overlooked factors is that it makes straightforward comparisons between current players, where players might be in 10 years and the newgens coming through.

This allows for databases and newgen generators to be readily compared and updated across different leagues, games, seasons and iterations of the FM software.

Other systems allow for training/match scheduling exploits/bugs to produce bizarre anomalies such as young real-life players with decent CA but obviously restrictive limitations continuing to grow until they are far better than the first team, or a world where no regens are fit to lace the boots of an average Premiership player.

Besides, the Maldinis and Ronaldos of this world aren't "more responsive to training" than the Phil Nevilles and Owen Hargreaves'. They're simply better. And the probability of 99.999999% of people that have ever been paid to kick a football of reaching the level of performance of the first two is a big fat zero.