My issue with FM...

I've played FM for years and I've loved it. I have one major concern with the general direction the game has taken though over the last few years though. I'm curious if anyone else feels the same way. The things I love about the game are trying to build a squad through the transfer market and player development. I love figuring out tactics and squad selections and all that. I think those aspects of the game (and others) can be reasonably well simulated and I think SI has done a great job of this for the most part. The one part of the game that I think does not lend itself well to this type of simulation is player psychology/interactions. Obviously it is a major part of a manager's job IRL, and I don't object to some level of trying to simulate that aspect of a manager's job (ie Team talks); I just think it's starting to become too significant in the game for me. Maybe this is just my personal preference, but I don't enjoy trying to manage player motivation and relationships in the game, partly because I don't think it's very well done in the game, but also because I have no way of knowing how to manage a computer personality. Some aspects are better left to the imagination rather than meticulously simulated at every detail level. I'm thinking of things like player interaction and press conferences etc.

Maybe other players really enjoy this aspect of the game? Maybe it would be more enjoyable if it were better developed? But for me, I would prefer if they kept this aspect to a minimum (like it was prior to FM09 maybe. Maybe earlier.) and focused on continuing to improve the transfer market and the match engine, etc. Any thoughts?

I agree to an extent, that the player interactions in this years version of the game can be quite frustrating if you say the wrong thing and it wrecks your players morale. I don't think the solution should be to minimise this aspect of the game though but to make it a bit less 'random'. for example if I tell a player he played well in a match and he disagrees it shouldn't imo end up with the player effectively throwing a tantrum and telling me 'he's upset by my comments and doesn't think he can forgive me', as I had just now with a player in my game.

I think the interactions have the potential to be one of the best features introduced in recent FM's if the conversations are made a bit more diverse in responses available and a bit less punishing when you say the wrong thing.

In my view, player interaction (PI) is one of the key aspects of real-world football today (see Rooney, Wayne). To conduct a proper examination of its place in the FM environment, we have to split the analysis into three parts.

First, there is the concept itself: should the game include PI in principle? I'd say emphatically yes. Player interaction ranks right up there in importance as one of the primary duties of a manager and SI is right to model it. Done properly -- and that's the critical point -- it can add an immense amount of flavor to the other, more methodical aspects of the game.

Second, from a technical standpoint, how well can PI be modeled in a game? No matter how flavorful, if it can not be developed satisfactorily, PI won't add much to the game and can even be a detriment (see Press Conferences, Lobotomized). My view here is that, in general, the addition of detailed human-like interaction to computer games ranges from very difficult to nearly impossible at present. However, for the FM series, I think the task is significantly easier as SI is modeling an environment that is far less complicated. Thus, I think that, in principle at least, the task of modeling a believable PI for FM is within the reach of a skilled game developer, which SI clearly is.

And, finally: how well has SI done in modeling player interaction? And here's the crunch. Unfortunately, I think SI is attacking the problem of PI in such a way as to increase the difficulty of the task. Instead of emphasizing the more straightforward aspects of PI and developing them fully with a robust option-based system, SI has been attempting to solve the far more complex puzzle of direct conversational interaction. This has resulted in the worst of both worlds. For example, the press conferences (which could be revised into a broader -- not deeper -- module with relative ease) have been shortchanged while the new face-to-face negotiations cannot and will not deliver anything approaching a full range of believable options and results. The good news here is that, by shifting their approach, SI could develop a couple of new features -- including the random events package I have suggested -- that would deliver a deeper, more immersive experience. The beauty of it is that this approach would be considerably simpler to implement because it does not attempt to model human interaction directly.

I think PI should definitely be part of the game, but it's not well implemented on FM. Here are some of my issues:

1. Player personality - Without using an editor to check hidden values, we get a one word description of the personality. Are we supposed to know how a "driven" player responds during a contract demand or PPM suggestion?

2. Lack of feedback about morale - My player has low morale? Why? I'd like to get a category of factors that led to a certain morale. For example, player is happy about team performance = +2. Player is pleased with indidvual performance = +3. Player is upset at low wage = -5. Etc...

3. Morale changes too fast - Aside from the most difficult players, a conversation asking them to reduce long shots shouldn't result in a transfer request. In FM, it seems like players go from ecstatic to furious/alienated with one event depending on how you handled the PI mini-game. At a certain point, I choose the "you are disrespecting me" speech option. If it passes the check, the player feels he has good relations with me. If not, he's alienated and asks for transfer. Instead, morale changes should be much more subtle, but steady. Every decision you make regarding squad selection, contracts, press conferences, etc should have a small affect on players morale. It would make for a much more interesting gameplay where you have to juggle your decisions because you can't satisfy everyone.

Do you get a "category [sic] of factors" in real life if you are managing and someone on the team has low morale? Do you get to just click a menu and there it is: "player is ****ed you yanked him in min. 76 last week, plus his wife is boffing the Ass Man"? Of course not. Why, then, should you in the game?

The real way to address this is to add even more complexity: allow a series of questions about morale during player interactions that let you suss out the reason he's feeling down. Needless to say, implementing even more "realism" in this fashion is not likely to make many happy.

As for the speed at which they decide to dislike you, I find that's directly a component of how much good will you've built up with them. When you are new, and especially if you are really over-reaching with your job, players will be much less likely to accept your request that they change how they do things. Later on, as you build up your reputation with them, even if you ask them to do something their not that willing to do, they won't bite your head off for even daring to suggest it. That's a bit realistic, too. After all, in real life, if someone with a "Sunday League" background came into any professional side at all, and started telling the players how to do their jobs, how do you think they would take it?

All of the above are great points; thanks for your thoughts. It's just getting so difficult and tedious for me to navigate what seems like increasingly unpredictable and volatile player morale issues. Things like the Rooney and Tevez issues IRL should be in the game I think, but it should be less common and make more sense when it happens. The key for me is that they shouldn't introduce these sorts of things until they work reasonably well. I enjoy the rest of the game without it and I can wait. I'm sure this isn't a new point though.

I enjoyed reading the OP and was formulating a response in my mind when I scrolled down to AytchMan's reply. He said exactly what I was thinking, and articulated it excellently.

In essence, you just need to see the recent headline stories - Rooney, Tevez, and ohmigod Balotelli to realise that this is a key ingredient in the modern manager's job. It is, however, very complex to plan and code into a computer game. I give credit to SI for moving forward year by year, but there are also valid strong criticisms of some aspects. the solution is not to abandon it or make it optional, but to dedicate serious human resources to substantially improving the quality. Over the last few editions, priority has gone into the like of the ME, transfers and training - maybe for FM12 the player/staff/universe v manager interaction element should be #1 on the list.

When players' answers are random coversations may turn to be quite stupid, when the answers are determined it's too robotic. PI is terrible at the moment in its state. Managers are limited with possible statements and often obliged to tell players what they wouldn't want to. Players in their turn often react with irritation that leads to poor moral. To make it work SI should create a very complex logarithm so that PI could reflect liveness of human nature and flexibility of human mind as it can't be limited just with a couple of choices. But at the end PI stll could be very frustrating as users would spend hours for interactions with players instead of doing some real football stuff. So, when it's simple it's bad, when it's complex it can be even worse...

Do you get a "category [sic] of factors" in real life if you are managing and someone on the team has low morale? Do you get to just click a menu and there it is: "player is ****ed you yanked him in min. 76 last week, plus his wife is boffing the Ass Man"? Of course not. Why, then, should you in the game?

The real way to address this is to add even more complexity: allow a series of questions about morale during player interactions that let you suss out the reason he's feeling down. Needless to say, implementing even more "realism" in this fashion is not likely to make many happy.

That's a great point, but as you stated, we can't really have daily meetings or conversations within the game. The category of factors is an abstraction of the conversations you have with your players as well as observations from your staff. Currently, there is very little feedback as to what's making my players happy/upset.

My problem is in talking with the stupid board. I currently have my team Chrono More at the top of the Bulgarian A league and Im currently in the group stages of the Champions league, and I am also ranked in the top 100 teams in all of Europe and that will go up after my current season is finished.

But where my problem occurs is when I ask my board to allow more scouts and coaches. Every time, which is at least 3 times a year, I get approved, but not once have the allowed numbers actually gone up. Meaning I have a small staff and its almost impossible to get my players coached better to improve in training.

My training grounds and youth facilities are highest in the league, and Im the second richest yet nothing is done to allow me to expand my staff. The board also can never find a team for me to link to. Im in 2015 and Ive yet to get a linked team.

That's a great point, but as you stated, we can't really have daily meetings or conversations within the game. The category of factors is an abstraction of the conversations you have with your players as well as observations from your staff. Currently, there is very little feedback as to what's making my players happy/upset.

Actually, you can. Just most of us aren't that anal retentive, and it would make the game last a long time!

game time: 10 days, 20 hours, 30minutes

game date: Saturday 3rd December 2011

I guess I'm 'anal retentive' ?

I agree to an extent, that the player interactions in this years version of the game can be quite frustrating if you say the wrong thing and it wrecks your players morale. I don't think the solution should be to minimise this aspect of the game though but to make it a bit less 'random'. for example if I tell a player he played well in a match and he disagrees it shouldn't imo end up with the player effectively throwing a tantrum and telling me 'he's upset by my comments and doesn't think he can forgive me', as I had just now with a player in my game.

I think the interactions have the potential to be one of the best features introduced in recent FM's if the conversations are made a bit more diverse in responses available and a bit less punishing when you say the wrong thing.

I love when that happens. "You played very well!" "WHAT? How can you say that to me? How dare you! I hate you"

game time: 10 days, 20 hours, 30minutes

game date: Saturday 3rd December 2011

I guess I'm 'anal retentive' ?

Brother, you practically explode from holding it in!

Let's call it "Detail Oriented" for the PC crowd.

Great OP. Particularly agreed with this bit:

Some aspects are better left to the imagination rather than meticulously simulated at every detail level.

The imagination factor is the most important part of the game for me. Quite frankly, certain aspects of the game are never going to match my imagination and, to a certain extent and in certain cases only, I wish they wouldn't try to do so. They are always going to be a disappointment. That's why I would rather see improvement in terms of the core aspects of the game rather than additions that I see as not adding any real enjoyment for me personally.

great OP.

I think the player interaction is very important, but its somewhat overpowered in this installment, its not balanced against the other aspects of the game.

Aytchman hit it right on the head with his reply so cant really add to that