Am I the only one that tears my hair out at these things?

As a seasoned veteran of all Champ/FM games from right back in the day when Julen Guerrero was knocking about and banging in goals left, right and centre, I have to say I have so much love for the game it's bordering on pathetic, when taking into consideration my age, which I will not divulge.

However, certain aspects of this masterpiece sometimes make me want to rip my mouse out of the computer and shove it down some "developers" throat!!!

Firstly, I've never got my head around the tactics and the way that one option will compliment another? For example(and I will keep it to just one), why exactly would a short passing game be more beneficial when played at a slow tempo which is as the game suggests? Let's just think about the Barcelona and even Arsenal teams of late, I'd say each possess a slick, short passing style whilst the tempo they play is lightening quick?! I just question the foresight of the tactical development team that work to create these ideas, and have always found I end up with tactical instructions that completely contradict what I think I should be doing in order to be successful.

Following on from this, and this is one thing that has come to light in every version of the game for years and years. I find I can be sitting here, mid-game, 76 mins gone, 21 shots on target later against none from the opposition having somehow not to've managed to hit the onion, just waiting for them to INEVITABLY notch from some flooky counter, despite ANY efforts which I make from a tactical point of view to stop from happening. This of course does happen in this crazy game we all love, but the frequency in which I find myself in this boat is ridiculous! It just makes the game predictable which is the ONE thing it cannot afford to be seeing as we are trying to simulate real life!

Thirdly and lastly as I could go on all day but really should be doing something of some value, I have to mention the media on the game. It is without doubt the most boring feature. You rarely get given an option to say what you REALLY want to say, and every press conference is the same! What's the point of turning up to only be able to respond to exactly the same questions in exactly the same way? Maybe so's you can get back to the home screen and find a couple of your players have got the 'ump because you've said something they didn't like when what you understood the answer you gave to mean something completely different to what it acually did? This area needs a complete revamp or to be thrown on the scrap heap altogehter as it is time-consuming, completely unreallistic and far from enjoyable!

Climbing off my soap box as we speak!

No, you would not be the only one. Personally the 'first' and 'third' areas have always driven me bananas. As far as the 'second', I've never found it impossible to correct this with some tactical changes, though many people do complain about it.

first, I have an experimental formation that employs a direct style of passing at a tempo of 13/14 that translates into the match engine as a high tempo, short, slick passing style due to the attacking mentalities of the players and their individual passing instructions along with the positioning of the players around them which makes the short pass the best option. Ergo... it's your tactics.

second, the more attacking a player's mentality, the more likely they are to rush their shots resulting in easy to save shots or misses. There can also be other reasons for it though; your pre-match press conference; your pre-match/half-time team-talk/s; media pressure/expectation; even your own interaction with a player, any and/or all of them could be the problem... and exploring the various possibilities could help you to solve the problem.

thirdly, if you are giving the "same answers" to the "same questions" at every press conference then you are 100% guaranteed to upset your players many times a season. The questions might appear to be the same, the answers might even appear the same, but the chances of the circumstances being the same are virtually nil... which means that the required answer isn't always the same as before even if "it worked last time". I enjoy the press conferences, I even had one that ran to 18 questions!! If you use them properly they become a useful tool for balancing/boosting player's morale and pressures whilst keeping expectations realistic. If you don't properly consider the implications of any given answer where your squad is concerned then you're totally missing out on a valuable tool in the game... honestly, the media/player interaction works fine. If you know what reaction you want to get when you answer a question then the answer is easy...

first, I have an experimental formation that employs a direct style of passing at a tempo of 13/14 that translates into the match engine as a high tempo, short, slick passing style due to the attacking mentalities of the players and their individual passing instructions along with the positioning of the players around them which makes the short pass the best option. Ergo... it's your tactics.

second, the more attacking a player's mentality, the more likely they are to rush their shots resulting in easy to save shots or misses. There can also be other reasons for it though; your pre-match press conference; your pre-match/half-time team-talk/s; media pressure/expectation; even your own interaction with a player, any and/or all of them could be the problem... and exploring the various possibilities could help you to solve the problem.

thirdly, if you are giving the "same answers" to the "same questions" at every press conference then you are 100% guaranteed to upset your players many times a season. The questions might appear to be the same, the answers might even appear the same, but the chances of the circumstances being the same are virtually nil... which means that the required answer isn't always the same as before even if "it worked last time". I enjoy the press conferences, I even had one that ran to 18 questions!! If you use them properly they become a useful tool for balancing/boosting player's morale and pressures whilst keeping expectations realistic. If you don't properly consider the implications of any given answer where your squad is concerned then you're totally missing out on a valuable tool in the game... honestly, the media/player interaction works fine. If you know what reaction you want to get when you answer a question then the answer is easy...

...speechless!!!

first, I have an experimental formation that employs a direct style of passing at a tempo of 13/14 that translates into the match engine as a high tempo, short, slick passing style due to the attacking mentalities of the players and their individual passing instructions along with the positioning of the players around them which makes the short pass the best option. Ergo... it's your tactics.

second, the more attacking a player's mentality, the more likely they are to rush their shots resulting in easy to save shots or misses. There can also be other reasons for it though; your pre-match press conference; your pre-match/half-time team-talk/s; media pressure/expectation; even your own interaction with a player, any and/or all of them could be the problem... and exploring the various possibilities could help you to solve the problem.

thirdly, if you are giving the "same answers" to the "same questions" at every press conference then you are 100% guaranteed to upset your players many times a season. The questions might appear to be the same, the answers might even appear the same, but the chances of the circumstances being the same are virtually nil... which means that the required answer isn't always the same as before even if "it worked last time". I enjoy the press conferences, I even had one that ran to 18 questions!! If you use them properly they become a useful tool for balancing/boosting player's morale and pressures whilst keeping expectations realistic. If you don't properly consider the implications of any given answer where your squad is concerned then you're totally missing out on a valuable tool in the game... honestly, the media/player interaction works fine. If you know what reaction you want to get when you answer a question then the answer is easy...

good reply!

If you know what reaction you want to get when you answer a question then the answer is easy...

Unlike you, the OP doesn't actually enjoy press conferences, so telling him to actually think about the press conference is hardly going to help him enjoy it.

It's great that some users enjoy some of SI's new "features", but then again, some users don't. From the feedback on these forums, it appears most people don't enjoy press conferences and you are in the minority.

first, I have an experimental formation that employs a direct style of passing at a tempo of 13/14 that translates into the match engine as a high tempo, short, slick passing style due to the attacking mentalities of the players and their individual passing instructions along with the positioning of the players around them which makes the short pass the best option. Ergo... it's your tactics.

second, the more attacking a player's mentality, the more likely they are to rush their shots resulting in easy to save shots or misses. There can also be other reasons for it though; your pre-match press conference; your pre-match/half-time team-talk/s; media pressure/expectation; even your own interaction with a player, any and/or all of them could be the problem... and exploring the various possibilities could help you to solve the problem.

thirdly, if you are giving the "same answers" to the "same questions" at every press conference then you are 100% guaranteed to upset your players many times a season. The questions might appear to be the same, the answers might even appear the same, but the chances of the circumstances being the same are virtually nil... which means that the required answer isn't always the same as before even if "it worked last time". I enjoy the press conferences, I even had one that ran to 18 questions!! If you use them properly they become a useful tool for balancing/boosting player's morale and pressures whilst keeping expectations realistic. If you don't properly consider the implications of any given answer where your squad is concerned then you're totally missing out on a valuable tool in the game... honestly, the media/player interaction works fine. If you know what reaction you want to get when you answer a question then the answer is easy...

Probably the best post I've ever read in GD.

What is clear is that for some users, it is extremely unclear to know what reaction you actually want to get.

Then the fault is with the user. If you do not understand what you are trying to achieve, then how can you ever hope to achieve it? Surely the first point when thinking about a press conference would be "what reaction from my players do i want?" you then look at the answers available and choose from there, if you dont have a clue what reaction you want then you are wasting your time even trying.

It's great that some users enjoy some of SI's new "features", but then again, some users don't. From the feedback on these forums, it appears most people don't enjoy press conferences and you are in the minority.

Then I will happily put my hand up to join that minority.

I have no issue with the press conferences at all, I attend every one, it is generally only 5 - 6 questions, I mean seriously, how hard is that. Basically a big fuss over sweet fa.

As to the answers I don't really give a toss what the player reaction is, if I am annoyed I am annoyed, happy , then happy. So I just answer accordingly, as opposed to try to work out a formula for the perfect press conference.

Then I will happily put my hand up to join that minority.

ill add myself into that minority as well.

Then I will happily put my hand up to join that minority.

I have no issue with the press conferences at all, I attend every one, it is generally only 5 - 6 questions, I mean seriously, how hard is that. Basically a big fuss over sweet fa.

It's not "hard" in that sense - it's just something that wasn't in previous FM games (and badly-received in FM10 too), seems to have no positive impact (or is difficult to find), and has the possibility of shooting yourself in the foot. Previous ways of handling press-conferences appear to have "random" effects (in the sense that users cannot recognise the different contexts where a specific option is less appropriate than others, so the option appears to do different things every time). In a sense, the "rules have changed", but the users don't recognise it (the fault of the software); and most importantly, the users don't know why (the fault of the software) or how to change (the fault of the software).

As a result, the feature feels random, broken and annoying, and users feel inadequate themselves.

Therefore 5-6 questions (12 mouse clicks) is 12 mouse clicks too many.

"You're doing it wrong" is almost never a good justification to a user who is struggling to use a piece of software. Users are always right. If the software feels unnatural or frustrating, then the software is unnatural or frustrating. Perhaps paradoxically, it means that anyone who does enjoy the software is always correct - the only solution is for the piece of software to be so well-designed it makes both parties happy.

As to the answers I don't really give a toss what the player reaction is, if I am annoyed I am annoyed, happy , then happy. So I just answer accordingly, as opposed to try to work out a formula for the perfect press conference.

However, some people are not looking for a silver bullet - they are just looking for a gun in the first place.

Therefore 5-6 questions (12 mouse clicks) is 12 mouse clicks too many.

Christ you and your mouse clicks, anyway 5-6 questions is 5-6 mouse clicks, not 12.

Christ you and your mouse clicks, anyway 5-6 questions is 5-6 mouse clicks, not 12.

And from a usability standpoint, a mouse click (or really, keystroke) is a valid measure of usability. If task A requires 10 mouse-clicks or 8 mouse-clicks, the 8 mouse-clicks is arguably superior (depending on things like feedback, of course).

Choose option, click next -> 2 clicks per question.

And from a usability standpoint, a mouse click (or really, keystroke) is a valid measure of usability. If task A requires 10 mouse-clicks or 8 mouse-clicks, the 8 mouse-clicks is arguably superior (depending on things like feedback, of course).

Have you even played FM11? Each question is one click, not like FM10 where you had to choose an answer and then confirm it.

Have you even played FM11? Each question is one click, not like FM10 where you had to choose an answer and then confirm it.

And 5-6 mouse-clicks is still too much for a user who finds a feature annoying. Granted, it's the minimum, but it feels "forced". And even if you send your assistant, you are reminded of its existence.

they cannot make it so there are less clicks, you either do one yourself and only have 1 click per answer, or you ask your assistant to take charge which is one click, or for the extreme lazy players (like yourself apparently) you set your assistant to take control in your settings and you dont need to do anything else with them ever again!

they cannot make it so there are less clicks, you either do one yourself and only have 1 click per answer, or you ask your assistant to take charge which is one click, or for the extreme lazy players (like yourself apparently) you set your assistant to take control in your settings and you dont need to do anything else with them ever again!

It's not laziness. A user wants his or her keystrokes, including mouse-clicks, to have "value". If I click a button, I want something to happen that adds to the user experience.

5-6 mouse-clicks is a lot for a feature like this, so the software has to get it right.

5-6 mouse-clicks is a lot for a user who does not find the feature fun in any way. If the "solution" is for him to "ignore it" by sending the assistant, then that is absolutely the justification for the software to be improved.

Press conferences were one of the big features for FM10, so telling users to "ignore it" is even more of a slap to the face to SI in some way.

From SI's perspective, they simply need to revamp the press conferences to be less annoying, less repetitive, less confusing so that users are not tempted to simply ignore them. I suspect a lot of users wouldn't mind an awesome press conferences feature (although some would still want to skip them). An awesome press conference feature would add to the gameplay, realism and fun factors; and the option to ignore would please those who have never cared. However, it cannot be "awesome" if users like the OP get frustrated.

First, well, there are plenty of tips in the game like this that nudge new players toward what tends to work, but they're not set in stone. Short passing with high tempo is a type of game that only the very best teams in the world can pull off, but hey, if you've got the players for it, it's deadly. Maybe not a good general-purpose tip for everyone, though.

Second, most goals in football are scored from quick plays with few passes. You need to find a way to guard against this, whether that's via fast defenders, playing deeper, high pressure on passers, or something else. We all concede in this way more or less frequently (at least I certainly do), but that's as should be. Minimize it with the means available to your team.

Third, media needs more questions and more context-sensitivity to break the repetitiveness. I think Lazaru5 has the right idea though; it's a tool to shift attention, pressure and confidence where you want it, i.e. to maximize your chances in games by influencing how they're framed. If you have a decent assistant, I think it's fine to leave to him really if you'd rather not deal with this side of management.

If the user doesnt care about the feature it wont matter how good or bad it is, they will still ignore it if possible.

Different people get frustrated with different features from any game, it doesnt mean they are poorly thought out or badly designed, some features are just not for some people.

Im not arguing more over mouse clicks, if you have your way you wont need a mouse for this game, just one magic do everything and win button you only have to press once a season, but for me each click is worthwhile, press conferences are important to an extent, but not vital, for me anything that can help towards success is useful, ignoring any help you can get is daft IMO.

The fact is press conferences aren't exciting, they aren't awesome, its just something that happens.

You can either except it and work through them trying to use them effectively or you send your assistant.

It's not "hard" in that sense - it's just something that wasn't in previous FM games (and badly-received in FM10 too), seems to have no positive impact (or is difficult to find), and has the possibility of shooting yourself in the foot. Previous ways of handling press-conferences appear to have "random" effects (in the sense that users cannot recognise the different contexts where a specific option is less appropriate than others, so the option appears to do different things every time). In a sense, the "rules have changed", but the users don't recognise it (the fault of the software); and most importantly, the users don't know why (the fault of the software) or how to change (the fault of the software).

As a result, the feature feels random, broken and annoying, and users feel inadequate themselves.

Therefore 5-6 questions (12 mouse clicks) is 12 mouse clicks too many.

Without trying to start an argument, ....absolute bollocks.

Every line in that paragraph reads from a perspective of trying to find a golden rule of press conferences.

The effects positive or negative are a small shift in morale and if memory serves correct, wwfan has mentioned that even a bad press conference can be counter-acted with a good team talk. Each press conference is going to be different, even if the questions don't vary a great deal, the variations are pretty straightforward, rivals, short odds, long odds , even( that would be your random effects). So a random effect, is no longer a random effect when you treat each one based on the opposition you are about to face.

"You're doing it wrong" is almost never a good justification to a user who is struggling to use a piece of software. Users are always right. If the software feels unnatural or frustrating, then the software is unnatural or frustrating. Perhaps paradoxically, it means that anyone who does enjoy the software is always correct - the only solution is for the piece of software to be so well-designed it makes both parties happy.

Sorry, but more bollocks.

If that is the case then a person who is using a PC competently, then changes over to a Mac and struggles with operating it, could proudly start declaring that Mac is crap and be correct. You can't drive a 4WD like a Ferrari and expect the same outcomes, in other words until you use it in the manner it is designed for you will not get the best out of it.

It is clear the OP does care about the reaction of the players is.

As has been stated many times around the various forums, if you tell it like it is you won't go too far wrong. So if you take a fairly honest approach, overall you will get positive responses from press conferences. Will you get them right everytime, maybe not, but chances are you will get fewer wrong.

However, some people are not looking for a silver bullet - they are just looking for a gun in the first place.

Pfff.. more like looking for the gun as they can't provide the silver bullet.

If the user doesnt care about the feature it wont matter how good or bad it is, they will still ignore it if possible.

There is a difference between a user who doesn't care about a feature, and a user who doesn't like the feature but would like it if it was improved.

The OP has given it a go and found it frustrating, suggesting he might actually want to give it a go.

For any feature, there is always a set of people who are willing to give it a go if the feature is designed differently.

Different people get frustrated with different features from any game, it doesnt mean they are poorly thought out or badly designed,

Absolutely rubbish from a software design perspective. If a feature frustrates or annoys a certain group of users, the feature is badly-designed, full-stop. Good software design can make the mundane fun. The Sims is a fairly mundane game and is about as repetitive as it can get - yet the series is hugely successful and fun, because it makes the mundane fun.

some features are just not for some people.

This is different to the above - some features might be awesome, but some users may still not be interested because they want a game that is rapid, or they are just interested in different things. A user who ignores a feature does not necessarily think it is rubbish.

I personally think the tactics creator is a fantastic feature as it makes tactics creation so easy at least for a base tactic, but I usually never employ it. I don't think it's rubbish - it's just not for me. However, if the tactics creator was absolutely rubbish, I still wouldn't employ it, as I wouldn't need to. My usage of the tactics creator does not necessarily have anything to do with its quality.

Im not arguing more over mouse clicks, if you have your way you wont need a mouse for this game, just one magic do everything and win button you only have to press once a season, but for me each click is worthwhile, press conferences are important to an extent, but not vital, for me anything that can help towards success is useful, ignoring any help you can get is daft IMO.

I'm happy to spend money on education. But I want that education to be quality education. I don't want a silver bullet - even if one existed, I'd still want to go through education. I don't want to spend part of that education doing something that seems to have no value (although perhaps some of my colleagues find it does have value) - quite frankly I don't really care that others find it has value, because it doesn't help me. I acknowledge that some activities carry the risk of shooting myself in the foot (i.e. staying late in the library and leaving late at night on dark roads), but I need to recognise that there is a potential benefit in doing so, and that I have the option to not do that (i.e. study at home/stay over at a nearby friend's house instead).

The fact is press conferences aren't exciting, they aren't awesome, its just something that happens.

But it is possible to gain a positive benefit out of it in reality, and users would be interested in gaining those benefits.

The Sims suggests the mundane and boring can be fun. Software design make weird things interesting.

You can either except it and work through them trying to use them effectively or you send your assistant.

Yes, that's what I can do. However, SI should be improving the user experience for the former, to reduce the chances of users simply doing the latter.

Otherwise, SI could deliberately add on a badly-designed feature with the option to ignore, and you could apply exactly the same argument to justify it ("If you don't like it, ignore it.")

It is impossible to please everyone when designing software, and completely improbable to think you can, there will aways be someone who doesnt like what has been designed or how something works, you as much as anyone should be aware and appreciate that fact.

regarding this part;

You're missing the point over mouse-clicks - the point is that the user is applying a large amount of effort (5-6 mouse-clicks is a lot, if done over the course of the season, and takes around a minute to complete) for something that appears to have no positive value whatsoever. The OP doesn't want a "win" button - what the OP wants is a feature where 5-6 mouse-clicks gives him the possibility of a positive outcome, and that it appears to give him that possibility.

Each press conference takes me about 30 seconds, and there are positive results for me almost every time. They are not designed so if you choose the "correct" option then you will guarantee a win or good performance because they should never be that effective, but if they are done with enough thought then they can be rewarding and very much worthwhile. Because the OP has not yet mastered them he/she feels like they are pointless, that couldnt be further from the truth.

What is clear is that for some users, it is extremely unclear to know what reaction you actually want to get. Most just want to avoid damaging their team's morale in some way. What is also clear is that some users, such as the OP, clearly do not know how to get the most out of the press conferences, and that is the fault of the game, because it is not clear that it is possible to have a "good" press conference.

Every press conference is a "good" one, even if you say something that upsets your team. The trick is to maximise/minimise the potential/damage effectively. What many FM'ers don't seem to realise is that every answer to every question has an effect, not just the one highlighted in your inbox! Some people will probably give the "right" answers every time and still not get the full effectiveness of them due to not realising they all had an effect. A simple thing to remember is if a player is mentioned in a press conference then he will be affected in some way - people simply need to make the most of that when they give their team-talk. If they don't... we get (another) thread in GD...

Unlike you, the OP doesn't actually enjoy press conferences, so telling him to actually think about the press conference is hardly going to help him enjoy it.

It's great that some users enjoy some of SI's new "features", but then again, some users don't. From the feedback on these forums, it appears most people don't enjoy press conferences and you are in the minority.

If I am in a minority, then it's because of naysayers like yourself claiming that a feature is broken when all that is really required is a better understanding of how said feature works. Just because you say something often enough, it doesn't mean that it's true. The simple fact is people are happier blaming the game for their own faults instead of actually trying to understand how to play it properly. If you play it properly, you enjoy it! 100% gtd! Genuine bugs then become "slight annoyances", minor problems that you know will (eventually) be fixed in the longer term - they don't detract from your overall enjoyment of the game (unless you let them).

Without trying to start an argument, ....absolute bollocks.

Every line in that paragraph reads from a perspective of trying to find a golden rule of press conferences.

The effects positive or negative are a small shift in morale and if memory serves correct, wwfan has mentioned that even a bad press conference can be counter-acted with a good team talk. Each press conference is going to be different, even if the questions don't vary a great deal, the variations are pretty straightforward, rivals, short odds, long odds , even( that would be your random effects). So a random effect, is no longer a random effect when you treat each one based on the opposition you are about to face.

I'm not going into the mechanics of press conferences. I agree with the mechanics as wwfan has stated. I disagree with the "presentation" of them, however.

I'm a software designer at heart, and these are my views as a software designer.

I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the OP and users who find this feature frustrating.

I'm aware it is possible to be "good" at press conferences. I'm interested in exploring why some users simply aren't that good, and whether the software has a weakness in this respect. I've studied usability in some way previously and I recognise some flaws. Now, these flaws might have explanations, but a flaw is a flaw.

Sorry, but more bollocks.

If that is the case then a person who is using a PC competently, then changes over to a Mac and struggles with operating it, could proudly start declaring that Mac is crap and be correct. You can't drive a 4WD like a Ferrari and expect the same outcomes, in other words until you use it in the manner it is designed for you will not get the best out of it.

However, it is not the case that FM10 is a 4WD and FM11 is a Ferrari. They are not fundamentally different games. To the user, they shouldn't appear as fundamentally different (there's enough resistance for new features as it is, anyway).

What we have is a feature that is common throughout the series, but has been designed differently from FM10 onwards. So if you insist on 4WD-Ferrari, a feature might be the dashboard. Users expect the dashboard to do roughly the same thing over time, except future ones might do things differently, but any changes should happen for a good reason. If a user is used to doing something and that something changes with a new version, then:

- The user must recognise that there is a different outcome

- The user must recognise why that outcome has changed

- The user must understand why their previous knowledge is incorrect

- The user must recognise how they have to change

- The user must recognise what the change would have done in the previous version

- The user must recognise what is different in the new version

- The user must be able to easily formulate a new "plan of attack" for the new version

It is not clear to the user why they are wrong, or why the past doesn't work now.

The poor OP has had to get wwfan to explain press conferences. Now think of all the users who are not lucky enough to have him explain, or even be aware that these forums exist!

Software usability - that's all it is. Change for a good reason. Help users through the change without making them feel stupid. Make sure the change is well-designed in itself and provides plenty of context and feedback.

As has been stated many times around the various forums, if you tell it like it is you won't go too far wrong. So if you take a fairly honest approach, overall you will get positive responses from press conferences. Will you get them right everytime, maybe not, but chances are you will get fewer wrong.

Are you implying the OP (and anyone else who is struggling) is approaching press conferences dishonestly? In which case, there's a serious issue here if users are somewhat compelled to "lie", as it means real-life emotions and "virtual emotions" don't match. In addition to branding all these users as liars...

Pfff.. more like looking for the gun as they can't provide the silver bullet.

I am not concerned with getting a user to perform amazing press conferences - I am concerned with frustrated users not enjoying press conferences. A user might still turn out to be rubbish at press conferences, but as long as the feature is amazing, I don't really mind.

Every press conference is a "good" one, even if you say something that upsets your team. The trick is to maximise/minimise the potential/damage effectively. What many FM'ers don't seem to realise is that every answer to every question has an effect, not just the one highlighted in your inbox! Some people will probably give the "right" answers every time and still not get the full effectiveness of them due to not realising they all had an effect. A simple thing to remember is if a player is mentioned in a press conference then he will be affected in some way - people simply need to make the most of that when they give their team-talk. If they don't... we get (another) thread in GD...

If I am in a minority, then it's because of naysayers like yourself claiming that a feature is broken when all that is really required is a better understanding of how said feature works. Just because you say something often enough, it doesn't mean that it's true. The simple fact is people are happier blaming the game for their own faults instead of actually trying to understand how to play it properly. If you play it properly, you enjoy it! 100% gtd! Genuine bugs then become "slight annoyances", minor problems that you know will (eventually) be fixed in the longer term - they don't detract from your overall enjoyment of the game (unless you let them).

I should just stop posting and let you say it for me!

It is impossible to please everyone when designing software, and completely improbable to think you can, there will aways be someone who doesnt like what has been designed or how something works, you as much as anyone should be aware and appreciate that fact.

Anyone who thinks that way in software usability wouldn't have a job.

Besides, looking at these forums, it's not one or two isolated cases - it's a lot of users who find it frustrating.

Each press conference takes me about 30 seconds, and there are positive results for me almost every time. They are not designed so if you choose the "correct" option then you will guarantee a win or good performance because they should never be that effective, but if they are done with enough thought then they can be rewarding and very much worthwhile. Because the OP has not yet mastered them he/she feels like they are pointless, that couldnt be further from the truth.

This is what the game should be aiming for.

A lot of users try the feature, think they've done OK (as it's worked in the past), only to find out that it hasn't worked. They don't know why. They know something has changed but don't know what to look for. And it is frustrating enough for them to simply give up and send the assistant.

Every press conference is a "good" one, even if you say something that upsets your team. The trick is to maximise/minimise the potential/damage effectively. What many FM'ers don't seem to realise is that every answer to every question has an effect, not just the one highlighted in your inbox! Some people will probably give the "right" answers every time and still not get the full effectiveness of them due to not realising they all had an effect. A simple thing to remember is if a player is mentioned in a press conference then he will be affected in some way - people simply need to make the most of that when they give their team-talk. If they don't... we get (another) thread in GD...

Alternatively, SI could make sure that users are aware of what the effects are, and maybe even suggest how they could change their "press conference tactics".

It's great you have a trick or tactic of your own that works, but why are a lot of users struggling? Sure, you might be "educating" some users on press conferences, but what about those unfortunate souls who don't see your posts?

If I am in a minority, then it's because of naysayers like yourself claiming that a feature is broken when all that is really required is a better understanding of how said feature works.

From a software design perspective, this is broken. If a user needs a better understanding before they can use a feature, then SI need to help users gain a better understanding, through the software itself. Not requiring users to visit this forum.

If I design a piece of software that is confusing for a large number of users but some users find a way to use my software well, then I would be concerned with the confused users. The fact that some do understand is a plus and suggests I'm getting something right - but not everything.

Just because you say something often enough, it doesn't mean that it's true. The simple fact is people are happier blaming the game for their own faults instead of actually trying to understand how to play it properly.

It's not necessarily their fault they don't understand what's going on. A game shouldn't make them feel inadequate either way.

If you play it properly, you enjoy it! 100% gtd! Genuine bugs then become "slight annoyances", minor problems that you know will (eventually) be fixed in the longer term - they don't detract from your overall enjoyment of the game (unless you let them).

If you play a game properly, of course you will enjoy it. The issue is that users struggling to find out how to play it properly in the first place. Essentially, you are saying that "if everything is perfect, then all is good". Well, of course...

No idea why you brought bugs into the question. Bugs are bugs and will always detract from overall enjoyment - you can't ignore the fact they exist.

Anyone who thinks that way in software usability wouldn't have a job.

Besides, looking at these forums, it's not one or two isolated cases - it's a lot of users who find it frustrating.

So i guess every single piece of software ever made is broken or poorly designed, i can guarantee you will not find one game/programme or anything that 100% of people are happy with, you aim to please the majority surely?

Nothing to do with mastery. It should be possible to be rubbish at something yet enjoy it, and a user should be motivated to improve. Look at Super Mario Bros - you probably played this when you were younger and were absolute rubbish at it initially, but as you got older you improved and possibly completed the game. Yet despite all the failures you were still enjoying the game.

your comparing a feature of a game to an entire game, FM can be very frustrating to begin with, but with a bit of time and effort it can be very rewarding and fun to play, just like Mario was when we were all younger.

they cannot make it so there are less clicks, you either do one yourself and only have 1 click per answer, or you ask your assistant to take charge which is one click, or for the extreme lazy players (like yourself apparently) you set your assistant to take control in your settings and you dont need to do anything else with them ever again!

Which is great except if he gives a reply a player doesnt like, the player ends up hating you through no fault of your own.

It makes no sense.

A player will never hate you because of one answer in a press conference, he may be unhappy at the answer, but even that will not always be a bad thing, sometimes annoying a player works very well. Also the players know when you have attended a press conference and when your assistant has attended one. So they will never fall out with you because of something your assistant has said, not in the context your meaning anyway.

A player will never hate you because of one answer in a press conference, he may be unhappy at the answer, but even that will not always be a bad thing, sometimes annoying a player works very well. Also the players know when you have attended a press conference and when your assistant has attended one. So they will never fall out with you because of something your assistant has said, not in the context your meaning anyway.

Yes they will, its happened to me and it says hes unhappy with the PC answer and I used the assistant from the start.

They will not hate you purely because of a press conference, if a player falls out with you there will be much more to it than just one press conference, also if you look closely they will say happ/unhappy with *insert assistants name" answer not your name if you have let him/her take control of the PC.

Every press conference is a "good" one, even if you say something that upsets your team. The trick is to maximise/minimise the potential/damage effectively. What many FM'ers don't seem to realise is that every answer to every question has an effect, not just the one highlighted in your inbox! Some people will probably give the "right" answers every time and still not get the full effectiveness of them due to not realising they all had an effect. A simple thing to remember is if a player is mentioned in a press conference then he will be affected in some way - people simply need to make the most of that when they give their team-talk. If they don't... we get (another) thread in GD...

If I am in a minority, then it's because of naysayers like yourself claiming that a feature is broken when all that is really required is a better understanding of how said feature works. Just because you say something often enough, it doesn't mean that it's true. The simple fact is people are happier blaming the game for their own faults instead of actually trying to understand how to play it properly. If you play it properly, you enjoy it! 100% gtd! Genuine bugs then become "slight annoyances", minor problems that you know will (eventually) be fixed in the longer term - they don't detract from your overall enjoyment of the game (unless you let them).

We've been thru all this before, Posts #55 #57 #60 etc http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/269121-Press-Conferences-An-Appeal-To-SI, and you appeared to not want to understand what I was saying then, so simply:

I understand how Press Conferences work.

I know which answers to give to get positive or non-negative results.

I don't think they are bugged.

I think they are crap, they are tedious, they are no fun and they waste my time.

They cannot be avoided because Assmen can't be trusted to give the correct response to avoid negative results - (Operant Conditioning might help them)

The negative results for choosing the wrong option are unrealistic and massively overpowered. (bear in mind my first two points before you tell me yet again that what is needed is a better understanding of how press conferences work)

I'm happy for you that you find an 18 question Press Conference orgasmic, but I'm unhappy for me because I don't. And I am not alone.

I'm not going into the mechanics of press conferences. I agree with the mechanics as wwfan has stated. I disagree with the "presentation" of them, however.

I'm a software designer at heart, and these are my views as a software designer.

I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate on behalf of the OP and users who find this feature frustrating.

No worries all good ,

I'm aware it is possible to be "good" at press conferences. I'm interested in exploring why some users simply aren't that good, and whether the software has a weakness in this respect. I've studied usability in some way previously and I recognise some flaws. Now, these flaws might have explanations, but a flaw is a flaw.

But the question still remains as to whether it is really a flaw. I have read a number of posts as an example, where users have stated the game is too easy, won everything, long unbeaten runs etc. Myself it is the opposite, so is it my tactics or is it a flaw, because I am simply not that good.

- The user must recognise that there is a different outcome

- The user must recognise why that outcome has changed

- The user must understand why their previous knowledge is incorrect

- The user must recognise how they have to change

- The user must recognise what the change would have done in the previous version

- The user must recognise what is different in the new version

- The user must be able to easily formulate a new "plan of attack" for the new version

It is not clear to the user why they are wrong, or why the past doesn't work now.

Unfortunately here it seems as though you are looking at absolutes. Whereas there really are no absolutes, there is no one size fits all in FM. But yes, in essence I agree with those statements in as much as the user needs to recognise. The problem is when the user chooses not to look at various factors and make changes accordingly. Rather, continually try the same approach or just get fed up with it all.

Are you implying the OP (and anyone else who is struggling) is approaching press conferences dishonestly? In which case, there's a serious issue here if users are somewhat compelled to "lie", as it means real-life emotions and "virtual emotions" don't match. In addition to branding all these users as liars...

Love the last sentence, makes it sound rather contentious . What I am saying is that looking for a diabloesque approach to press conferences is a pointless venture, the weighting is not large one, so getting it right every time is not vital. However it is a feature that can provide positive outcomes and be one of the contributing factors when going into the next match. So if you take the time to do them, and, with a good understanding of your players, balance that with the opposition you are going to face then the chances are a positive press conference.

I am not concerned with getting a user to perform amazing press conferences - I am concerned with frustrated users not enjoying press conferences. A user might still turn out to be rubbish at press conferences, but as long as the feature is amazing, I don't really mind.

But this is more attitudinal in how the user rates a feature. Users like tactics because the results can be quantifiable, same could be said for tutoring, training etc.

However because the user doesn't have an amazing effect from a press conference, they get relegated as a chore, part of the tedium. Press conferences and other media interactions are one of the more subtle touches to FM, it might not have the fanfare but they can certainly add a little spice.

Apologies, I type very slowly

They will not hate you purely because of a press conference, if a player falls out with you there will be much more to it than just one press conference, also if you look closely they will say happ/unhappy with *insert assistants name" answer not your name if you have let him/her take control of the PC.

No you are wrong. It says he is unhappy with your answer in the PCs.

They have a small effect on your team, nothing more, again its been pointed out by wwfan (someone who actually knows about the mechanics of the game) that you can counter anything said in a press conference with a team talk, and even then you prob wont have too.

No you are wrong.

In what way? If your saying a player will hate you because of 1 wrong press conference answer then your very much wrong, also players know when you attend press conferences and when your assistant does, its obvious if you actually pay attention.

Please feel free to prove either of those points wrong.

Have you ever played a game where you never attended a PC? Players get unhappy with you rather than the assistant.

Prove my points wrong, you cant.

it will be very easy to prove this later on, ill let my assistant take a press conference and ill take a screen shot of a players screen who is happy/unhappy with what he has said, i promise you 100% it will say "happy/unhappy at Diamonds comments" (Diamond being my assistant)

Even if that was true, you couldnt prove it didnt happen in mine or others games.

Ok, to explain so it's a little clearer.

Firstly, re. the tactics, it's not that I can't deploy a set of tactics on the game which enable me to be successful. Far from it. The point I am trying to make is that the tactics which I do end up deploying are far from anything I would instruct my team to go out and embrace if this was a real game of football with real footballers. This is where my frustration stems from! I guess what I'm trying to say is having played the game to a reasonable standard I think the whole area could do with a revamp and fresh approach(note I said I think, as in my opinion and it is that only).

I won't harp on about my second point because life's too short. Although let me just clarify, my feelings on the media side of the game are purely those of frustration. I think the idea of press conferences and post-match interviews etc. is in itself genius, my real quibble is the lack of depth and reality. If Sir Alex Ferguson is asked a question in a press conference, he is not then given a list of five possible answers to choose from. I understand that in no way can something be created where the game could allow you to write whatever you like and ahve it recognise what it is you're trying to say, however, surely it could be bettter than it is no?! Even a broader range of answers available would be a start. Again, I must stress that I don't have a problem using the tool to keep players sweet or have the desired effect in each situatuion, I just find myself choosing certain answers which I know I would never actually say, at the same time knowing of all the options available it would be the most positively received.

Even if that was true, you couldnt prove it didnt happen in mine or others games.

Ok so my version of the game does one thing, and everyone elses does anyother? Right........

We've been thru all this before, Posts #55 #57 #60 etc http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/269121-Press-Conferences-An-Appeal-To-SI, and you appeared to not want to understand what I was saying then, so simply:

I understand how Press Conferences work.

I know which answers to give to get positive or non-negative results.

I don't think they are bugged.

I think they are crap, they are tedious, they are no fun and they waste my time.

They cannot be avoided because Assmen can't be trusted to give the correct response to avoid negative results - (Operant Conditioning might help them)

The negative results for choosing the wrong option are unrealistic and massively overpowered. (bear in mind my first two points before you tell me yet again that what is needed is a better understanding of how press conferences work)

I'm happy for you that you find an 18 question Press Conference orgasmic, but I'm unhappy for me because I don't. And I am not alone.

I couldn't have put it better myself! I think it's clear we all understand how to use the tool to get the desired effect, it's just we don't enjoy it!

here you go, PC attended by my asistant, players reaction afterwards, clearly states Diamonds name and says confused by HIS comments not mine

Oh, and by the way. How many profressional footballers really get the 'ump with what their manager says in a bloody Press Conference? And even if they did, surely the manager could sit 'em down and explain what was said and the reasons for it...in HIS OWN WORDS?!

Press conferences in my opinion are for the benefit of the media and fans, not to influence the players performances in matches like they do in FM. Surely that is what behind the scenes "private chats" are used for, IF there are issues to do with specific players that need to be addressed.

I believe the press conferences in FM just be abolished and replaced with some sort of Pre-match interview, containing 2 or 3 questions about your team selection that can influence "Matches" section of your "Confidence" page. So lets say u get a draw away at Stoke as Man United but you had your 3 best players injured/unfit, the fans wont be so "disappointed" with your performance.

That is just me thinking of something different off the top of my head, but i think that press conferences need to be changed/replaced with something that effects some other area of the game rather than player/team performances as there are already a lot of influences on the outcome of the match. And in my opinion it would be better if they influenced areas of your "Confidence" page, as from my view i believe that Manager confidence is very very simplistic as it stands its very much a series of bars representing winning or loosing rather than situational scenarios that your are placed in.

But at the end of the day, Press conferences are for the benefit of the media and fans rather than the players, in my opinion, and it should be the same in FM aswell.

Oh, and by the way. How many profressional footballers really get the 'ump with what their manager says in a bloody Press Conference? And even if they did, surely the manager could sit 'em down and explain what was said and the reasons for it...in HIS OWN WORDS?!

I think we all would like the game to be able to parse and react to custom answers dynamically, but that is unfortunately not viable with today's technology so we'll have to settle for something simpler. The tone thing for FM12 is probably a step in the right direction. As for player reactions to the press, I do think it has an affect. How big will clearly depend on the player, but the 1-notch morale drops in FM isn't all that drastic really.

I believe the press conferences in FM just be abolished and replaced with some sort of Pre-match interview, containing 2 or 3 questions about your team selection that can influence "Matches" section of your "Confidence" page. So lets say u get a draw away at Stoke as Man United but you had your 3 best players injured/unfit, the fans wont be so "disappointed" with your performance.

Isnt that how they used to be on older FM's? used to get 3 or 4 questions before a game, and rare random questions about a players form when hes been playing well etc.

Oh, and by the way. How many profressional footballers really get the 'ump with what their manager says in a bloody Press Conference? And even if they did, surely the manager could sit 'em down and explain what was said and the reasons for it...in HIS OWN WORDS?!

They introduced that is it was the worst featured theyd ever bought in, 95% of the time it would result in the player hating you and/or wanting to leave the club, thankfully that was toned down in the patch.

Whatever, for a lot of people PCs are just an annoyance before you can get to a game.

People say they want it because its realistic yet ignore all the artificial things you have to do to be successful, like arranging a friendly against non league sides to boost up your morale.

Morale and PCs stopped me playing FM months ago. It became a slog instead of a game.

They introduced that is it was the worst featured theyd ever bought in, 95% of the time it would result in the player hating you and/or wanting to leave the club, thankfully that was toned down in the patch.

Whatever, for a lot of people PCs are just an annoyance before you can get to a game.

People say they want it because its realistic yet ignore all the artificial things you have to do to be successful, like arranging a friendly against non league sides to boost up your morale.

Morale and PCs stopped me playing FM months ago. It became a slog instead of a game.

You trying to bring Morale into the equation and saying it is as bad as Press Conferences has just destroyed the fair and just criticism that others are pointing out. There is nothing wrong with morale, and saying that morale doesnt make it feel like a game, is stupid, you make it sound like 1 win vs Nowheretown FC will mean u have superb morale in your entire squad for the rest of the season, And that is not the case.

The morale is realistic, whereas the press conferences arent, and I for one dont appreciate a comment like that dragging down the intelligence of others well thought out opinions on the subject at hand.