could we have option to make 'talk to media' like 2 questions

instead of like 8-10

in what scenarios?

i guess pre and post match .. as an option at least

i can see the frustration but that would hardly be realistic.

i've had plenty of pre/post match conferences where there are only a small number of questions and others with loads, which does replicate real life.

there is always the option to delegate to your assistant, even if it is only occasionally.

You already do have that option.

It's called "Storm Out".

yeah but theres a negative effect to storming out sometimes.. and leaving it to the assistant same thing, they say the wrong thing and f*** up morale...

This probably sums up how you're feeling about press conferences then...

You already do have that option.

It's called "Storm Out".

Try using no comment all the time and wizz through it, dont know if it will affect morale though as your not answering the quesiton. I dont really have an issue with press conferences like another poster said sometimes there are only a couple of quesitons and sometimes there are more it depends.

Just regard them as part of a general strategic approach. Think:

1: Do I want to increase expectation on my team because I'm afraid they are getting complacent

2: Do I want to build confidence for the upcoming match

3: Do I want to keep things much as they are

4: Do I want to take the pressure off for the upcoming match

5: Do I want to cast doubt on my team hoping it kicks them up the backside

If you have these five things in mind before a conference, then they aren't particularly annoying. They are stage one of a pre-match strategy that feeds into team talks, selection and your tactical setup.

If you think of them as an annoyance which might result in your team imploding if you answer a question badly, they are bound to feel repetitive and annoying. They also don't work that way.

"Send Assistant".

Second best feature ever, just behind "Go On Holiday"

If you think of them as an annoyance which might result in your team imploding if you answer a question badly, they are bound to feel repetitive and annoying. They also don't work that way.

It's not deliberate that some users think that way, though... For some, it's annoying, full-stop.

There's no point in asking users to "pretend it's not annoying".

Some users don't appear to "get" press conferences - that's the game's problem, not theirs.

It's not deliberate that some users think that way, though... For some, it's annoying, full-stop.

There's no point in asking users to "pretend it's not annoying".

Some users don't appear to "get" press conferences - that's the game's problem, not theirs.

I actually think these forums contribute to the problem of not understanding how they work through so many people wanting a 'gamer' approach in which people think there must be a 'correct' answer to each question. I've read some really badly thought out ideas on how they work on here.

I appreciate your regular interrogation of game mechanics and information, but I sometimes think the solution you are searching for is akin to spoon feeding. There has to be some strategic thought involved on the user's part or the game disintegrates.

I actually think these forums contribute to the problem of not understanding how they work through so many people wanting a 'gamer' approach in which people think there must be a 'correct' answer to each question. I've read some really badly thought out ideas on how they work on here.

I appreciate your regular interrogation of game mechanics and information, but I sometimes think the solution you are searching for is akin to spoon feeding. There has to be some strategic thought involved on the user's part or the game disintegrates.

This.

If you don't know why you're saying something, be it in a press conference, private chat, media interaction or team-talk, then you're probably saying the wrong thing...

You have to know what you are trying to achieve from any given answer/interaction to be able to use it effectively...

If, for example, you just tell a player you "expect a performance" when there is no reason why, he'll probably fluff his lines... however, if you're asked in the PC about him being in form, returning to his old club, or whatever reason he's mentioned, then you can *usually* "expect" a performance from him too.

It's all fairly logical, and you have to remember that in press conferences every answer has an effect not just the one highlighted in your inbox so even if the above example question isn't highlighted, you can STILL "expect" (or whatever...)

they could give us option like 'few' 'medium' or 'many' questions .. or something

I actually think these forums contribute to the problem of not understanding how they work through so many people wanting a 'gamer' approach in which people think there must be a 'correct' answer to each question. I've read some really badly thought out ideas on how they work on here.

It's not about answers - it's about understanding. Take chess - a chess rulebook doesn't seek to educate how you should beat Magnus Carlsen, but seeks to teach you the rules of chess and some strategies, leaving open the question on how to beat Magnus Carlsen.

If there is no correct mechanism, but merely several different ones that happen to have different positive effects, then the game needs to educate the user why it happens. This is not the same as educating the user what the correct answer is. The new team-talks are heading in that direction as they are now much more meaningful and have appropriate tone so you can really reflect your emotions rather than condensing it down to 5-7 options that can be used for different purposes if read on the tin.

Users quite frankly should never need to visit this forum for answers - any confusion that arises in the game is a flaw of the game. This doesn't mean the game needs to be easier - it means the game needs to be easier to understand.

I appreciate your regular interrogation of game mechanics and information, but I sometimes think the solution you are searching for is akin to spoon feeding. There has to be some strategic thought involved on the user's part or the game disintegrates.

There will always be strategic thought with more information on how the feature works. Chess is still deep once you know the rules as opposed to as not knowing the rules.

It is just that chess is a lot more fun when players actually know the rules rather than keep playing incorrect moves and getting frustrated at losing by doing so.

If users actually understood how the feature works, the depth would switch to "how does this work?" to "I know how this works - what should I do to achieve it?" - and there could be 4-5 different options that solve it, possibly with different caveats. Users switch from feature-based questioning to reality-based questioning with a feature-based abstraction. That is the whole point of software design.

In software design, if you ever have to state to a user "you don't understand the feature" or something similar, that is full-stop a software design flaw.

Given the complaints about this feature, I would imagine FM fails in usability somewhat. Here's a list of some of these rules (I don't agree with how the author has divided them, but the spirit of these rules are correct): http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch01s03.html - specifically, the rule about documentation. I appreciate your input on the forums, but when users are forced to resort to it, then there's a failure there, full-stop. My belief is that your input should at best be a "second-opinion" for new users who want to know things from scratch in depth, or for advanced users who like tinkering. It shouldn't be for users to "unconfuse" themselves from a feature - that is the rule about documentation.

Specifically, on that page, there's a rule: "Rule of Respect: Never mistake keeping things simple for dumbing them down, or vice-versa." - that I've never learnt as a formal rule before. And I fully agree with it. It's not about making it easy from a gameplay perspective - it's about making it simple yet challenging.

This.

If you don't know why you're saying something, be it in a press conference, private chat, media interaction or team-talk, then you're probably saying the wrong thing...

I would prefer MORE options as answer, give a list of 10, or different options within each answer.

It's not about answers - it's about understanding. Take chess - a chess rulebook doesn't seek to educate how you should beat Magnus Carlsen, but seeks to teach you the rules of chess and some strategies, leaving open the question on how to beat Magnus Carlsen.

If there is no correct mechanism, but merely several different ones that happen to have different positive effects, then the game needs to educate the user why it happens. This is not the same as educating the user what the correct answer is. The new team-talks are heading in that direction as they are now much more meaningful and have appropriate tone so you can really reflect your emotions rather than condensing it down to 5-7 options that can be used for different purposes if read on the tin.

Users quite frankly should never need to visit this forum for answers - any confusion that arises in the game is a flaw of the game. This doesn't mean the game needs to be easier - it means the game needs to be easier to understand.

While I will agree that some features can be difficult to understand exactly how they work and/or why X Y or Z happens it's not the game that is flawed. It's the masses of misinformation on forums that is flawed even though a lot of it is inadvertent or accidental, etc. People coming to a forum in search of answers will leave more frustrated than when they came purely because they will believe a large amount of what they read on the forums and most especially what they read from respected posters.

Once they believe that something should do X Y or Z because [Insert A.N.Other Poster Here] said so in xyz post, then anything that goes against that belief becomes "a fault with the game". The fault is with the influence some poster's, perhaps unwittingly, have over many people's "understanding" of the game and it's mechanics not with the game itself. All over the net you see people who have influence within their own circle, be it on Facebook, forums, or whatever. It leads to a lot of confusion because "the views are of the author etc" doesn't mean that people won't be influenced by or to share the same views.

There will always be strategic thought with more information on how the feature works. Chess is still deep once you know the rules as opposed to as not knowing the rules.

It is just that chess is a lot more fun when players actually know the rules rather than keep playing incorrect moves and getting frustrated at losing by doing so.

If users actually understood how the feature works, the depth would switch to "how does this work?" to "I know how this works - what should I do to achieve it?" - and there could be 4-5 different options that solve it, possibly with different caveats. Users switch from feature-based questioning to reality-based questioning with a feature-based abstraction. That is the whole point of software design.

In software design, if you ever have to state to a user "you don't understand the feature" or something similar, that is full-stop a software design flaw.

Essentially what you're asking for is, like wwfan says, spoonfeeding. There can never be a 100% correct way to play the game, that's not the nature of it. In the FM community worldwide there will be very good FM'ers, good FM'ers, etc all the way down to poor and very poor FM'ers. That isn't a fault of the game, that is as true in the real world as in the game world.

There will always be Ferguson's, Mourihno's, Wenger's et al, and there will always be the manager's on the other end of the scale, those who make so many mistakes in their first crack at the job they never get another... At least in FM you can start again. You can have another chance and, not only that, but you can manage any club you like! As many times as you like! and it won't matter a jot if you're Garbage or Gold if you don't do what you're supposed to do and bloody well enjoy it!

Given the complaints about this feature, I would imagine FM fails in usability somewhat. Here's a list of some of these rules (I don't agree with how the author has divided them, but the spirit of these rules are correct): http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch01s03.html - specifically, the rule about documentation. I appreciate your input on the forums, but when users are forced to resort to it, then there's a failure there, full-stop. My belief is that your input should at best be a "second-opinion" for new users who want to know things from scratch in depth, or for advanced users who like tinkering. It shouldn't be for users to "unconfuse" themselves from a feature - that is the rule about documentation.

Specifically, on that page, there's a rule: "Rule of Respect: Never mistake keeping things simple for dumbing them down, or vice-versa." - that I've never learnt as a formal rule before. And I fully agree with it. It's not about making it easy from a gameplay perspective - it's about making it simple yet challenging.

As I said, they don't understand it because the information that they are given is "wrong" albeit, in the most part, inadvertently.

Not really... In FM10, for example, saying "nothing" is a good thing to say in a lot of situations, but to me, I don't know why that is because what manager says "nothing" at half-time? But I know it's right because the players react the way I want in terms of morale and results on the pitch.

Whoopee, good for you! That doesn't mean that will work for every other FM'er 100% of the time. In fact, in many cases it is as likely to backfire as succeed but "because it works for x42" - you see my point? The forums all over the internet are chock-full of similar statements from well intention-ed posters but the effect that they have is a negative one. Every player, in every team, within every other team, within the whole game world... is different... all of em! That means that the way they will react in any given situation at any given time will also be different! X + Y does not = Z in any situation except with your team, nobody else's...

While I will agree that some features can be difficult to understand exactly how they work and/or why X Y or Z happens it's not the game that is flawed. It's the masses of misinformation on forums that is flawed even though a lot of it is inadvertent or accidental, etc. People coming to a forum in search of answers will leave more frustrated than when they came purely because they will believe a large amount of what they read on the forums and most especially what they read from respected posters.

So that's an even bigger problem - not only is this confused user, well, confused, but everyone on the forum is misled!

This must be the most confusing piece of software in the world.

Once they believe that something should do X Y or Z because [Insert A.N.Other Poster Here] said so in xyz post, then anything that goes against that belief becomes "a fault with the game". The fault is with the influence some poster's, perhaps unwittingly, have over many people's "understanding" of the game and it's mechanics not with the game itself. All over the net you see people who have influence within their own circle, be it on Facebook, forums, or whatever. It leads to a lot of confusion because "the views are of the author etc" doesn't mean that people won't be influenced by or to share the same views.

Well, if the game cannot provide adequate guidance, you can't blame the forum for giving flawed advice. If a road has inadequate signposts pointing to your destination, you don't blame the people at the roadside who are also unsure but only know roughly which direction to head - you blame the road planners.

We will always gravitate towards things that "seem right". If things "seem right" but when followed do not match expectations in-game, then the game will be wrong. And that is a problem with the game. Not the forum.

Essentially what you're asking for is, like wwfan says, spoonfeeding. There can never be a 100% correct way to play the game, that's not the nature of it. In the FM community worldwide there will be very good FM'ers, good FM'ers, etc all the way down to poor and very poor FM'ers. That isn't a fault of the game, that is as true in the real world as in the game world.

No, it's not spoonfeeding. Spoonfeeding would be "giving the answers". Making a system intuitive is "giving users reliable information they need to make informed decisions". There is a difference. If I told you heading north would be a good thing to get to your destination, I'm making the lost traveller's job more intuitive but not giving out the answers - it is up to the driver to make use of information he or she receives over time to get to their destination. Spoonfeeding would be me giving explicit directions.

What we have here are users who do not understand the feature, full-stop. They don't care about the answers - they don't even understand the system! It is partly a fault that they are seeking answers - possibly because the feature feels annoying and the easy way out is not a bad idea to look for (fault of the game - the feature is annoying), but the real elephant in the room is that the feature is hard to understand (fault of the game). The series also has a fault as it seems to imply there is a correct decision, as whatever decision they appear to choose in the past has ended up messing up their players - so it seems like a multiple-choice question with one correct answer that they don't know what to pick (fault of the game - it seems to imply a single correct answer).

You see, I don't think players who find press conferences frustrating or are bad at it are necessarily bad players of FM. What seems to be the case is that there is so much frustration with the feature that it is the feature that is the problem, not the users. Sure, you've mastered it - you probably represent the 1% of players who do.

There will always be Ferguson's, Mourihno's, Wenger's et al, and there will always be the manager's on the other end of the scale, those who make so many mistakes in their first crack at the job they never get another... At least in FM you can start again. You can have another chance and, not only that, but you can manage any club you like! As many times as you like! and it won't matter a jot if you're Garbage or Gold if you don't do what you're supposed to do and bloody well enjoy it!

I think this is quite arrogant. People don't know what "[they]'re supposed to do", full-stop. It's not that they're bad at the game - it's that they don't know what to do. It's arrogant to tell people to "enjoy the game" when they are clearly not enjoying it. Sure, you enjoy the game - if you try and force your emotions on that person, then remember that they have every right to force theirs' on you too. It doesn't work that way.

Games should never make people feel bad, inadequate or stupid. That's not a game.

Whoopee, good for you! That doesn't mean that will work for every other FM'er 100% of the time. In fact, in many cases it is as likely to backfire as succeed but "because it works for x42" - you see my point? The forums all over the internet are chock-full of similar statements from well intention-ed posters but the effect that they have is a negative one. Every player, in every team, within every other team, within the whole game world... is different... all of em! That means that the way they will react in any given situation at any given time will also be different! X + Y does not = Z in any situation except with your team, nobody else's...

Blame the game for misleading so many forum users so that they get individual opinions on what is right.

Blame the game for misleading a user so badly they are forced to come to the forum for advice.

Blame the game as the user combines misleading information and is even more confused.

The game is badly-designed as it misleads users to think there is a silver bullet in the first place. The game, properly-designed, should imply or suggest that there are different options with different uses. Perhaps with indicators on multiple factors that might be affected. The feature should not feel like a lottery where answers that might seem correct should not be blatantly wrong.

Put yourself in their shoes for once. You've mastered the game - congratulations. Then think about the hundreds of thousands of customers who never know these forums exist and are sitting there confused at the feature.

In an ideal world, everyone would be in this community but nobody would be asking basic questions on how features work because the game is so awesome, none of its features require other answers and it speaks for itself, whilst holding a challenge for them. Unfortunately, people are asking questions - and you have to figure out why.

You enjoy the game - great. Well, some people aren't. I suggest you actually try to understand why before launching yourself into "you're doing it wrong". If you actually try to understand why, you will improve the game, and in the future, fewer people will ask questions and risk being misled. You can't force people to change their thinking - they don't want to be dependent on advice from you to play the game.

The game should be self-contained, full-stop.

Did you even read this link on usability? http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taouu/html/ch01s03.html "Rule of Respect: Never mistake keeping things simple for dumbing them down, or vice-versa." It's not spoon-feeding. It's making a simple-yet-challenging system that everyone can understand, few can truly master but most can always get by.