Team Talks Ruining Game Experience

Since team talks found their way into FM, they've been a point of frustration and division. Ambiguous, imbalanced, equivocal, capricious, arbitrary, are just a few words that have been associated with them in the past. Well I thought they had improved. So why does it still feel as though (a) team talks are a dice roll and (b) they are overbearing or imbalanced? Especially half-time talks.

It seems to me that to "roll the wrong number at half-time" signals doom. On too many an occasion have I dominated the first half, had a nondescript reaction to a half-time talk, then gone on to lose or draw, often in the 90th minute.

Yes, it's difficult to single team-talks out as the lone variable, but since it's happened so frequently in my gaming experience, it appears to me empirical. Not to mention that in the last four massive away game wins I had—one at Old Trafford and one at Stamford Bridge—players reactions have "been in the red" as I Passionately let them know their performances have been exceptional. Why would players "Switch Off" and lose morale just because I tell them how great it was we just beat Man Utd?

I love the game, and I don't ever criticise it unless there is good reason. This has been too much of an issue for so long with me that it's driven me to start a thread about it; which means it's serious. It seems to me right now that team talks are analogous to:

Roll a die at half-time between:

1-7: Lose match

8-14: Draw

15-21: Win

That's how team-talks appear to me. Someone please convince me otherwise and show me how wrong I am.

Many thanks.

You're not wrong. I agree with you.

I like the feature per se, but I think that it has become too decisive in the last years and players have often illogical reactions.

I think that team talk has to count only for 10-15% (anyway not over 20%) for the final result of a match.

As the awful press conferences, I think that it's better removing a bad feature than keeping one without making improvements.

SI just need to admit that the matches are scripted.

Team talks dont have anywhere near the amount of influence you think they do.

1. Hire an assitant manager with a high motivation attribute

B. Let him do the team talks

3. Sit back and enjoy the game

I'm not getting too much grief from my team talks to be fair.

Before games I'll calmly bring out either "I expect nothing but a win" or "Do it for the fans".

At half time it's one of three, calmly "Things are going well but you can do even better", "I'm very pleased with your performance keep it going" or an assertive "Show me something else in the second half".

I rarely have to deviate from this, apart from the odd derby game or two legged semi-final.

Factors such as your own reputation, your time at the club and the morale and professionalism of the players will influence the responses you see.

I don't have a problem with team talks personally I get positive responses 98% of the time

players reactions have "been in the red" as I Passionately let them know their performances have been exceptional. Why would players "Switch Off" and lose morale just because I tell them how great it was we just beat Man Utd?

You probably already know, but individual player personalities determine how they react to criticism/praise, pressure etc. perhaps your squad in general doesnt have the personality to handle praise well. I quite often slate my team at my team alks to spur them on, or warn them against complacency. I rarely praise them.

SI just need to admit that the matches are scripted.

...but they're not.

As stated previously;

Team talks dont have anywhere near the amount of influence you think they do.

I wonder if it's something to do with the fact I ALWAYS use Passionate as a response?...

I would say it might do yeah. The thing with passionately telling them they are doing well makes them think they have done what is expected and now become complacent. I normally have a poor 1st half so I say I'm far from happy when either losing or drawing. If I am actually winning by 1-2 goals I will tell them to guard against complacency. 3+ I tell them to keep it up or if a poor oponent I'll say the pressure is off. I only ever say pleased/delighted after winning game.

I broke my rule the other day. I told my team I was delighted with them 3-0 up HT in playoff final. I drew 3-3. Told them I was furious at 90mins an despite them all becoming angry I held out for pens an won on pens.

SI just need to admit that the matches are scripted.

They have to be to a certain extent, to allow us to watch the highlights of the matches.

It isn't a fixed script though, it changes as changes are made during the match.

I don't think team talks have that much to say. Neither do any of the zillion other features that influence peformances and results.

What's left then is a random element that trumps all of the above. How come that regardless of opposition quality and player types, motivation, morale, form, player personalities, pressure and expectations I have conceded first (usually on their first/only chance in the match - the first five minutes) every PL match since mid-September - and we're now in the end of November? Penalty misses, red cards, injuries, giving away one or two penalties several matches in a row, fluke goals (70-meter forward pass bounces into goal etc), random set piece goals... That's not to say I haven't won most of those matches anyway - but how can everything that can go against me do so; a typical poor form signature, when I am not actually in poor form? What on earth is it that causes poor form when morale is good, performances are good and results are good?

Eventually I lost of course, so now I am actually in poor form and don't create chances either. But I can fix that because I can understand what's going on.

The conclusion; spells of poor form are scripted. Are then spells of good form scripted? Injury spells? How much of the results do we actually influence through our actions?

From my observations the last months; not much! Once you have a working tactic, it is not necessary that it is a good one - just non-bad, whether or not things go against you or for you is more down to random chance than anything else. In real life that is all well and good - in a football management game, not so much...

I don't think team talks have that much to say. Neither do any of the zillion other features that influence peformances and results.

What's left then is a random element that trumps all of the above. How come that regardless of opposition quality and player types, motivation, morale, form, player personalities, pressure and expectations I have conceded first (usually on their first/only chance in the match - the first five minutes) every PL match since mid-September - and we're now in the end of November? Penalty misses, red cards, injuries, giving away one or two penalties several matches in a row, fluke goals (70-meter forward pass bounces into goal etc), random set piece goals... That's not to say I haven't won most of those matches anyway - but how can everything that can go against me do so; a typical poor form signature, when I am not actually in poor form? What on earth is it that causes poor form when morale is good, performances are good and results are good?

Eventually I lost of course, so now I am actually in poor form and don't create chances either. But I can fix that because I can understand what's going on.

The conclusion; spells of poor form are scripted. Are then spells of good form scripted? Injury spells? How much of the results do we actually influence through our actions?

From my observations the last months; not much! Once you have a working tactic, it is not necessary that it is a good one - just non-bad, whether or not things go against you or for you is more down to random chance than anything else. In real life that is all well and good - in a football management game, not so much...

If this is the case, why has my good form lasted for pretty much a season and a half?

If its scripted, what are the triggers then? And how long is it supposed to last, and what counters such triggers?

To be honest its a really odd conclusion for you to come to

To an extent. You can always change things whether a different formation. Playing someone you previously have left out. Bringing on subs different times to normal. But something that a lot of people forget is to change training routines etc.

If this is the case, why has my good form lasted for pretty much a season and a half?

If its scripted, what are the triggers then? And how long is it supposed to last, and what counters such triggers?

To be honest its a really odd conclusion for you to come to

More likely you have been through spells of poor form but not noticed because like me you won anyway, and then the poor form eventually disappeared.

More likely you have been through spells of poor form but not noticed because like me you won anyway, and then the poor form eventually disappeared.

No, I notice when I'm playing well and when I'm not. And the latter is very much in the minority.

And I doubt very much that I am some sort of genius at FM, to have constantly avoided such triggers on such a consistent basis.

No, I notice when I'm playing well and when I'm not. And the latter is very much in the minority.

And I doubt very much that I am some sort of genius at FM, to have constantly avoided such triggers on such a consistent basis.

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Have you not conceded first on an opponent's first attack? Conceded fluke goals, needing to make changes to win. I am not saying that I have played badly for over two months, but I have seen signs I recognize as the signature of poor form nevertheless - despite playing well, dominating, winning and having good morale all over.

If you are just clicking continue without being a league better than the other teams (Like I was with Lazio in the end of that save), then you are surely some sort of genious at FM

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. Have you not conceded first on an opponent's first attack? Conceded fluke goals, needing to make changes to win. I am not saying that I have played badly for over two months, but I have seen signs I recognize as the signature of poor form nevertheless - despite playing well, dominating, winning and having good morale all over.

If you are just clicking continue without being a league better than the other teams (Like I was with Lazio in the end of that save), then you are surely some sort of genious at FM

Wait, how does any of that mean scripted poor form? how is making a change any kind of definition of poor form? How is conceding a fluke goal a sign of poor form?

What exactly are you defining as poor form, because truthfully none of that comes near to any definition of poor form I've seen.

Wait, how does any of that mean scripted poor form? how is making a change any kind of definition of poor form? How is conceding a fluke goal a sign of poor form?

What exactly are you defining as poor form, because truthfully none of that comes near to any definition of poor form I've seen.

If you go behind early and struggle to win once, that's not poor form. Every match, though, then there's a pattern. It is a negative pattern, as opposed to scoring early and winning easily, which is a positive pattern. So I go into a league game expecting to struggle not because I play badly, can't create chances or dominate, or because my players are lacking confidence, but because the opponent scores on their first and often only chance in the game - then parking the bus.

This culminated in an away match against Manchester United where I conceded in the 25th second and went on to lose 5-0. After that I have actually been in bad form, struggling to win and create chances.. but that was after 2 months of winning unnecessarily tight matches caused by starting the game with a (golf) handicap.

That's also poor form.

If you go behind early and struggle to win once, that's not poor form. Every match, though, then there's a pattern. It is a negative pattern, as opposed to scoring early and winning easily, which is a positive pattern. So I go into a league game expecting to struggle not because I play badly, can't create chances or dominate, or because my players are lacking confidence, but because the opponent scores on their first and often only chance in the game - then parking the bus.

This culminated in an away match against Manchester United where I conceded in the 25th second and went on to lose 5-0. After that I have actually been in bad form, struggling to win and create chances.. but that was after 2 months of winning unnecessarily tight matches caused by starting the game with a (golf) handicap.

That's also poor form.

Every match, though, then there's a pattern. It is a negative pattern, as opposed to scoring early and winning easily, which is a positive pattern.

Where is the pattern in scoring? if this was the case, surely we would all see the same pattern?

So I go into a league game expecting to struggle not because I play badly, can't create chances or dominate, or because my players are lacking confidence, but because the opponent scores on their first and often only chance in the game - then parking the bus.

Wait, no surely that is more a sign of you being unable to break down the opposition, than any kind of poor form.

If this was scripted poor form, ( and I'm not convinced that the above is any indicator of poor form) why do you get it and not me?

I honestly no real compelling argument for scripted poor form here.

Where is the pattern in scoring? if this was the case, surely we would all see the same pattern?

Wait, no surely that is more a sign of you being unable to break down the opposition, than any kind of poor form.

If this was scripted poor form, ( and I'm not convinced that the above is any indicator of poor form) why do you get it and not me?

I honestly no real compelling argument for scripted poor form here.

Struggling to break down the opposition after 25 seconds? Really? Or 10 minutes, for that matter...

And against everyone from all around the league, while having no problems in the CL? No this isn't tactical. Then it would have made sense; me struggling to breaking down the opposition isn't the case when I turn the game around and win 5-1 and such. I created 20-30 shots, half of which were dangerous and 1/3 big chances in most of those matches. They created a couple or sometimes even none but still managed to score a goal or three. Not because the chances they created were bigger either - they were under just as much pressure as my world-class strikers.

But that is an entirely different issue. Now I talk about poor form setting in for no obvious reason. Could be motivational (complancency) of course, but then where are the indications of that?

Struggling to break down the opposition after 25 seconds? Really? Or 10 minutes, for that matter...

And against everyone from all around the league, while having no problems in the CL? No this isn't tactical. Then it would have made sense; me struggling to breaking down the opposition isn't the case when I turn the game around and win 5-1 and such. I created 20-30 shots, half of which were dangerous and 1/3 big chances in most of those matches. They created a couple or sometimes even none but still managed to score a goal or three. Not because the chances they created were bigger either - they were under just as much pressure as my world-class strikers.

But that is an entirely different issue. Now I talk about poor form setting in for no obvious reason. Could be motivational (complancency) of course, but then where are the indications of that?

Struggling to break down the opposition after 25 seconds? Really? Or 10 minutes, for that matter...

That was a reply to this:

So I go into a league game expecting to struggle not because I play badly, can't create chances or dominate, or because my players are lacking confidence, but because the opponent scores on their first and often only chance in the game - then parking the bus.

Yeah I would say its a bigger indicator of you not being able to break down the opposition, than any indication of scripted poor form.

But this goes back to my point, if this is scripted, how am I consistently able to avoid something that is supposedly unavoidable?

Like I said, there is no compelling argument for it, as we have veered off team talks I will leave it at that.

Team talks are simple to perfect. I did it in a click of a finger, as long as I have an above average side, i feel I can beat any club on any given day.

Streaks of form happen in relation to confidence and tactical decisions combined. A team can build form through getting a sequence of good results and, for a few matches, hit a sweet spot where the manager only needs to send the team out and let them get on with it. However, as a streak builds, other factors begin to come into play. Players can get over-confident and complacent, or nervous about continuing the streak, depending on the personality type. Once that happens, to further extend the streak a manager needs to consistently make the right decisions motivationally and tactically.

An awful lot of FMers build young, talented squads. They are inherently flaky as pressure tends to get to them earlier, and they are more prone to bad days. A manager needs to babysit such squads through pretty much everything. Once the squad matures, it might have a 3-4 season streak when the manager doesn't have to do much as the players are hard-headed professionals and can be trusted to get on with it. After a few seasons of constant success, players become less motivated and begin to want new challenges, forcing the manager to refresh his squad with young, hungry talent, and the cycle begins again.

A good manager can eke out longer streaks from green squads, turning bad performances into draws or wins. He can also keep a mature squad fresh by shifting personnel in and out on a reasonably regular basis. This will mean that he has to be a little more proactive in tactics and motivation as he'll always need to help the new players fit in, but will prevent the sudden unexpected bad season when motivation across the whole squad drops.

A bad manager sits on his hands and blames everything except himself. It is extremely easy to do well when you have the best squad. You can convince yourself you are a management god. It takes far more effort to extend streaks, reduce slumps and win things when you have less dominant squads. Overachievement takes thought and attention to detail. The worst thing anybody can do is assume that things are scripted. Everything is made yourself.

To those saying games are scripted: try playing 1 half with your regular starting line-up and then at some point during the match switch your tactics to 0-5-5 and look at the goals being scored against you... If that's scripted than **** me, I lost all confidence in this game _o-

Having picked up this game again after a long lay off (for reasons I won't dare go into), I have to say (IMHO) that team talks do have a massive effect - and I think it would be completely illogical if they didn't.

What's confusing to me is the link between continual praise and the inducement of apparent complacency (or lack of motivation) in a squad. Similar to darthrodent, if we win a match I want to be able to say "well done" and not hold back (especially if match highlights and commentary etc. say we created chances/defended well) - if that run stretches to 8 unbeaten, which it did, I want to heap praise on the team because it's a massive achievement, and in all honesty it's something any team would want to continue.

I'm sure Wenger told his Arsenal side not to be complacent in some matches during their unbeaten season, and other things besides, but I'm also sure he said something like "come on lads, show me what you've got to keep this run going!". I'm having great difficulty accepting that most of my 1st team squad have seemingly become complacent just because I praise them continually for what has been a great run.

What I've also seen all of a sudden (like a switch being flipped) are some players saying they're not happy with my team talks because I assume they are "samey" - I don't understand why this should be. Consequently, it forces you on subsequent talks to go into freak mode and say things you don't actually want to because you're not getting a response by way of motivating them.

In my game a few losses followed the good run and despite encouragement (via a team talk to keep their heads up, which seemed to me a logical thing to do) things became worse. Eventually it was like I was dealing with 11 depressed people.

I have to agree with darthrodent - it really does seem like Russian Roulette at times. The last half time talk I gave all players maxed out red - "looked switched off". We lost the game so at the end I showed my displeasure. Most then seemed to be "fired up" with some "motivated". That sort of behaviour smacks of schizophrenia.

I appreciate I've only just started playing FM13, and we'll see how subsequent matches go (with Hayes and Yeading), but having been top of the BSS at Christmas and having won some important matches, for my side to start going doo-dah because I tell them they're doing well is tough one.

Streaks of form happen in relation to confidence and tactical decisions combined. A team can build form through getting a sequence of good results and, for a few matches, hit a sweet spot where the manager only needs to send the team out and let them get on with it. However, as a streak builds, other factors begin to come into play. Players can get over-confident and complacent, or nervous about continuing the streak, depending on the personality type. Once that happens, to further extend the streak a manager needs to consistently make the right decisions motivationally and tactically.

An awful lot of FMers build young, talented squads. They are inherently flaky as pressure tends to get to them earlier, and they are more prone to bad days. A manager needs to babysit such squads through pretty much everything. Once the squad matures, it might have a 3-4 season streak when the manager doesn't have to do much as the players are hard-headed professionals and can be trusted to get on with it. After a few seasons of constant success, players become less motivated and begin to want new challenges, forcing the manager to refresh his squad with young, hungry talent, and the cycle begins again.

A good manager can eke out longer streaks from green squads, turning bad performances into draws or wins. He can also keep a mature squad fresh by shifting personnel in and out on a reasonably regular basis. This will mean that he has to be a little more proactive in tactics and motivation as he'll always need to help the new players fit in, but will prevent the sudden unexpected bad season when motivation across the whole squad drops.

A bad manager sits on his hands and blames everything except himself. It is extremely easy to do well when you have the best squad. You can convince yourself you are a management god. It takes far more effort to extend streaks, reduce slumps and win things when you have less dominant squads. Overachievement takes thought and attention to detail. The worst thing anybody can do is assume that things are scripted. Everything is made yourself.

This post should be stickied, especially the bold bit.

Sorry BiggusD but whilst I used to agree with basically everything you said I fear you may be straying from the path.

I categorically don't believe 99% of the criticism in here, but whilst I really really want to believe all of wwfan's post, I don't know if I can.

wwfan's all makes sense for real life, but is FM really and truly that intricate, or are you just seeing what you want to see? I really hope you are right.

If it is like that, it would make me see the game in a new light.

Having picked up this game again after a long lay off (for reasons I won't dare go into), I have to say (IMHO) that team talks do have a massive effect - and I think it would be completely illogical if they didn't.

You're wrong, they don't have a "massive" effect. They are just one of numerous factors that effect things.

This has been confirmed many times by the developers, but people have become cynical towards them and refuse to believe them and think they are fobbing off their customers. Which of course is nonsense.

Streaks of form happen in relation to confidence and tactical decisions combined. A team can build form through getting a sequence of good results and, for a few matches, hit a sweet spot where the manager only needs to send the team out and let them get on with it. However, as a streak builds, other factors begin to come into play. Players can get over-confident and complacent, or nervous about continuing the streak, depending on the personality type. Once that happens, to further extend the streak a manager needs to consistently make the right decisions motivationally and tactically.

An awful lot of FMers build young, talented squads. They are inherently flaky as pressure tends to get to them earlier, and they are more prone to bad days. A manager needs to babysit such squads through pretty much everything. Once the squad matures, it might have a 3-4 season streak when the manager doesn't have to do much as the players are hard-headed professionals and can be trusted to get on with it. After a few seasons of constant success, players become less motivated and begin to want new challenges, forcing the manager to refresh his squad with young, hungry talent, and the cycle begins again.

A good manager can eke out longer streaks from green squads, turning bad performances into draws or wins. He can also keep a mature squad fresh by shifting personnel in and out on a reasonably regular basis. This will mean that he has to be a little more proactive in tactics and motivation as he'll always need to help the new players fit in, but will prevent the sudden unexpected bad season when motivation across the whole squad drops.

A bad manager sits on his hands and blames everything except himself. It is extremely easy to do well when you have the best squad. You can convince yourself you are a management god. It takes far more effort to extend streaks, reduce slumps and win things when you have less dominant squads. Overachievement takes thought and attention to detail. The worst thing anybody can do is assume that things are scripted. Everything is made yourself.

This is interesting. In FM12, I built a squad which consisted entirely of young players, probably the oldest being 22. However, in this years FM I haven't done this mainly due to the fact that I've been teams which have needed promotion. Anyway, my question is, in previous versions, did it have the very same effect that it has in this years FM?

You're wrong, they don't have a "massive" effect. They are just one of numerous factors that effect things.

This has been confirmed many times by the developers, but people have become cynical towards them and refuse to believe them and think they are fobbing off their customers. Which of course is nonsense.

Then why, after a run of 8 games without losing (including 5 wins) did 2 of my players suddenly become unhappy with my team talks (which praised the good performances) - to me that is a massive effect. I don't doubt there are other factors at work but the rapidity of this response is bewildering, and that's all I'm querying.

A player suddenly saying they're unhappy with the team talk during a winning streak to me doesn't make sense.

If I knew what aspect of the team talk the player was unhappy with then it would be easier to resolve.

I certainly am not cynical. All I want is an explanation as to what could be causing this response, which currently is difficult to decipher.

I find consistency and simplicity helps with team talks. I simply encourage the team for around 90% of matches at the opening. It's only in exceptional cases where I take the pressure off, demand a performance, or ask them to do it for the fans.

If things aren't going well at half time, I tell them that I expect better. If things are going well, I tell them to keep it up. If it's a game we should be winning and we're losing, I pull out the hairdryer.

At the end, I close in a similar way that I did for half time. It's measured and balanced. I will sometimes tell the team to not be complacent, but not so often that it becomes tiresome for them to hear - maybe one time in four if we're having a good season. You can have too much of a good thing where motivation is concerned, and you need to trust your players to be professionals rather than hold their hands.

I don't worry too much about the reactions (disinterested, fired up, etc), because they're not nearly as significant as people think they are. If players are disenchanted than there's a problem, if they're convinced, then the converse is true and something good is happening at your club. Most of the time though, it's simply players returning to a more normal state of mind after a tough encounter on the pitch (And I think this, more than anything, is what people fail to understand!)

The real driver for success, especially in FM12, is to have the right combination of tactics and players for the situations you find yourself in on the pitch. Experienced level-headed players who want to play for the club, not necessarily 5* talented starlets who don't know what they are doing out there. If you have that combination, you won't be worrying about the team talks. But if you don't have it, and think 'getting the team talks right' can pull you out of trouble, you're going to struggle.

Another mistake people are making is that when they have what they think is a bad team talk reaction after a great run, and then lose afterward, it was the team talk's fault. It wasn't. You faced a different tactical situation in the following game, perhaps a weaker team defending deep and counterattacking, and that led to a different outcome. Sometimes that can be controlled by adjusting tactics.

Streaks of form happen in relation to confidence and tactical decisions combined. A team can build form through getting a sequence of good results and, for a few matches, hit a sweet spot where the manager only needs to send the team out and let them get on with it. However, as a streak builds, other factors begin to come into play. Players can get over-confident and complacent, or nervous about continuing the streak, depending on the personality type. Once that happens, to further extend the streak a manager needs to consistently make the right decisions motivationally and tactically.

An awful lot of FMers build young, talented squads. They are inherently flaky as pressure tends to get to them earlier, and they are more prone to bad days. A manager needs to babysit such squads through pretty much everything. Once the squad matures, it might have a 3-4 season streak when the manager doesn't have to do much as the players are hard-headed professionals and can be trusted to get on with it. After a few seasons of constant success, players become less motivated and begin to want new challenges, forcing the manager to refresh his squad with young, hungry talent, and the cycle begins again.

A good manager can eke out longer streaks from green squads, turning bad performances into draws or wins. He can also keep a mature squad fresh by shifting personnel in and out on a reasonably regular basis. This will mean that he has to be a little more proactive in tactics and motivation as he'll always need to help the new players fit in, but will prevent the sudden unexpected bad season when motivation across the whole squad drops.

A bad manager sits on his hands and blames everything except himself. It is extremely easy to do well when you have the best squad. You can convince yourself you are a management god. It takes far more effort to extend streaks, reduce slumps and win things when you have less dominant squads. Overachievement takes thought and attention to detail. The worst thing anybody can do is assume that things are scripted. Everything is made yourself.

That's what "scripted" means. It means that patterns of player behaviour are pre-set, so that factors beyond tactics and team management influence the results in a predictable fashion. We are supposed to deal with sudden bad performances/attitudes tactically because team talks don't actually influence them enough to help us overcome the scripted events. That's how the unending winning streaks of previous versions are now stopped. Through a deus-ex-machina sabotaging whatever success has been built up over time. Now, it is possible to prevent all that, but only through abandoning the philosophy that has brought you success in the first place (unless that is to go full Hard Counter tactics every game of course). Well perhaps not only that but definitely not only through team talks.

Why abandon a successful tactic? I play the same tactic against everyone and I create more big chances than any of my opponents, and I often do change some minor stuff to improve whatever I see don't function properly. Then why do my players enter the pitch like if they would rather be home watching the telly and eat popcorn, and that without warning? Because I should have said Assertive for the Fans rather than Passionate for the Fans? No. Because the standard 442 I encounter suddenly is perfectly suited to stop my 343? Very unlikely since I still create 3x more big chances than they are so they don't in fact stop me. Because the strikers suddenly can't score? If so, why? Not because, as I said, they are stopped effectively from doing so. Because they parked the bus and scored on the counter? No - everyone parks the bus and tries to score on the counter, but this doesn't mean that they should automatically succeed at doing so regardless of player quality and form, especially since my superior defenders do actually succeed at stopping them. Statisics don't lie - or do they?

So the question remains: why do I observe every sign of poor form in my matches when I continue winning, retain excellent morale, continue to dominate and continue having full control in my matches except for that one chance they get straight from kick-off (ish) that for two months game-time has resulted in a conceded goal?

It's the same reason Manchester United lost to Wigan last year, or conceded 4 second-half goals against West Brom in the game just gone. Sometimes one team is 'on', and the other one isn't, and the period doesn't need to be very long to change a result - it could be the opening five minutes, which then allows the weak team to play their natural defensive game with freedom and confidence, and the strong team buckle under the unfamiliar pressure of being behind - or the last thirty minutes when the strong team feels they've won, and switches off.

Even the best man manager in the world couldn't stop that from happening. Does that mean it was in a 'script'? No, but you can't account for every circumstance before it happens. It's part of football.

That's what "scripted" means. It means that patterns of player behaviour are pre-set, so that factors beyond tactics and team management influence the results in a predictable fashion.

In my opinion, your interpretation of wwfan's post is subjective paranoia.

You appear to read the bits you want to, and omit the passages which give his whole post context.

My own subjective interpretation is that he is saying that good form is a product of good results, which are themselves a product of, among other things, sound tactical decisions and motivation. These elements are not scripted but entirely controlled by the user.

It is logical that over or under confidence is a product of a sustained run of good or bad form. Again, this is directly linked to the tactical and motivational decisions made by the user. How and when a user manages that confidence is then key to sustaining or reversing a run of good or bad form, and again that management is user controlled.

Scripting in the game exists in the sense that actions x, y and z combined with factors 1, 2 and 3 yield a product.

There is no scripting in place which yields a product in the absence of any logic, that would just be stupid.

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your comments, but that is how I view the situation. Potato vs. Potato.

I don't think team talks have that much to say. Neither do any of the zillion other features that influence peformances and results.

What's left then is a random element that trumps all of the above. How come that regardless of opposition quality and player types, motivation, morale, form, player personalities, pressure and expectations I have conceded first (usually on their first/only chance in the match - the first five minutes) every PL match since mid-September - and we're now in the end of November? Penalty misses, red cards, injuries, giving away one or two penalties several matches in a row, fluke goals (70-meter forward pass bounces into goal etc), random set piece goals... That's not to say I haven't won most of those matches anyway - but how can everything that can go against me do so; a typical poor form signature, when I am not actually in poor form? What on earth is it that causes poor form when morale is good, performances are good and results are good?

Eventually I lost of course, so now I am actually in poor form and don't create chances either. But I can fix that because I can understand what's going on.

The conclusion; spells of poor form are scripted. Are then spells of good form scripted? Injury spells? How much of the results do we actually influence through our actions?

From my observations the last months; not much! Once you have a working tactic, it is not necessary that it is a good one - just non-bad, whether or not things go against you or for you is more down to random chance than anything else. In real life that is all well and good - in a football management game, not so much...

Wait, wait.. The game is random and scripted at the same time and bad because it mimics real life too much which makes it a bad game? What on Earth did I just read?

SI just need to admit that the matches are scripted.

if your are been serious then i dont understand why you cant accept the fact that they are not, things dont go well for people and all of a sudden the game is against them and it isnt there fault at all. then if you won every game you would complain the game is way to easy

Wait, wait.. The game is random and scripted at the same time and bad because it mimics real life too much which makes it a bad game? What on Earth did I just read?

The scripting is a random element

Having random elements in the game that is out of control of the user may be realistic but it is not a very good game design.

Clearer?

BiggusD's point is not without any grounding, even though I don't agree with it.

I always remember when I was a kid playing one of the ancient fifas, my dad watched for a bit and after asking about the difficulty settings, and being told I couldn't win on world class or whatever it was at the time, said "Whats the fun in that? If you win it is only because it is letting you win".

I don't know what relevance that story has to what I am saying, but it seems to me that BiggusD kind of feel that his idea of a football management game wouldn't have this random 'scripted' (even though in my opinion they aren't scripted in a real sense) patches of form. It seems to me like BiggusD would prefer that the game just stuck to mathematical calculations, and in that mathematical calculation the 'best' team in any game won. So more intricate than just cumulative CA v cumulative CA but not resorting to random factors, without a deus-ex-machina.

I can see his point, as there is something oddly masochistic about wanting the game to f you over whenever it wants, but for me the desire is born out of realism, and that realism is what I want in a computer game. Even if the mechanisms by which it is brought about seem somewhat contrived and deny true random logic, I think the end result we have for FM 13 is one which very closely resembles the unpredictability of IRL football, without compromising the game players, other than those who demand straight forward ability + tactics + some kind of general morale = results.

Even if the means aren't the best, for me the result is.

So in terms of offering realism, and therefore what I seek in the game, it is a good game design. Although I admit that if you tried to explain in abstract terms to a man on the street why it is good, they may well not understand.

edit - I realise I am doing a lot of putting words in BD's mouth, which isn't my intention. Disclaimer - He can feel what he wants and not just what I say he feels.

The scripting is a random element

Having random elements in the game that is out of control of the user may be realistic but it is not a very good game design.

Clearer?

What?!

If the aim is to get closer to realism (particularly in terms of what happens in around the ME/90 minutes), it is definitely good game design. Things will happen out of your control, but its not like you dot have the means there to carry on

Could it be better? Yes, in certain areas a considerably better.

What?!

If the aim is to get closer to realism (particularly in terms of what happens in around the ME/90 minutes), it is definitely good game design.

Could it be better? Yes

The aim is to provide a good gaming experience. Having "bad luck" happening at random in a game which is based on tactical decision-making is definitely not good game design. Of course, the user being in full control of the outcome is not good either, but I believe the balance has tipped in the wrong direction on that scale.

You seem to be confusing simulated luck with a massive ON/OFF switch labelled "Screw the User".

It's infinitely more subtle than that.

Again the issue of what people want in a game differs, so you can't call it good or bad game design beyond your opinion.

Personally I don't think it is anything like as random or as uncounterable as you make out, which at least partly contributes to my differing opinion.

Seems like there's a multitude of definitions of "scripting" being thrown around.

To me, scripting, when used in the derogatory sense towards FM, is the practice whereby the game is deciding 100% who wins. That's quite vague I know, so using an example, I'd say it's a game whereby no matter what you do, the same result will happen 100% of the time. And by that I mean that, say you lose a game to a weaker side 3-0. You reload, because that can't be right. You lose 3-0 again. You reload, you change tactics, you lose 3-0. You reload another ten times, you change tactics, personnel, your water, gas and energy supplier, and you still lose 3-0. You could relax that and ignore the scorelines, but the point still stands. This is the game telling you you won't win.

So does FM do this? No.

There have been some games I've either had to replay (due to crashes) or replayed due to being interested in the result (and keeping the original save to go back to) and on every single solitary occasion, I've been able to change the result. Often if you play a match more than three times, you'll see wins, losses and draws at least once each. So I ask, if FM is scripted, then why has the script suddenly changed, even though you're reloading the save to the same point each time?

A lot of the examples of scripting strike me as being what might happen in real life. Runs of poor form are "scripted". So if a side in real life has poor morale, and has lost a couple of matches, and then continue to lose more, is that scripted?

Bottom line, if the game is in any way influenced by the human user, then it is not scripted, pretty much by definition. In an average game, there are already eleven points of human influence, and that's before you've even considered tactics.

Anyway, if you want to see a more apt conspiracy theory of scripting, go play FIFA online. Ooft.

Again the issue of what people want in a game differs, so you can't call it good or bad game design beyond your opinion.

Personally I don't think it is anything like as random or as uncounterable as you make out, which at least partly contributes to my differing opinion.

It isn't. If it was we'd all be having the same problems. That doesn't mean there not areas where it can be improved though.

It isn't. If it was we'd all be having the same problems. That doesn't mean there not areas where it can be improved though.

It is no more or less random than the real life game it mirrors IMO, so I agree. I fail to see what the problem is.

Pre-match:

Home: expect to win

Away: show me what you can do

Half time:

Winning: don't get complacent

Not winning: show me something else in the second half

Haven't had a bad team talk in 10 seasons

I have always felt that the game must be "scripted" because if it wasn't there is no way the scorelines would be anywhere as realistic as they are.

The "6 - 0 up at half time, lose the second half 1-0" situation is as old as FM.

Perhaps I just don't understand "scripting," my only real interest in the term was when I was trying to understand how/why the opposition players on PES could somehow make the ball magically attracted to them, defying the rules of physics. The answer was that the AI wasn't good enough to provide a realistic challenge on 6-star difficulty, and so things like the ball finding CPU players when the spin dictated it should bounce the other way, or user players having their sprint limited for half a second were coded in to make it harder to win. There was much debate over this, with the two I mentioned being the only ones that most people agreed were in the game.

So perhaps I just don't understand scripting, but I fail to see how FM would even be possible without it in this era of poor AI. Humans have such an advantage in being able to assess the behaviour of the AI and exploit it that if the game worked fairly then people would be able to achieve ridiculous scorelines on a MUCH more regular basis. For me, the scripting is for realism.