Most important factor in success? Tactics, press conferences, team talks?

I'm trying to develop my tactic, making as few tweaks as possible in order to fully understand what's going, where I'm going right and where I'm going wrong.

But how do you know that the reason for your recent winning/losing streak is because of your tactic and not because you said the right/wrong thing in the press conference/team talks?

How important do you see these seperate components?

For example, is it along the lines of:

Tactic - 70%

Team talks - 20%

Press conference - 10%

Also if anyone can post any links to good guides on how to approach press conferences/team talks would be appreciated. Search didn't produce any luck!

99% tactics, 0.5% team talks and 0.5% press conferences.

99% tactics, 0.5% team talks and 0.5% press conferences.

That might be the correct distribution of the options given but it's not the full story in understanding why a team is in a slump.

In this version of FM I'm finding morale massively important. If the morale is poor then it's difficult for the tactic to compensate.

That might be the correct distribution of the options given but it's not the full story in understanding why a team is in a slump.

In this version of FM I'm finding morale massively important. If the morale is poor then it's difficult for the tactic to compensate.

Morale doesn't play as much as a factor as people believe it does. It's only has a very small impact on what happens.

If that 99% includes players and player selection, then I fully agree.

If that 99% includes players and player selection, then I fully agree.

It's all part of the same "thing", so yep

Morale doesn't play as much as a factor as people believe it does. It's only has a very small impact on what happens.

Absolutely this. I think it's one of those things that people like to pounce on as having a big impact on FM when things go wrong. It's a way of deflecting attention from what remains almost certainly a tactical issue. I know it's my stock response to stuff, but I genuinely believe it to be true.

Absolutely this. I think it's one of those things that people like to pounce on as having a big impact on FM when things go wrong. It's a way of deflecting attention from what remains almost certainly a tactical issue. I know it's my stock response to stuff, but I genuinely believe it to be true.

I think it depends how you look at it. Where the problem lies is with tactics in almost all cases, getting that wrong will lead to a circular chain of events where you lose, morale gets worse, you lose even more..morale gets worse..

Plus team talks are relatively easy to figure out and get right, but don't have enough of an effect on players to correct a bad tactic.

I think with a good, sensible tactic, you can use morale issues to your advantage to stop slumps or poor mentality players not reaching a peak, but with a bad tactic they can't help you much.

Does familiarity of a tactic plays a big part ?

Is it proven ? or is theoretical ?

I personally would give team talks (pre-match, half time and mid-game shouts) more of a influence, maybe 5% maximum.

Training also... i've notice a decrease is performance (goals concdeded and losses) if I don't have either general or match training set to Defensive Positioning. This to me is logical. So I would give training maybe 10-15%.

Tactics takes the remaining 80-85%. In this i included team selection and the entirety of "tactics" from Formation, Team and Player Instructions, Mentality & Shape, Set Pieces and then, in my eyes an oft overlooked section, Opposition Instructions.

I personally would give team talks (pre-match, half time and mid-game shouts) more of a influence, maybe 5% maximum.

Training also... i've notice a decrease is performance (goals concdeded and losses) if I don't have either general or match training set to Defensive Positioning. This to me is logical. So I would give training maybe 10-15%.

Tactics takes the remaining 80-85%. In this i included team selection and the entirety of "tactics" from Formation, Team and Player Instructions, Mentality & Shape, Set Pieces and then, in my eyes an oft overlooked section, Opposition Instructions.

The training boost from match training gives the equivalent of 1 attribute to the positioning etc. So it's nowhere near the overrated 10-15% you claim. In total it wouldn't even add up to 0.5%. As got general training that has no bearing on what happens on the pitch directly because it only works on attributes nothing else.

Really useful thanks.

I'm asking not so much to try and explain away a losing streak, my tactic is currently a bit inconsistent if anything where I can go on winning streaks followed by losing streaks. I was wondering how culpable my team talks and media engagement could be for these but it looks like I probably need to look at how I'm setting my team up to play against different styles of opponent.

Can I ask why you think Team talks and press conferences have such a low impact then? If they are really in the percentage levels you're talking about, they're little more than a novelty?

I would hope that press conferences and team talk are low in importance, given that in touch mode you don't do them. It would slightly odd if they glossed over something that was vital to your success in the game.

Morale doesn't play as much as a factor as people believe it does. It's only has a very small impact on what happens.

Clean, do you think morale has more of an impact when using more attacking mentalities?

I have found that when morale is high my attacking mentality tactics work beautifully, however if I ever go on a poor run and morale drops my performances suffer hugely. I then switch to a more conservative system, grind out a few wins and when morale increases I can switch to a more attacking system and the performances are back to the level of before.

Makes sense I suppose. Its easier to play more attacking football when confidence is high.

No I think you're making out morale to be some kind of super power when it really isn't. Low morale or high morale, on the pitch the team will basically play the same.

No I think you're making out morale to be some kind of super power when it really isn't. Low morale or high morale, on the pitch the team will basically play the same.

I've found this.

Occasionally I get a player who's morale is "Abysmal" because I've upset the little princess from not allowing him to leave or giving him a new contract. I play him in the next match regardless and he'll play just as well as ever.

So I've always thought this kind of thing has more of an impact on your own relationships with journalists / players / other managers than any ability to actually play a match.

I've found this.

Occasionally I get a player who's morale is "Abysmal" because I've upset the little princess from not allowing him to leave or giving him a new contract. I play him in the next match regardless and he'll play just as well as ever.

So I've always thought this kind of thing has more of an impact on your own relationships with journalists / players / other managers than any ability to actually play a match.

It's interesting, but I've always thought that morale can have a big impact in different scenarios. I agree that it probably isn't a huge factor compared to tactics etc. But I think it's the little instances in matches that can make the differences. I sometimes think that if a player goes onto the pitch with poor morale, this can lead to him being more sloppy in his play, or more error prone. which can lead to goals/decisions against your team. Whereas players who seem to be content appear more effective in their play. I guess a lot of it is subjective too! It could depend on what passages of play you consider acceptable/not acceptable.

The training boost from match training gives the equivalent of 1 attribute to the positioning etc. So it's nowhere near the overrated 10-15% you claim. In total it wouldn't even add up to 0.5%. As got general training that has no bearing on what happens on the pitch directly because it only works on attributes nothing else.

So you're saying training is almost pointless, as are team talks etc etc? So would you, Cleon, place this with the Auto duty as irrelevant parts of FM?

So you're saying training is almost pointless, as are team talks etc etc? So would you, Cleon, place this with the Auto duty as irrelevant parts of FM?

Not training, match training (aka match preparation).

50% press conference prior and after the match. 40% Tactic, 7% OI and 3% ingame shouts.

At least thats how it feels for me.

So you're saying training is almost pointless, as are team talks etc etc? So would you, Cleon, place this with the Auto duty as irrelevant parts of FM?

When did I say training was pointless? Far from it, so don't put words into my mouth. Training is huge but currently it's not linked to tactics at all, bar match day training, which only gives a slight boost for whatever you are training and that boost equates to 1 attribute point.

I was just stating that training isn't linked to tactics at all as you said you noticed a difference is no general or match training was selected and it equated to 10-15%. I was just pointing out how exaggerated that figure was and wanted you to understand that general training has no impact and match training equals 1 attribute point (so if defensive positioing etc then positioning will see a rise of 1 attribute under the hood for the game). Match training is minimal at best.

Match training in its current form is a bit limited and one of the reasons most people who understand the training module don't even bother with it. Why use it when you can get better training results on player development instead?

Not training, match training (aka match preparation).

Interesting. So what do you do with your match training? And do you think its even worth being in the game?

I personally set it to Match Tactics most of the time with defensive general training. Once into the season and games come regularly i might switch general training to attack and match training to defensive positioning. Even if it does give only the equivalent of 1 attribute increase it can make the difference.

So you're saying training is almost pointless, as are team talks etc etc? So would you, Cleon, place this with the Auto duty as irrelevant parts of FM?

Don't confuse actual training with match prep training. Even match prep training helps and it can give you an edge on the odd occasion, but the important factors are and will always be players and tactics.

When did I say training was pointless? Far from it, so don't put words into my mouth. Training is huge but currently it's not linked to tactics at all, bar match day training, which only gives a slight boost for whatever you are training and that boost equates to 1 attribute point.

I was just stating that training isn't linked to tactics at all as you said you noticed a difference is no general or match training was selected and it equated to 10-15%. I was just pointing out how exaggerated that figure was and wanted you to understand that general training has no impact and match training equals 1 attribute point. Match training is minimal at best.

See the ? after the "etc etc" ??? (theres 3 for you in case you cant see them). It was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth as what you had written (they way it was written) wasn't clear.

Interesting. So what do you do with your match training? And do you think its even worth being in the game?

I personally set it to Match Tactics most of the time with defensive general training. Once into the season and games come regularly i might switch general training to attack and match training to defensive positioning. Even if it does give only the equivalent of 1 attribute increase it can make the difference.

General training is for player development, it has nothing to do with the match. Setting it to attacking training just means a specific set of attributes are being trained, i.e the emphasis on training is on those attributes. The attributes the categories train are;

• Fitness : Acceleration, Agility,Balance, Jumping, Natural Fitness, Pace, Stamina, Strength, Workrate
  
• Tactics: Anticipation, Composure, Concentration, Decisions, Teamwork
  
• Ball Control: Dribbling, First Touch, Heading, Technique, Flair
  
• Defending: Marking, Tackling, Positioning
  
• Attacking: Crossing, Finishing, Long Shots, Passing, Creativity, Off the ball
  

And it takes 3 months for it to have any visible benefit to the players. Changing it before that wastes training.

the the ? after the "etc etc" ??? (theres 3 for you in case you cant see them). It was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth as what you had written (they way it was written) wasn't clear.

No need to turn into an arse is there?

yes but taking the game as a whole, of course general training has benefit in match. If i want to use an attacking tactic it makes sense to set general training to attacking, as this will help players attacking development, ergo helping them in an attacking tactic that i use in a match... No? If i want to shore up a leaky defence while still using an attacking tactic surely setting defence general training will help the defensive development of players, ergo helping them defend in match?

No need to turn into an arse is there?

Not turning into an arse, merely replying to your assertion that i was putting words into your mouth when in actual fact, i asked you a question.

Interesting. So what do you do with your match training? And do you think its even worth being in the game?

I personally set it to Match Tactics most of the time with defensive general training. Once into the season and games come regularly i might switch general training to attack and match training to defensive positioning. Even if it does give only the equivalent of 1 attribute increase it can make the difference.

General training affects your players attributes. Match training gives them a little boost in the area you select prior to each match - except Tactics. You use Match Prep Tactics to get your team familiar with your tactics. Nothing else.

So in your first scenario, you are getting your entire squad to develop their defensive attributes and trying to boost tactical familiarity before each match, which should already be at 100% by the time you start competitive matches.

In the second scenario, you are training everyone to increase their attacking attributes, although personally I like leaving match prep on defensive positioning.

Look up Rashidi's blog, he's got it all laid out there.

Edit:- Cleon has done it for you.

the the ? after the "etc etc" ??? (theres 3 for you in case you cant see them). It was asking you a question, not putting words in your mouth as what you had written (they way it was written) wasn't clear.

That just plain incorrect and confrontational.

yes but taking the game as a whole, of course general training has benefit in match. If i want to use an attacking tactic it makes sense to set general training to attacking, as this will help players attacking development, ergo helping them in an attacking tactic that i use in a match... No? If i want to shore up a leaky defence while still using an attacking tactic surely setting defence general training will help the defensive development of players, ergo helping them defend in match?

You're still focusing on the attributes. It's the attributes long-term that will matter in a match of course. as that's what the whole game is based around. But in your example you made out setting general training to defensive/attacking etc made a difference, when in reality, you'd not notice any different because it's not directly linked. It will take months/years to see attributes rise.

Not turning into an arse, merely replying to your assertion that i was putting words into your mouth when in actual fact, i asked you a question.

Stop trying to be confrontational. I'm trying to help you here and all you're doing is attempting to give grief. Cut it out.

...Match training gives them a little boost in the area you select prior to each match - except Tactics. You use Match Prep Tactics to get your team familiar with your tactics. Nothing else.

Maybe the semantics here are incorrect. Surely using Match Training to gain familiarity with tactics, directly benefits tactics used in the match?

Maybe the semantics here are incorrect. Surely using Match Training to gain familiarity with tactics, directly benefits tactics used in the match?

Once a tactic is fluid with familiarity then match training set to tactics does nothing and gives zero benefit.

Cleon, may i genuinely ask... your knowledge of the game, vast as it genuinely is, has it been acquired from just playing over xx years or from working with/at SI? If its the former, how do you know you're Correct in the help you give?

I'm not meaning to be confrontational but on this forum yourself and a few others seem to write as if what you say is gospel. I appreciate experience goes a long way but surely the features and nuances in game can be used and exploited in different ways and still be successful. That is, after all, the point of a game/simulation is it not? If it was meant to be done just the one way, the correct way, the way you so often put across as the absolute way to do it, then why have SI programmed it to be a user-adjustable feature?

Once a tactic is fluid with familiarity then match training set to tactics does nothing and gives zero benefit.

i refer to the above, is this a statement from game-building knowledge (direct or passed on from SI) or your experience?

I've found this.

Occasionally I get a player who's morale is "Abysmal" because I've upset the little princess from not allowing him to leave or giving him a new contract. I play him in the next match regardless and he'll play just as well as ever.

So I've always thought this kind of thing has more of an impact on your own relationships with journalists / players / other managers than any ability to actually play a match.

In fact, I think the effect of morale falls to the desire of a player to leave or stay rather than on performance.

BTW, I'm still chuckling over the "little princess" bit.

Cleon, may i genuinely ask... your knowledge of the game, vast as it genuinely is, has it been acquired from just playing over xx years or from working with/at SI? If its the former, how do you know you're Correct in the help you give?

Having direct contact with them on a daily basis means we can find out how things works and stop rumours spreading etc. The perks of beta testing, being a mod and working there in the past. Everything we write is how the game works, not theories or speculation.

I'm not meaning to be confrontational but on this forum yourself and a few others seem to write as if what you say is gospel.

Because things like this are gospel.

appreciate experience goes a long way but surely the features and nuances in game can be used and exploited in different ways and still be successful

Not with the questions you've asked in this thread. The training module doesn't work like you think it does/did. All I've done is point out how it actually works yet you still think it works differently. Some aspects obviously have several different ways of working but training is not one of them. It works one way no two ways about it.

I have to thank marsh82 and obviously Cleon. The questioning resulted in me learning just how much (little) match prep affects your match. Cheers both of you.

Interesting, and thank you for taking the time to answer fully. Apologies for coming across as in-your-face. Maybe you've explained this elsewhere in a blog or post, but what do you do with training then? Set a different Subject every 3(or more) months and leave it at that (in General training)? And what do you do with Match Training and why?

Hunt3r, maybe my questioning seemed a little in-your-face but sometimes i feel as if that approach is needed to be able to ascertain specific answers and not opinion, there are probably some reading this that dont know Cleon or RTHerringbone (and others) standing in FM and possibly interpret some of whats written as opinion.

Interesting, and thank you for taking the time to answer fully. Maybe you've explained this elsewhere in a blog or post, but what do you do with training then? Set a different Subject every 3(or more) months and leave it at that (in General training)? And what do you do with Match Training and why?

I don't use match training.

General training though is left of balance for me. I explain why etc in this thread;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/380395-Ajax-When-Real-Life-Meets-Football-Manager-FM14

And this thread explains the training changes to FM16 and how they work;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/442638-Important-FM16-Training-Changes

I don't use match training.

General training though is left of balance for me. I explain why etc in this thread;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/380395-Ajax-When-Real-Life-Meets-Football-Manager-FM14

And this thread explains the training changes to FM16 and how they work;

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/442638-Important-FM16-Training-Changes

thanks, i've skim read your Ajax thread before but never found time to read it in depth, i really must. It seems similar to many books ive read, so kudos on that

So despite you acknowledging there IS a benefit to Match Training when in a match you dont use it? So you set your training slider to the far right option? What benefits do you see this giving, other than long term attribute increases?

You said earlier that Match Training provides a small boost, maybe 0.5%, but if the slider allows 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50% of time dedicated to Match Training, surely the benefit % increases too? Is that too simplistic a way of looking at it?

thanks, i've skim read your Ajax thread before but never found time to read it in depth, i really must. It seems similar to many books ive read, so kudos on that

So despite you acknowledging there IS a benefit to Match Training when in a match you dont use it? So you set your training slider to the far right option? What benefits do you see this giving, other than long term attribute increases?

You said earlier that Match Training provides a small boost, maybe 0.5%, but if the slider allows 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50% of time dedicated to Match Training, surely the benefit % increases too? Is that too simplistic a way of looking at it?

Too simplistic, the end scale high would be a 50% split which would be the top end so that would give you the 1 attribute increase. Less than that and the effect is less obviously.

I didn't acknowledge there was a benefit to match training as such. I ignore it completely as more training time spent on player development far outweighs any slight boost match training will give me. This is both in the short-term and long-term. I'd rather just use all training time on development. The extra 10-20-30% you'd waste on match training is a big chunk of time took from training. I'd rather than time fully spent on the development of my players which in turn, means they will develop faster and have all the attributes I require.

I'd rather work on my tactic and stop issues happening because end of the day no amount of training is going to mask the issues you have or face. I can sort my tactic out in seconds rather than relying on something that gives a minimal boost at best in the hope that might give me the edge (which in reality is hardly likely imo)

Too simplistic, the end scale high would be a 50% split which would be the top end so that would give you the 1 attribute increase. Less than that and the effect is less obviously.

I didn't acknowledge there was a benefit to match training as such. I ignore it completely as more training time spent on player development far outweighs any slight boost match training will give me. This is both in the short-term and long-term. I'd rather just use all training time on development.

I'd rather work on my tactic and stop issues happening because end of the day no amount of training is going to mask the issues you have or face. I can sort my tactic out in seconds rather than relying on something that gives a minimal boost at best in the hope that might give me the edge (which in reality is hardly likely imo)

Great answer, thanks.

And i agree, time spent working on tactics is by far more beneficial. Perhaps this is why my own Training understanding is seemingly lacking...

Question Cleon, I know you don't use match training, would this be different for pre-season before tactics are fluid? Or will it raise just by playing the tactic? If so, what split of match/general training do you do pre-season?

Question Cleon, I know you don't use match training, would this be different for pre-season before tactics are fluid? Or will it raise just by playing the tactic? If so, what split of match/general training do you do pre-season?

It's all explained in the link posted above. Until tactic is all fluid though its a 50-50 split.

No I think you're making out morale to be some kind of super power when it really isn't. Low morale or high morale, on the pitch the team will basically play the same.

Well, that sort of sucks does it not. Assuming that on a simulation basis, roughly speaking "morale" = "confidence", then you would have to say its an area for improvement. If you asked 10 real football managers the same question as the OP (or preferably a slighty better version), i think you would be reasonably sure to get some answers around the fact that morale/confidence does have a significant impact on how a team plays, and their overall success.

In terms of the question, it misses 2 very obvious points for me:

1) The players. Tactics + Team talks + press conf + training + match training are all and well. But get those spot on, perfect, and then play Heskey up front and Kolo at the back all season, and your success will be.....limited. Quality of player does make a difference. Not always over 90mins, not always over 10 games, but over the medium to long term you cant exactly over look it

2) "Tactic" is far too generic. You can build the perfect system, well thought out, well executed, suited to your team and the league. But in FM16 more than ever you will need to be able to adapt to things which happen in the game. Game management, basically.

Morale doesn't cause a player told to move forward ASAP to suddenly stop that. Also if you're totally without any defensive cover, like say pushing everybody just up the pitch on attack duties, that's space that won't suddenly close itself if your team is flying all highly. Vice versa a formation prone to have space in between the lines can be flooded by opposition players, and morale is not going to affect that. Morale should, and does have some influence on performance, as confidence rubs off on it. That may be an increase in error, like additional passes gone astray and an additional tackle missed, which is one of the reasons why playing supper aggressively on low confidence can cost you dearly (I experienced that on a previous release too). How this is done technically isn't so much the thing, it's likely penalty and/or boosts to mental attributes, same as match preparation (for match prep this was officially confirmed from SI on the public forums) give temporarily boosts to attributes related to the area you focused on during preparation, i.e. set pieces when they occur. The mere existence of there being a hidden attribute such as consistency determining on how many match days a player actually shows up "to the best of his ability" gives away that everything is being linked in that way. However nothing of this would turn Crouch into Messi, or vice versa... more on that later. Talks and press conferences and generally man management are often made the scapegoat as SI have introduced what seems black and white feedback for it in a game that is in many ways very ambiguous. If they'd to the same for consistency, such as the ass man approaching you prior to kick-off, like: "Mr. Kabaka, it could be that Gary will have one of his off days today" then players would jump on that too. On my last international save I had reached the Euro 2016 finals, and whilst the third choice right back on low morale and lacking match fitness had a solid game, it was the prolific left back coaxed out of retirment prior supposed to thrive in big matches that made the error which settled the tie! You're dealing in probabilities at best. Management, bloody hell, virtually or no.

This cause and effect stuff becomes much clearer if you actually watch matches. There's often all those posts claiming that in the last ten minutes of a match, their AI opponent would suddenly play like Barcelona, when previously they barely had a whiff on goal. It's not that any of the motivational or morale stuff is overpowered, it's simply that the ME kicks off a match genuine, and players move up and down the pitch accordingly to their manager's instructions. So an AI side may totally hope for a draw and have it's attacks easily intercepted as it barely advances anyone, and then ten minutes from time with still a point in sight, it might do the actually opposite as Napoli in this clip in a desperate attempt to get an equalizer (this time actually countered):

There's some stuff in FM that inherently makes for interesting dynamics. Personally I ALWAYS watch out for whether an AI manager either starts or due to the traits given by research switches to a 3 central forward formation. They don't engage much in tracking back and are simply sitting into space, and depending on your tactics it is but two CBs who stay back paired against 3 of them, and they readily latch onto the opportunity to counter if your attack breaks down. Watch this, centre forwards don't engage much in defending in general, and typically they sit at the half way line when all the rest of your side is pushed back. SI experienced with this during the course of FM 2015 with mixed results, and that it was they have settled for now it seems. What I've personally always struggled with is the 4-2-3-1 narrow, as that floods central areas of the pitch with players. If you're defending in flat lines, no DM in between the CBs and CM stratum (team in white), that means they can totally exploit that space in between them. Every time I encounter this and employ a flat line formation, I switch it to something with an anchor man at DM. The opposing them doesn't need superior individual quality if it has man advantage. Not sure how this looks as by FM 2016, as I think CMs on defend duty behave differently and drop deeper (which I still think is weird).

Aside of that, what about player quality? Given that previously, playing against sides that ALWAYS had 5, 6 players behind the ball all the time (excluding set-pieces) when playing Barcelona, it's remarkable what trouble Messi was when all you did was hoofing the ball to him and wishing him well, with nobody advancing to at all supporting him. ;-) Defending is said to be improved on FM 2016, so try this at your own risk currently. Speaking about player quality, I think some are confused by the optional comparably "generic" motion capturing animations of the optional 3d player models. There's no specific "technical player" dribbles animation as such recorded (

Hmm... ok so on an actual technical level, what effect is Morale having on a player? Is it changing his attributes in the way that condition could do?

General training is for player development, it has nothing to do with the match. Setting it to attacking training just means a specific set of attributes are being trained, i.e the emphasis on training is on those attributes. The attributes the categories train are;

• Fitness : Acceleration, Agility,Balance, Jumping, Natural Fitness, Pace, Stamina, Strength, Workmate
  
• Tactics: Anticipation, Composure, Concentration, Decisions, Teamwork
  
• Ball Control: Dribbling, First Touch, Heading, Technique, Flair
  
• Defending: Marking, Tackling, Positioning
  
• Attacking: Crossing, Finishing, Long Shots, Passing, Creativity, Off the ball
  

And it takes 3 months for it to have any visible benefit to the players. Changing it before that wastes training.

So If i have team training as attacking, what attributes do my defenders who are trained to be CB stoppers concentrate on?

Morale doesn't play as much as a factor as people believe it does. It's only has a very small impact on what happens.

Cleon, I've been reading the article you wrote on Ajax and training for FM14. You stated that you believed in scheduling a lot of friendlies against very weak opponents as a way to build morale, which was very important heading into the season. Would you say that is still true in FM16?

Cleon, I've been reading the article you wrote on Ajax and training for FM14. You stated that you believed in scheduling a lot of friendlies against very weak opponents as a way to build morale, which was very important heading into the season. Would you say that is still true in FM16?

Having good morale is never a bad thing is it? It's just the effects are not as profound as people make out.