Should Be Removed From FM

[craigcwwe]

they should remove manager salary as this does nothing for the game and even takes away from your team salary for wages on players.

[Cougar2010]

they should remove manager salary as this does nothing for the game and even takes away from your team salary for wages on players.

Didn't we cover that earlier in the thread :confused:

A) Managers get paid.

B) It affects your job security.

C) It affects your chance of being offered other jobs.

D) Staff wages don't affect your wage budget - Its only for players.

[craigcwwe]

yeah i know that is was already covered but i was just saying that it is rather pointless.

[Ezequiel_Lavezzi]

It's a game that has been successful by focusing only on the core aspects of football management, rather than gimmicky add ons.

Why would SI change a winning formula?

You don't read?

As clearly stated, there is hardly ever any decent competition in terms of Manager games.

One day a little game will come a long with a good database, a good match engine and all the once loyal gamers will jump ship to something more exciting than a glorified database.

FML and ESH proved SI is not indestructable and should be wary. (I know someone will tell me their "reasons" why these games failed such as "FML had too many servers" or "Hockey season was cancelled" etc etc)

I love FM and I enjoy playing it, but I would be lying if I said I enjoyed every single release from SI. I stopped playing FM for 3-4 years due to how boring it had become and only returned to FM2009 because I liked the 3D match engine, even if it was graphically ugly - but it was a change in the right direction... even though a lot of fans did not want it included.

We have to accept that quite a lot of people do not play FM mainly due to things such as poor graphics, lack of a graphical interface, lack of enjoyable (aka gimmicky addons) content.

People like creating stadiums, being a chairman or doing other things. Sure they can go play another game like FIFA Manager, but why? As a company SI need to understand that they can really expand business by adding a few options to the game that will boost sales but also add a new dimension to an aging game which quite frankly is NOT as good as everyone thinks it is.

Also I would not go as far to say that some of these additions ive read about are that gimmicky anyway. Stadium creation outside of the game (editor) would be a huge boost to the game. Also things such as fan days, testimonial games for retired stars, chairman option (allowing greater control of finances) and even adding a few querky things like streakers, baloons, match day experience, meat pies etc () to the game and especially some league/cup celebrations and presentations through the 3D engine is something that is required.

When I see the word gimmick, I look back to Total Club Manager and FIFA where you had to buy both games to play with the team you managed. (The old disc swap)...or another EA great gimmick where you can play as a player in your managed team. These kind of ideas are HUGE money spinning gimmicks to basically force some players to buy multiple games but really add nothing to the game play or add an option that in theory is fun, but impractical in its inception.

At the end of the day, we play FM to enjoy ourselves and some people enjoy themselves emersed in numbers and tactics, some just want to experience the raw Football aspect of it, through flair, colour, sounds and fun. Why should these people have to find a different game to play for the sake of keeping FM true to "old school"?

Some things have to be added to this game to make it a lot more entertaining and to add a different dimension to it...

FM does not even graphically represent a cup victory during the match engine, yet they spend years "perfecting" other options in the game that most people just want removed.

It is extreemly niave of us and also arrogant to even think this game is successful compared not only to other genres, but compared to management games in general. If there was a better competitor out there, the sales of FM would be no where near what it is today - and even today - I would not say the sales of FM2010 are anything to boast about compared to hundres of games out on the market.

[wwfan]

I do read. I just don't assume.

The only hard data we have is that FM is the market leader in football management simulations, by some margin. How FM sells in relation to non-football maangement simulations is thus irrelevant. SI have achieved this status by only focusing on core management activities.

In contrast, other titles have tried to introduce gimmicky add ons, such as manager's personal lives, owning clubs, setting food prices and stadium expansion. These titles have consistently failed to dent SI's market share, with some no longer being produced. If these issues were hugely enhancing to the gaming experience, then it would be reasonable to argue that these games should be challenging SI, rather than being defunct or desperately playing catch up.

Despite SI achieving market dominance by ignoring such gimmicks or non-relevant tasks, you are arguing that if they start introducing them the game will sell better. There is absoultely no evidence that this is the case. In fact, the opposite seems to hold true. You also seem to think this can be done while a company is also equaling SI in terms of ME development and database research. I'm sorry, but this doesn't add up.

FM does not even graphically represent a cup victory during the match engine, yet they spend years "perfecting" other options in the game that most people just want removed.

This kind of claim needs to be rebutted. Do you know 'most people'? Have you talked to them? Or are you just basing this statement on your own opinion plus the those of the vocal but few forum moaners who post the same thing ad infinitum for every release?

[Roman Chevalier]

Still do not understand wht a lot of people are so negative to the inclusion of manager personal lives, stadium/facility creation, kit/sponsor design... and other slightly gimmick but fun ideas added to Football manager.

Do people realise adding these kind of things will actually improve sales and make FM reach a far greater audience?

As all things, they can be a removable/deselected option.

If you do not like it, do not do it.

The mentality of "This is nothing to do with a manager" is only going to make FM boring in the long run and quite detremental to the series when another company will come along and make a match engine that is on par to FM with far better graphics and a lot more interesting/diversive/immersive game-play.

While I do not really care if these things are added or not, I do see outside the square and people need to remember this is a game.

It doesn't make FM boring in the long run though, does it? Really? Giving the manager control over stadum expansion is hardly going to make the game 'more fun'. It is hardly thinking 'outside the square', as you generically wrote. Nor more diversive, or immersive for that matter. If you don't like it, play something else. FM is a football MANAGMENT SIMULATION. Therefore, it tries very hard to give the player all the duties, the trials and tribulations, of managing a football team. Managers can only push for stadium expansion, they do not design the frigging stadium, nor decide how many seats it has nor where it will be built. Same with kit design. Sure i'd like to be able to change the kits every couple of seasons, but whatever, these 'great advancments' in FM you are suggesting are, to be frank, just shallow gimmicks which will not prolong the lifespan of the game. Are you really suggesting that people will defer to other games if these are not implemented? The game is popular for a reason..

[Muhtesem]

What Do You Feel Should Be Removed From The FM Game

Lets Be Honest How Many Of Us Use OI 0r Go To A Press Conferences

Can Theses Be Removed Which Will In Turn Speed Up The Game

Or Can Something Els Be Added ; Like Build Your Own Facilities

I Sure Would Love To Be Able To Build My Own Ground Like In LMA Manger Which Was The Olny Good Point Off That Game I Feel

i totally agree with u.

i am fed up with press conferences. it must be removed. or at least it must be optional if someone uses it i dunno.

and also building smthg etc.. would be nice

[Roman Chevalier]

i totally agree with u.

i am fed up with press conferences. it must be removed. or at least it must be optional if someone uses it i dunno.

and also building smthg etc.. would be nice

it is optional, send your assistant. I agree that it must be improved to be more organic and less repetitive, but as i said, press conferences are mandatory for football managers and the questions THEY get asked are mundane to say the least.

I'd rather SI keep it in and work to improve it than for it to be discarded altogether, that would be a dumb idea

[Muhtesem]

i am not talking an optional like that. may be we can optimize it in preferences. even i fed up with sending my assistance. and sometimes they say wrong words to media.

[sm1979]

I know a lot of you have got used to this one but I still think the player ratings were better in the past when they were a straight 7 or 8 out of 10, instead of the modern 7.2 or 8.6. I just think that these are simply TOO precise now. SI have contradicted themselves on this one. The question was asked in the past why the starts were based out of 20 instead of 100, and they said it's too picky and specific - but they did exactly this when they brought in these player match ratings. We now have a system where each player match rating is based on a rating of 100. A player who get a 5.7 is basically 57/100. Another player in the same game might have got 5.8 (58/100) - what makes one player getting such a mark do better than the other? Hardly anything, thats what. Yes, th eold system might not have been perfect, but why not bring it in line with the normal player stats and only include them in multiples of .5 ie 7.5 / 8 / 8.5 etc? This would theoretically make the mark from a simple rating out of 20.

[polskaGOLA]

I don't understand why SI just doesn't make over a thousand possible lines for Press Conferences to make them somewhat interesting atleast.

[erik86]

Another one of these pointless threads. I go to every press conference. Build your own ground? The game is football manager, not builder's ar5ecrack.

What he said...

[anthony wright]

ok my bad. Its just that with such big paycheck there is nothing to do with it and it just take up club's resources. Anyway, i think i am more annoyed with d current financial model. Weekly salary is half of d budgeted amount, and im winning most tournaments but still making only 2 mill profits, and my player sales more than offset buying new players. So maybe not remove manager salary as im all for making d game more realistic. My salary as a manager is actually 15% of the club total wage structure, which i felt was weird. Maybe lower it?

The managers salary has got to reflect real life othrwise it would not be fair on other clubs in the league. clubs resources has to be in line with what they are in real life to ensure realism

[Vic Taylor]

I don't understand why SI just doesn't make over a thousand possible lines for Press Conferences to make them somewhat interesting atleast.

Time? A return for their hard work?

[grade]

grade, if realism doesn't appeal to you, go play FIFA.

I already do! That doesn't mean I want FM be copy of Fifa. If realism does appeal for you, then you better ask for SI to incorporate corruption and all that. Personally i have enough of that in realism.

You have missed the point of FM in my opinion. It's a football managment simulation, obviously, and if you treat it as pure fantasy then the game becomes completley redundant in my view. Football managment is intricate and requires a s**t load of planning and discipline, this is reflected in this game more and more and it's all the better for it. Without this aspect to the game it'd become very boring, because after all if you can't be in control of building a club then what's the point? You can defer responsibility to your assistants anyway so i don't know what the problem is?

I'm sure they are trying to improve the match graphics for christ sake!! It's relativley new to FM. Did you ever play just with the text commentary in the 90's? We didn't complain then did we, even when fifa was out.

The same with team talks etc, this will, hopefully, evolve to be more organic and less gratingly cliche

No i didn't it is a simulation game that simulates of me taking the reigns of club and take them to glory and it is a game which we play it for fun and enjoyment. No one is pointing gun at me and make me play it. I play it because is my choice. like it is yours. I play it to have fun and all of that.

What we diverge is that FM could be much better then it is now, that is what I try with my criticisms (if you can call them moaning, you can, because I won't take at heart).

I do read. I just don't assume.

The only hard data we have is that FM is the market leader in football management simulations, by some margin. How FM sells in relation to non-football maangement simulations is thus irrelevant. SI have achieved this status by only focusing on core management activities.

In contrast, other titles have tried to introduce gimmicky add ons, such as manager's personal lives, owning clubs, setting food prices and stadium expansion. These titles have consistently failed to dent SI's market share, with some no longer being produced. If these issues were hugely enhancing to the gaming experience, then it would be reasonable to argue that these games should be challenging SI, rather than being defunct or desperately playing catch up.

Despite SI achieving market dominance by ignoring such gimmicks or non-relevant tasks, you are arguing that if they start introducing them the game will sell better. There is absoultely no evidence that this is the case. In fact, the opposite seems to hold true. You also seem to think this can be done while a company is also equaling SI in terms of ME development and database research. I'm sorry, but this doesn't add up.

This kind of claim needs to be rebutted. Do you know 'most people'? Have you talked to them? Or are you just basing this statement on your own opinion plus the those of the vocal but few forum moaners who post the same thing ad infinitum for every release?

A lot of people have said "If it ain't broken, don't change it!" So in those lines, since the 3D isn't broken (it only has few lack of detail) there is no need to change it. But false at the same time, with the competion even being light years away from FM you need to push it forward.

I do agree that SI need to put new features and all that to sell the game. But what we are simply ask is not putting features that don't work properly and needs tweaking or it is boring. We want features to work properly and fully tested. If they are not sure then it is better not to implement it and only release in next year release.

Si in CM before joining with Eidos only put things that worked well. Up until the joining of Eidos I never patched my CM games and now that is rule, that is something I don't like.

[grade]

Time? A return for their hard work?

Well they don't have that great time, since a year is not enough time, to fix the problems of previous version that where left out to resolve and improve the already features.

Return, i think that buying their game is enough return for their hard work. Telling they did a good work is only a bonus.

[Vic Taylor]

Well they don't have that great time, since a year is not enough time, to fix the problems of previous version that where left out to resolve and improve the already features.

That was my point...

Return' date=' i think that buying their game is enough return for their hard work. Telling they did a good work is only a bonus.[/quote']

Someone will always complain, even if SI put out a perfect game. They can never please everyone.

[edgar555]

What Do You Feel Should Be Removed From The FM Game

Lets Be Honest How Many Of Us Use OI 0r Go To A Press Conferences

Can Theses Be Removed Which Will In Turn Speed Up The Game

Or Can Something Els Be Added ; Like Build Your Own Facilities

I Sure Would Love To Be Able To Build My Own Ground Like In LMA Manger Which Was The Olny Good Point Off That Game I Feel

I use both, all the time, to good effect. Lets not remove them.

Especially not at the expense of an LMA feature. Build my own ground? No thanks, this isn't Football Chairman or Football Construction Manager.

Or Can Something Els Be Added

And here are you asking for Ernie Els to be in the game? Because with him being a golfer that would be weird?

[Nobby_McDonald]

Maybe he wants to become a chairman?

[Nobby_McDonald]

Whats with the capitalising of every word?

I'm with you here. I saw the original post, all the capitals and couldn't be bothered to try and decipher it.

[Kain]

Si in CM before joining with Eidos only put things that worked well. Up until the joining of Eidos I never patched my CM games and now that is rule, that is something I don't like.

You've got to be kidding on this point, surely? CM4 was the most bugged game I've ever played in my life, even after multiple patches.

[Vic Taylor]

I'm with you here. I saw the original post, all the capitals and couldn't be bothered to try and decipher it.

Decipher?

Mate, it's still in English. It doesn't take much effort to read it, even if each word is capitalised.

[cheekylad68]

Liverpool + John Terry

[Nobby_McDonald]

Decipher?

Mate, it's still in English. It doesn't take much effort to read it, even if each word is capitalised.

It isn't English when every word is capitalised.

[Vic Taylor]

It isn't English when every word is capitalised.

English is a language. The format in which it is presented is not. Therefore the OP was speaking in perfect English.

[fabioke]

Nothing should be removed only improved. Fm is successfull because its realistic. There should be more detail in team talks. Press conferences need more variation. And having more influence on board decisions should be possible after achieving something. It would work like a reward. The chairman asking you for advice. And it needs to be compatible with the personality of the chairman.

[Rafa2007]

Sparks, your typing nearly gave me a seizure.

Not impressed

[Rupal]

Unless a feature provides something positive, there is no point in including it.

Press conferences don't provide anything positive at all as they stand. That is why people keep saying 'I send my assman'. Their effects are not grounded in logic. If you have to work out a 'formula' for them then this is no different in essence to 'breaking' the ME, which makes people throw up their hands in horror.

Either make a feature actually contribute something to the enjoyability of the game or leave it out, SI. There's no point in paying lip service to things such as press conferences by putting a repetitive, arbitrary and extremely tedious 'feature' into the game. Either do the job properly or don't do it at all.

Similar considerations apply to team talks. These appear to have a considerable effect on the outcomes of matches. However, far too frequently, the multiple choice options don't provide a suitable alternative for the situation which faces the manager and the results of these talks are, again, not necessarily grounded in common sense. We seem, once more, to be reduced to finding the right formula ('breaking the ME' equivalent again!!). Either make the activity meaningful or stop including it until you can.

[ac13]

Unless a feature provides something positive, there is no point in including it.

Press conferences don't provide anything positive at all as they stand. That is why people keep saying 'I send my assman'. Their effects are not grounded in logic. If you have to work out a 'formula' for them then this is no different in essence to 'breaking' the ME, which makes people throw up their hands in horror.

Either make a feature actually contribute something to the enjoyability of the game or leave it out, SI. There's no point in paying lip service to things such as press conferences by putting a repetitive, arbitrary and extremely tedious 'feature' into the game. Either do the job properly or don't do it at all.

Similar considerations apply to team talks. These appear to have a considerable effect on the outcomes of matches. However, far too frequently, the multiple choice options don't provide a suitable alternative for the situation which faces the manager and the results of these talks are, again, not necessarily grounded in common sense. We seem, once more, to be reduced to finding the right formula ('breaking the ME' equivalent again!!). Either make the activity meaningful or stop including it until you can.

to give some examples of why I agree with the poster.

Why have encourage as an option when you winning but not when you're drawing or losing. If they can't make something more sensible I'd prefer just a slider or options along the lines of angry, disappointed, satisfied, happy, thrilled.

Also for years the stupid suggestion thing keeps saying to keep your team talks varied as the players lose interest if you say the same thing. Yet saying disappointed always worked a treat 9.00 up to 10.2) even when you were winning. Saying expect a win 5/6 games in a row worked fine 2. As soon as you tried to deviate from the formula you'd be punished. It seems like 10.0.3 might be slightly different (actually had a decent second half performance after saying pleased) but too soon to be sure.

Anyway so as I said either make it simplified so everyone can understand it or make it complicated but logical. At the moment it's a mess. Wouldn't most managers tell their players they were thrilled if they were 3-0 up away at old trafford? And if it's not a good option ever, under any circumstance, why make it an option.

Press conferences are the same. A player gets injured. Who's going to say I could care less player X got injured? Or I'm not that bothered that I've managed to sign player y for 20million.

[neutral]

You're crazy if you want to remove Opposition Instruction. Instead of removing it, I want it to be a lot better like CM10..

Designing stadium? Yeah, a bit agree with that, but only with a basic specification (like 'I want a 55k capacity' etc).

What I want is to add difficulty option, so maybe we can reduce the number of peoples whining due to their incompetence..

[grade]

You're crazy if you want to remove Opposition Instruction. Instead of removing it, I want it to be a lot better like CM10..

Designing stadium? Yeah, a bit agree with that, but only with a basic specification (like 'I want a 55k capacity' etc).

What I want is to add difficulty option, so maybe we can reduce the number of peoples whining due to their incompetence..

I would agree with your post, but that last word just seems wrong and only show you don't understand the other peoples problem with the game. Was it really necessary?

[Cougar2010]

Si in CM before joining with Eidos only put things that worked well. Up until the joining of Eidos I never patched my CM games and now that is rule, that is something I don't like.

Sorry, missed this Grade when you posted it but it is something I want to bring up.

In the 90s I never patched games either but this was due to lack of knowledge not any other reason. The internet was in its infancy and not as widely used as it is today.

This doesn't mean the games were bug free though, I remember an early version of CM where I took Hereford to three promotions in ten seasons only to become Liverpool manager when I won the Second Division/Championship? Why? because the job was offered and the bug was that you accepted automatically without having the option to reject the approach.

Now this was one of the few bugs I spotted before forums became standard. I'm convinced more people know about bugs in games from reading forums than from actually playing the games.

Of course in an ideal world everything would work properly first time but that doesn't happen and the software industry is possibly one of the worst offenders in that regard.

[grade]

I do agree that with internet users have become more conscious about bugs and that games have level of technology higher then in 90's.

But also I do notice that game industries have become to complecent of using the excuse: "if there is any bug we will release a patch to fix the bug."

Game companies can and will get away with this, but personally I think is wrong and if in other areas that can be the end for company. One day users will get sick of this patch later to fix bugs and all that and the ones that will be in trouble is game companies.

To be honest personally, I was medium gamer, and now I only play Mass Effect, Final Fantasy, Command and Conquer, Assassin's Creed, Fifa and FM Series and recently Monkey Island. I would play Starcraft series but there has been few years since the release of one those games. Supreme Commander is one example of a game full of games (one of them at installation) I gave up on the entire series. Need for Speed Shift is nearly impossible to control on keyboard and gave up and to be honest not sure if I will pick up another game. As you can see there are times I'm only playing Fifa and FM. This philosophy put me off to buy games.

Still that doesn't mean that SI used 3D system that was developed by team that released their last football game (like fifa in the late 90's, yearly 2000's) for so high minimal requirements computer to run them. I mean Mass Effect 2 or Crysis has much more demanding 3D then the 3D of FM 09 and FM10. This is what I don't understand about 3D.

[wwfan]

Anyway so as I said either make it simplified so everyone can understand it or make it complicated but logical. At the moment it's a mess. Wouldn't most managers tell their players they were thrilled if they were 3-0 up away at old trafford? And if it's not a good option ever, under any circumstance, why make it an option.

I'd happily used 'thrilled' in that situation.

There have been way too many bad forum theories on team talks that have stopped people from understanding how they work. They are perfectly logical as long as you use them relating to the match/performance contexts. As with everything in FM there's no simple, formulaic answer. Pleased can be a good and bad team talk at 2-0 up depending on what has happened in the match and who it is between. You also then have the difference between the team talk, which relates to the match context, and individual talks, which relate to specific performance/confidence levels.

Press conferences are slightly less sophisticated, but can still be employed to improve morale and target opposition players.

[Rupal]

I'd happily used 'thrilled' in that situation.

There have been way too many bad forum theories on team talks that have stopped people from understanding how they work. They are perfectly logical as long as you use them relating to the match/performance contexts. As with everything in FM there's no simple, formulaic answer. Pleased can be a good and bad team talk at 2-0 up depending on what has happened in the match and who it is between. You also then have the difference between the team talk, which relates to the match context, and individual talks, which relate to specific performance/confidence levels.

Press conferences are slightly less sophisticated, but can still be employed to improve morale and target opposition players.

The fact is that, no matter how you wrap it up, there often does not seem to be an appropriate response given the circumstances. It seems silly to me to be hunting round for convoluted reasons to explain why a particular response may not do any damage in a particular context, to be frank. It's going through something because it has to be done, not because it's actually contributing anything meaningful to the game in a positive way.

Obviously on a superficial level you are correct and 'pleased' may not always be the right response if you are 2-0 up at half time. However, it surely ought to be most of the time! The circumstances in which it isn't would be exceptional, I'd have thought, on a common sense level. What would certainly not make any sense on such a level would be not saying you are pleased because you said it last time you were 2-0 up, which is how things appear to work (or not) in FM!

You say that you would happily use 'thrilled' in the Old Trafford situation. That's where common sense comes into conflict with the idiosyncracies of FM. Most of us would be 'thrilled' indeed, but, unfortunately, it appears that this particular choice, however sensible it may seem to be, is too often a recipe for a massive collapse in the second half....

It's evident that a lot of people don't like these features as they stand. SI should take this on board and either provide something that actually makes a positive contribution to the game or get rid of them until they can do this.

[Konfuchie]

At first I didn't understand what OI is, so I had to read all the way through the post until it clicked.

Please avoid typing in your own language and use English grammar rules. Too many capital letters and short words makes your posts less understandable and harder to read.

Well I dislike Press conferences, and I would dislike them in real life. But they are very important in managing a football club, especially ones with large supporters base. Removing this would make it too unrealistic.

But tweaks must be made.

There is a shortage of options, after some questions every single answer has potential to upset someone. Good example is the long-term injury question. The press questions are boring cuz they are always the same. Also reactions can be very unrealistic.

It turns out you always have to say things to the press like your players are the only one listening, and you do not need to pay attention is it even real what you are saying. In reality you'd be ridiculed by press and supporters for some answers that are regarded as positive in FM. Or you'd produce unsatisfied supporters for answers like: "yes I'd consider it a coupe" - which is purely positive answer in FM2010.

Opposition Instructions are crucial part of your match-day tactic.

Not using it, or letting your AssMan do it is WRONG and it will get you more bad than good results.

[kieronbrown73]

Do not remove anything just improve them.

Press Conferences - these somehow need to be more fluid with questions relevant to your current league situation. Also the headline summary after the conference needs updating, I have lost count of the amount of times I have run down opposition players threat only for the headline to read i'm not interested in signing a player that would be lucky to warm my bench.

General Press - Their should be lot more emphasis on major derby games i.e AC - Inter or Rangers - Celtic. irl the games would generate much media attention in the game it doesn't seem to have much bearing.

Opposition Tactics - again this needs to be adaptable. If we have a specific instructions for a player who is subbed the instruction should remain in force on his replacement, unless we manually change it.

Pre/Half/Full Match Talks - as has previously been mentioned the talk given should reflect the indvidual match circumstances, and also the playing staff available.

Mentoring/Learn New Skills - as manager we should be able to react to any negative responses given.

[Nobby_McDonald]

Opposition Instructions are crucial part of your match-day tactic.

Not using it, or letting your AssMan do it is WRONG and it will get you more bad than good results.

I found the opposite.

I was struggling at the bottom of League One with Northampton halfway through last season. Along with a change of tactics, I started letting my Assistant Manager set the opposition instructions, with a couple of additions as advised by my scout who watched the next opposition, and we shot up the table and just missed out on the playoffs.

[dean66683]

i would'nt mind the press conference's if they were actually any good. in fm08 they seemed to be decent but in the current one som of the things don't make much sense. They could do with getting a top manager to give them the basics of what questions you could get and what possible answers you could give and the typical outcome. press conference: good theory, bad practical.

[wwfan]

The fact is that, no matter how you wrap it up, there often does not seem to be an appropriate response given the circumstances. It seems silly to me to be hunting round for convoluted reasons to explain why a particular response may not do any damage in a particular context, to be frank. It's going through something because it has to be done, not because it's actually contributing anything meaningful to the game in a positive way.

Obviously on a superficial level you are correct and 'pleased' may not always be the right response if you are 2-0 up at half time. However, it surely ought to be most of the time! The circumstances in which it isn't would be exceptional, I'd have thought, on a common sense level. What would certainly not make any sense on such a level would be not saying you are pleased because you said it last time you were 2-0 up, which is how things appear to work (or not) in FM!

You say that you would happily use 'thrilled' in the Old Trafford situation. That's where common sense comes into conflict with the idiosyncracies of FM. Most of us would be 'thrilled' indeed, but, unfortunately, it appears that this particular choice, however sensible it may seem to be, is too often a recipe for a massive collapse in the second half....

It's evident that a lot of people don't like these features as they stand. SI should take this on board and either provide something that actually makes a positive contribution to the game or get rid of them until they can do this.

I really don't agree with any of this. I think your idea of what team talks should be would reduce them to meaningless button pushing that has no relevance to what is going on in a match. That would become a matter of 'I am leading 2-0, therefore click 'Pleased'.' 2-0 then becomes 3-0. What fun!

It is vital that team talks bounce off match/squad/player context or they become pointless. The 2-0 scoreline has the following contexts for a mid-table side playing at home:

Playing really well against one of the best sides in the division: Thrilled

Playing well against a side of similar ability to yours: Pleased

Playing well against a side you think you should beat relatively comfortably: None

Playing badly against a weak team and being undeserving of the 2-0 lead: Don't let your performance drop

The relevant team talk for each situation shifts as your squad gels and your team's ability gets better/worse. It also changes in relation to the squad personality. For example, 'Don't let your performance drop' may never be a good talk for an ungelled squad with a flaky squad personality, as it could result in them playing the second half with lots of nerves.

In addition to all this, you then have the individual options which can be used to buck up players performing badly, reduce complacency or nervousness, or turn a good performance into a match-winnign one. Again, how you use these relates to the personality of the player you are talking to.

Working all this out in direct relationship to your squad is management. Clicking 'Pleased' because you are 2-0 up and you know it is the right option for that situation, no matter what, is gaming. It is the equivalent of perfectly timing a jump move because you know the alien monster is going to rise out of the pit ahead in 2 seconds time. That type of process has no place in a management simulation.

Where I think there is a weakness here is the lack of a really good team talk/squad management screen during the match, which makes getting all the relevant data annoying and time consuming. For me, it's a major GUI weakness. However, it is a game play strength.

[Rupal]

Look, wwfan, you don't take into account the fact that a group of multiple choice options can't cover the full gamut of in-game situations. Let's use your own examples up there and your own criteria. You are playing badly against a weak team and don't deserve your 2-0 lead. You also have an ungelled squad with flaky squad personality. Can you please indicate whether, under those circumstances, you would use 'Don't let your performance drop' or not and the reasoning behind your choice? Won't you in fact either be reduced to 'gaming' (ie making the choice to use it or not because you've seen the results it leads to before) or basically tossing a coin and hoping for the best, which is where a lot of us find ourselves with this feature?

Or, let us suppose for a moment that 'Don't let your performance drop' is, in fact, the appropriate choice to be made as your squad is gelled well enough. Unfortunately you know that you used this in the last match in a similar situation. It has been said numerous times that team talks lose their effect if repeated too frequently.........

The problem is that the game is trying to provide a feature (meaningful team talks) using an inadequate mechanism (a limited range of multiple choices). The result doesn't work satisfactorily, which is hardly surprising. I believe that my comments remain valid.

EDIT - let me just add that I really can't see that, on a common sense level, 'Don't let your performance drop' is appropriate for a situation where you are playing badly and are lucky to be in front. Surely you want the performance to be BETTER in the second half, not merely to avoid it getting even worse...???

[wwfan]

This really isn't rocket science you know.

2-0 up, flaky squad, don't deserve the lead

Team

Player 1: Core player, scored one of the goals but hasn't done much else of note: None

Players 2-5: Core Players having average games: Team = Don't let your performance drop

Player 6: Core player, played OK but looking complacent: Disappointed or Team

Player 7: Core player, high determination, playing badly: Disappointed (if he's complacent as well, then Angry)

Player 8: Bit-part veteran, out of practice, made a few mistakes: Have faith

Player 9: Raw kid, scored and assisted: Pleased

Player 10: Raw kid, playing nervously: No pressure

Player 11: Raw kid, playing badly but not demotivated: Have faith

Team talks are just motivational tools. Don't let your performance drop relates to only just playing well enough, thus:

You are a bit lucky to be winning this. This could easily be 0-0 or we could be down given the play so far. They will get back into it if we lose focus. Whatever you do, don't let your performance drop.

The first three sentences relate to how you have interpreted the first half. The last sentence lets the team know how you feel. If you were 3-0 up at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park, you'd hardly be thinking the above. You'd be thrilled. So tell your players.

[Dekker2]

Look, wwfan, you don't take into account the fact that a group of multiple choice options can't cover the full gamut of in-game situations. Let's use your own examples up there and your own criteria. You are playing badly against a weak team and don't deserve your 2-0 lead. You also have an ungelled squad with flaky squad personality. Can you please indicate whether, under those circumstances, you would use 'Don't let your performance drop' or not and the reasoning behind your choice? Won't you in fact either be reduced to 'gaming' (ie making the choice to use it or not because you've seen the results it leads to before) or basically tossing a coin and hoping for the best, which is where a lot of us find ourselves with this feature?

Or, let us suppose for a moment that 'Don't let your performance drop' is, in fact, the appropriate choice to be made as your squad is gelled well enough. Unfortunately you know that you used this in the last match in a similar situation. It has been said numerous times that team talks lose their effect if repeated too frequently.........

1. If you can tell what to say to your squad based on what has worked in the past, then that's just like IRL. It won't work the same from squad to squad, because they have different personalities, so it will be based on what you as a manager know about your team, not just what you know about the game - that's the idea.

If you don't know your team very well, you'll have to guess what will work and risk failure - also like IRL.

2. You are taking the "if repeated too frequently" thing too seriously. If you say "for the fans" before every single game and then the same at half-time, or "well done" after every single game, regardless of how well they played, then your players do switch off - your praise, or your rabble-rousing can start to seem hollow - but just using the same appropriate team talk a few times in a row doesn't have any negative effect.

[Rupal]

This really isn't rocket science you know.

2-0 up, flaky squad, don't deserve the lead

Team

Player 1: Core player, scored one of the goals but hasn't done much else of note: None

Players 2-5: Core Players having average games: Team = Don't let your performance drop

Player 6: Core player, played OK but looking complacent: Disappointed or Team

Player 7: Core player, high determination, playing badly: Disappointed (if he's complacent as well, then Angry)

Player 8: Bit-part veteran, out of practice, made a few mistakes: Have faith

Player 9: Raw kid, scored and assisted: Pleased

Player 10: Raw kid, playing nervously: No pressure

Player 11: Raw kid, playing badly but not demotivated: Have faith

Team talks are just motivational tools. Don't let your performance drop relates to only just playing well enough, thus:

You are a bit lucky to be winning this. This could easily be 0-0 or we could be down given the play so far. They will get back into it if we lose focus. Whatever you do, don't let your performance drop.

The first three sentences relate to how you have interpreted the first half. The last sentence lets the team know how you feel. If you were 3-0 up at Old Trafford having played Utd off the park, you'd hardly be thinking the above. You'd be thrilled. So tell your players.

You have, of course, dodged my simple question.

You previously said that 'Don't let your performance drop' would not be appropriate for a flaky squad.

You also said that 'Don't let your performance drop' would be appropriate for a situation where you are playing badly and are lucky to be ahead.

You have a flaky squad, are playing badly and have a lucky lead.

Is 'Don't let your performance drop' appropriate here? Yes or no?

[wwfan]

It is appropriate for the non-flaky players you have in the team, as my previous answer made pretty clear. However, the other players need to be handled much more carefully, hence the examples of individual team talks.

The more new, young, non-language speaking overseas and poor personality players you have, the fewer of the number receive the 'don't let the performance drop' team talk. In my above example, I used it as the central team talk for three players. If I had no core players, I probably wouldn't use it for anyone. However, it is very unlikely I would start 11 players in their first season in the club.

If I had a well-gelled, disciplined squad full of hard nosed professionals, I'd probably use it for everyone as I wouldn't have to mollycoddle.

[Rupal]

In other words, it wasn't correct for you to say that you should never use it for a flaky squad. What you meant was that it wasn't appropriate for flaky members of a squad, which is a very different matter. Thank you for clearing that up.

I am (hard though you may find it to believe this) not trying to be awkward here. I have highlighted it because it goes to show that, if somebody who is as generally au fait as yourself with the inner mysteries of FM isn't crystal clear in his thinking about what's suitable or not, it leaves the rest of us ordinary mortals really struggling!

Essentially, your example raises for me the interesting question of whether a team talk is really what's going on at all here. What you've done is to give a lot of different individual talks. Now I can understand this as an approach perfectly well. However, one begins to ask oneself whether the 'team talk' option isn't essentially redundant with such an approach. What does this do over and above the individual talks? Your example suggests to me that you don't actually think it does anything at all. So why have a 'team talk' set of choices at all? Why not simply provide the opportunity for individual talks and avoid possible confusion?

In general, the relationship between individual and team in the game puzzles me. For example, the tactics wizard allows for team passing to be more direct as an option. How does this relate to the individual passing settings exactly? It isn't clear to me exactly how this works.

[Kickballz]

I always gravitate towards a certain type of player who pretty much respond to the simplest common denominator when it comes to team talks.

I don't like them (team talks) and I'm not interested in micro-managing my team in any way, but at the very least it helps me to identify the players I want rid of. If some prima donna can't take criticism along with the rest of my non-performing muppets without throwing a strop then I don't want him near my team.

But overall, I'd vote to get rid of them. They don't add anything to my enjoyment of the game.

[itsallaboutthierry]

The main issue I have with the team talks is the feedback screen. You think you've delivered a mix of individual and team talks that should get your team firing and they go on to win the match. Then you check your team talk feedback screen expecting a wave of "seemed motivated"s and "inspired to a great performance" and what you actually get from 90% of the team is "nothing specific noted".

The problem then becomes:

'Well I tried what I thought what the right team talk for that situation but it didn't affect the players at all. None of the other options available in that context made sense. What do I do next time?'

I agree with wwfan that having a better GUI for this area would be good so you could see a player's personality and motivation status more easily without having to switch screens 3 times.

Also could there be an option to hire a sports psychologist? This person could advise along the lines of "Robinho is very ambitious and looking complacent. He needs to be told that you're angry with his performance to raise his game for the second half" Or maybe if you have a sports psychologist on the books you get a little circle next to your team talk which is green for a positive effect, yellow for neutral and red for negative. Or if this level of feedback is too in depth then he only feeds back on the 3-4 most undermotivated players in the team.

[Konfuchie]

I found the opposite.

I was struggling at the bottom of League One with Northampton halfway through last season. Along with a change of tactics, I started letting my Assistant Manager set the opposition instructions, with a couple of additions as advised by my scout who watched the next opposition, and we shot up the table and just missed out on the playoffs.

I have to take a step back and say I only played 2 seasons with OI handled by AssMan in 1.0.0. After that I set them on my own and I do it good.

My AssMan just made my players get too many cards, get injured and way too tired.

[phil101]

What Do You Feel Should Be Removed From The FM Game

Lets Be Honest How Many Of Us Use OI 0r Go To A Press Conferences

Can Theses Be Removed Which Will In Turn Speed Up The Game

Or Can Something Els Be Added ; Like Build Your Own Facilities

I Sure Would Love To Be Able To Build My Own Ground Like In LMA Manger Which Was The Olny Good Point Off That Game I Feel

simple

i do

and dont see why youd want to build your own stadium your the manager not the chairman

yes press conferences need work (maybe an option to ignore them if you dont want to go or send ass man ) but can be vital in affecting player performance and OI can really change your tactics