FM2011: The worst CM/FM ever.

[Guest]

My finall conclusion of FM2011 after playing about 9 seasons, is yes, it is by far and away the worst FM ever. Its 1 I will never play again or ever go back to. Roll on 2012.

[Arijit]

Lack of effort LoLerpool fan.

FM 09 was by far the worst

This. 10 character

[chardo]

considering its the latest edition, it should be the best, but its not. i dont think its the worst though. disapointing is the word id use. for me agents etc are a waste of time, they should get the important things perfect first.

[macca1001]

Forget press conferences and agents. Get the ME engine sorted and transfers etc and thats all you need for FM 2012.

[YOUNGSTEVE]

My finall conclusion of FM2011 after playing about 9 seasons, is yes, it is by far and away the worst FM ever. Its 1 I will never play again or ever go back to. Roll on 2012.

So you play a game for 9 seasons, which in your own words is by far & away the worst FM ever. You certainly are a glutton for punishment. Then add you are looking forwards to next years version. Surely if it was that bad you would never buy the game again.

[Guest]

So you play a game for 9 seasons, which in your own words is by far & away the worst FM ever. You certainly are a glutton for punishment. Then add you are looking forwards to next years version. Surely if it was that bad you would never buy the game again.

No. not nessesarly. I have pretty much forced myself to play this one. I havent played it half as much as most others. I kept trying to look for something that I was never going to find. Some enjoyment. Think its the first time I quit before getting to the prem. I think the thing keeping me going was the getting to the prem thing and seeing if it all changed. Its not terrible just really bad. Had the odd moment.

I'll still buy the next one, as I do every year. Probably wait till patch 3 again though. As theres nothing really else. I buy my PC for FM only, Its the only real reason I own one. I'm due an upgrade but because its so poor this year I decided not to bother.

Same with PES. Some years its as if they never cared less what they put to disk. Still buy that every year 2.

[I AM CANADIAN!]

I thought FM was supposed to be a management sim, and scouting, savvy signings, tactics and training were the key to building a successful team. That's what the game USED to be about and that's what made it such a success. What's this FM about? Rolling the dice and picking the right team talks, press conference answers and player interactions. It's absolutely ridiculous how much of the game hinges upon making your players happy and motivated by choosing the right coded phrases that really seem to mean virtually nothing, and the feedback the game gives you about the way the team responds to what you say is wholly inadequate. It's all a guessing game and it really takes the control out of your hands. You'd think winning games would improve morale, I was just on an 8 match winning streak with Milan and my assistant manager reported that morale was only slightly above average, and I finally lost 2-1 to Parma and, what do you know, morale sunk to "rock bottom." In real life, generally, players seem to be happy if they're playing regularly, playing well, on a winning team, and making a lot of money, and their manager isn't going out of his way to be a dick towards them. All my friends who also have the game never even touch the tactics and training, they let the assistant manager handle them and just select their players, pick the team talks and press conference answers, and have been extremely successful, which is absolutely insane. When was the last time you heard about a bad team talk crushing a team's morale in real life?

Until SI develops a more sophisticated and less opaque way of managing players' happiness and motivation it really shouldn't be such a massive part of the game. In the older games, you were able to praise players for their performances and make positive comments about them in the media, and warn them or fine them when you weren't happy with them. That was understandable and didn't require interpreting code phrases like "sympathize with the team" and "For the fans!" This isn't why I play the game; I'm interested in tactics and building teams, not playing a guessing game. I understand that what you see happen in the match engine isn't actually a representation of the game's calculations, and at the root it's still the same text-based engine it was 15 years ago, but the tactics really don't seem to have any bearing on whether you win or lose, and the on-the-fly tactics are less than useless and don't make any difference as to what happens on the pitch. In my Milan team Alexandre Pato has been on red-hot form for about three years now and when the ball comes to him, good things happen. At first when I was down in matches and needed a goal I would instruct the team to 'get the ball forward'; one would think that would mean more balls over the top for a striker to run onto. Just like other tactics towards the same end, like 'exploit the middle', 'push forward', etc. it didn't change anything about my play. Maybe there is some code to unlocking these tactical commands, but shouldn't they just mean what they say? Opposition instructions, and useless assistant manager feedback relating to them during the match, are very frustrating as well. Every team has certain key players you should play a certain way against, but for one thing, they don't really seem to make a difference, and your assistant manager, if you follow his advice during the match, will eventually tell you that it'd be a good idea to tightly mark, close down, firmly tackle and show every single opposition player onto his weak foot. That's what setting individual instructions about marking used to be for, and usually, telling a defender who had good marking abilities to mark an opposition player accomplished the same thing. The most frustrating thing about it is that even if you do tell your players to do all that to a key player... they don't. In the older games, an instruction for one of your defenders to mark an opposition player resulted in him sticking tightly to his target. Now it doesn't make a discernible difference. Ironic how more and more tactical options are added every year, but they mean less with every new edition of the game.

I'd really just like to see the game simplified, there's too much guesswork, and not enough control.

Anyway, rant over. I'd go back to CM 03/04, but don't have a functioning Windows PC at the moment, sadly.

[cynet]

Would be better if you had options to turn off team talks and press talks, oh plus assistant management talk.

Be the right step for some simplicity.

[kingjericho]

FM10 is better than this year's but I wouldn't say this is bad. But I wouldn't consider it one of the best either, it has lots of bugs both technical and in the ME, and some features like the private chats still need lots of polishing.

[Guest]

I thought FM was supposed to be a management sim, .

I feel the exact same way. Tottally agree. Said it many times before. Sooner team talks are gone the better.

[Robioto]

You obviously didn't play the atrocities that were CM4, CM03/04 and FM 2005 (to a lesser extent FM2006). I was playing CM01/02 for 4 years as they series tried to progess too quickly. FM2011 is one of the best IMO, if not the best. Also if you are going to make a topic like this at least put a discussion forward instead of just typing the word 'discuss'.

[BiggusD]

I agree with everything I Am Canadian said.

In addition, there is this thing about the choice between zonal and man marking defensive positioning systems plus tight marking. It really shouldn't be either/or but a slider, this option. The reason for this is that there are no football clubs in the world which plays either extreme in 2011. They did twenty years ago, but not now. When the opposition has the ball, teams employ a system of marking in zones to various degrees.

When did you last see a defender following a striker around the pitch wherever he went? When did you last see a four-back defence caring only for their particular zone, letting the opposing players go where they like? Can't remember? That is because those systems were both abandoned at least a decade ago.

Granted, some teams follow their man around more than others, but overall clubs playing modern football man-mark the player zone by zone, and midfielders and even strikers are responsible to follow deep runs if they have to.

I think the zonal vs man marking option in FM is confusing both because they are incorrect by themselves, but also because neither is implemented properly in the 3d representation of the ME. Especially on set pieces you can clearly see that marking is something the players don't "understand". The movement around where the ball is works fine, while the movement everywhere else is less realistic. This is something that has improved a lot since 3d was implemented, and can be expected to continue to improve. The biggest improvement when it comes to the realism of the defensive vs attacking movements would be - I think - implementing a slider for the marking system and getting rid of the Tight Marking option as a bonus.

|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|

Zonal........................................................ Mixed................................................Man marking

[Lazaru5]

I agree with everything I Am Canadian said.

In addition, there is this thing about the choice between zonal and man marking defensive positioning systems plus tight marking. It really shouldn't be either/or but a slider, this option. The reason for this is that there are no football clubs in the world which plays either extreme in 2011. They did twenty years ago, but not now. When the opposition has the ball, teams employ a system of marking in zones to various degrees.

When did you last see a defender following a striker around the pitch wherever he went? When did you last see a four-back defence caring only for their particular zone, letting the opposing players go where they like? Can't remember? That is because those systems were both abandoned at least a decade ago.

Granted, some teams follow their man around more than others, but overall clubs playing modern football man-mark the player zone by zone, and midfielders and even strikers are responsible to follow deep runs if they have to.

I think the zonal vs man marking option in FM is confusing both because they are incorrect by themselves, but also because neither is implemented properly in the 3d representation of the ME. Especially on set pieces you can clearly see that marking is something the players don't "understand". The movement around where the ball is works fine, while the movement everywhere else is less realistic. This is something that has improved a lot since 3d was implemented, and can be expected to continue to improve. The biggest improvement when it comes to the realism of the defensive vs attacking movements would be - I think - implementing a slider for the marking system and getting rid of the Tight Marking option as a bonus.

|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|

Zonal........................................................ Mixed................................................Man marking

You do realise that you have player instructions too, don't you? Where you can instruct your players to mark zonally or man-mark as the situation/position decrees? I employ a mixture of man and zonal marking that works effectively enough for the level of my players. If your marking is off, perhaps your tactics need some tweaks?

@ I AM CANADIAN - since when has man-management and motivation NOT been a part of a football managers job? Players need to be motivated, other than by greed, and it is the managers job to do that! Not only do you pick a team and set the tactics and training but you also have to motivate the players to perform your tactical instructions and hopefully win the game...

I will concede, however, that I am annoyed that I can no longer respond to another manager's criticism as in previous versions. If a manager says my tactics suck I want to be able to reply with "my tactics suck? yeah... your mother..." etc.

[Svenc]

I find it funny how people occasionally make it sound as if there was somehow a definite right pick in any of the player/journalist/manager interaction parts of the game (press conference/player talk, etc.). Or as if a wrong pick™ had the impact to making morale drop to rock-bottom ASAP. If anything, FM is pretty sophisticated in how it handles these parts of the game - in FIFA Manager for instance there IS a definite right pick for any given question, and also a set bonus effect each time picking this -- that is "player control" for you, but it is making it feel like a quiz show indeed. Similarily, in FIFA Manager you can tell the press that you're keen on a certain player as much as you can in FM. But whereas in FIFA Manager it only has that one most obvious effect you would expect it to have (the player probably becoming more interested in a move), in FM you can try to use the same basic "sentence" to a) make a player feel insecure (if he's a key player of an opponent you want to unsettle), b) try to make a player feel fired up (if he's running out of contract and you really want him to give it all against your relegation rivals) or c) make a player more keen on a move to your club. That doesn't mean you will succeed in accomplishing any of those effects simply by pushing that "I really want to sign him" button, naturally.

That is a rather basic example - but its implementation sets the stage how Football Manager is handling player, press and manager interaction. FIFA Manager isn't meant to be an example of a mediocre football managment game here - it is meant to be a representative of how football management games are being programmed on average.

I agree that feedback is a bit tricky and that human interaction as is is impossible to simulate in all its nuances in a computer game (so is football sports, by the way) - but part of what makes FM unique is that it doesn't handle its database entries as resources for the player to be picked up, or at least tries hard not to do so. But that FM has let those entries gradually allowed to be "persons" with character traits that not only interact with the player, but also which each other, form relationships over the course of a save - and get to tell their own stories in the process. It's a virtual football world coming to "life". And those stories are sometimes amusing ones indeed.

[I AM CANADIAN!]

You do realise that you have player instructions too, don't you? Where you can instruct your players to mark zonally or man-mark as the situation/position decrees? I employ a mixture of man and zonal marking that works effectively enough for the level of my players. If your marking is off, perhaps your tactics need some tweaks?

@ I AM CANADIAN - since when has man-management and motivation NOT been a part of a football managers job? Players need to be motivated, other than by greed, and it is the managers job to do that! Not only do you pick a team and set the tactics and training but you also have to motivate the players to perform your tactical instructions and hopefully win the game...

I will concede, however, that I am annoyed that I can no longer respond to another manager's criticism as in previous versions. If a manager says my tactics suck I want to be able to reply with "my tactics suck? yeah... your mother..." etc.

Manager to manager interaction is pretty awesome, I'm glad they added that, nothing better than calling your biggest rival a clueless moron. =D

I agree that it's part of a manager's job, what I DON'T like is the rather incomplete, confusing, ill-explained and cryptic way it's implemented in the game. Right, you'd think 'For the fans!' or 'Go out and win this game!' or 'Encourage the team' would be, you know, pretty encouraging, but these talks obviously mean something completely different and figuring out which one will provide the magic encouragement before each match is a minigame in itself that I do not want to play. And when you leave it to the assistant manager, he almost always chooses 'For the fans!' As a few people have said, having terrible tactics and great morale seems to be a lot better than having great tactics that suit your players but poor morale, which is, in my opinion, not the point of the game at all.

[milnerpoint]

Manager to manager interaction is pretty awesome, I'm glad they added that, nothing better than calling your biggest rival a clueless moron. =D

I agree that it's part of a manager's job, what I DON'T like is the rather incomplete, confusing, ill-explained and cryptic way it's implemented in the game. Right, you'd think 'For the fans!' or 'Go out and win this game!' or 'Encourage the team' would be, you know, pretty encouraging, but these talks obviously mean something completely different and figuring out which one will provide the magic encouragement before each match is a minigame in itself that I do not want to play. And when you leave it to the assistant manager, he almost always chooses 'For the fans!' As a few people have said, having terrible tactics and great morale seems to be a lot better than having great tactics that suit your players but poor morale, which is, in my opinion, not the point of the game at all.

Without having a go or anything, if you think its shallow you really dont understand the mechanics of it all, its not shallow there is a lot too it, but unless you immerse yourself in the feature fully you will never get the whole picture.

Good tactics and good motivation are vital for any football team. I would say moral and motivation are more important than tactics, you can have a terrible team with very good moral and motivation punching well above their weight, just like you can have the best squad in the world but if they are not playing well and not motivated they will be useless.

[x42bn6]

Without having a go or anything, if you think its shallow you really dont understand the mechanics of it all, its not shallow there is a lot too it, but unless you immerse yourself in the feature fully you will never get the whole picture.

If he doesn't "understand the mechanics of it all" then the game has, quite frankly, failed - if he is doing what appears to be obvious to him, or the computer is suggesting something illogical or consistently the same thing, then the game is unintuitive.

Users should not need to force themselves to be immersed in the game - the game has to immerse the user naturally.

[wally13]

I feel the exact same way. Totally agree. Said it many times before. Sooner team talks are gone the better.

Surely this feature is fundamental to been a football manager

[milnerpoint]

If he doesn't "understand the mechanics of it all" then the game has, quite frankly, failed - if he is doing what appears to be obvious to him, or the computer is suggesting something illogical or consistently the same thing, then the game is unintuitive.

Users should not need to force themselves to be immersed in the game - the game has to immerse the user naturally.

or he has failed to learn the game mechanics, it can be looked at from both ways.

At the end of the day FM is not an arcade game you just pick up and instantly know how to play it, its a complicated football management simulator, if you want to fully enjoy all of the game you have to learn about how everything works, yes SI could definitely explain things better and hopefully they will, but there is plenty online material you can read and learn from.

[Lazaru5]

If he doesn't "understand the mechanics of it all" then the game has, quite frankly, failed - if he is doing what appears to be obvious to him, or the computer is suggesting something illogical or consistently the same thing, then the game is unintuitive.

Users should not need to force themselves to be immersed in the game - the game has to immerse the user naturally.

The problem there x42 is that people 'expect' the game to be easy... I'd like to see what would happen if the next instalment in the Resident Evil series was easy, there'd be uproar! (fwiw I never got very far in the original Resident Evil...). As with any other game there are areas that you need to be proficient in, or at least competent, to be able to play the game well. If you don't learn how to become competent in those areas you will never be able to properly play the game...

[x42bn6]

or he has failed to learn the game mechanics, it can be looked at from both ways.

Not true - a user should need to put a minimal amount of effort to understand the game, although the user may need to spend a while to master it (two very different things).

From a software design point of view, the moment someone mentions "Oh, but you don't understand the game" or something to that effect, the software has been designed badly - full-stop.

At the end of the day FM is not an arcade game you just pick up and instantly know how to play it, its a complicated football management simulator, if you want to fully enjoy all of the game you have to learn about how everything works, yes SI could definitely explain things better and hopefully they will, but there is plenty online material you can read and learn from.

It does not need to be an arcade game in order for it to be picked-up and understood immediately. Look at Apple's products - they are easy to pick-up and use immediately, but programs such as iTunes can do many things the moment you start to peel under the surface.

Look at his "For the fans" issue where the assistant largely picks the same thing all the time. This suggests to the user that there is only one correct option - so what are the other 4 for?

The game basically needs a better way of gauging emotions and feelings, and that there needs to be some more in-depth suggestions on what each team talk option does. For example, "For the fans" might have a tooltip that when hovered-over, displays something like "Pros: Motivates loyal players or those who love the club, good against rival teams, good where teams lack motivation. Cons: Fires up the team possibly leading to rash challenges and cards, useless for disloyal players or players who want to leave, or may be an admission of last resort." Then we'd have morale, confidence, form and ratings on the team talk screen to help gauge things better, and if you ask your assistant to do something he will say why.

That in itself is immersive and requires little effort on the user's behalf. The real challenge then for the user is using this information to pick out the best options. It is immersive in the sense that the user will know which options are possibly-right and possibly-wrong - it is difficult in the sense that some options are better than others, and the user will have to use his or her own skill to find that out.

At present, it is difficult to know which options are possibly-right and possibly-wrong, especially if the assistant keeps picking the same option - it is not immersive.

The game should be easy to get into, but perhaps difficult to master - at present, team talks are more of a mystery than anything, which means it is difficult to get into - regardless of whether it is easy to master or not.

[Ackter]

Resident Evil was easy - all of them have been.

Unless you play them with only a knife, in which case they're mental

[x42bn6]

The problem there x42 is that people 'expect' the game to be easy... I'd like to see what would happen if the next instalment in the Resident Evil series was easy, there'd be uproar! (fwiw I never got very far in the original Resident Evil...). As with any other game there are areas that you need to be proficient in, or at least competent, to be able to play the game well. If you don't learn how to become competent in those areas you will never be able to properly play the game...

There is a difference between "easy to get into" and "easy to master".

Resident Evil is "easy to get into" because it is fairly obvious what you need to do and what each function does - point and shoot, reload, pick up items, etc. It is "difficult to master" because Resident Evil is a nasty piece of work and takes several attempts to complete.

A good game is easy to get into, but is perhaps difficult to master.

Resident Evil is considered "hard" because it is difficult to master, not because it is difficult to get into.

Chess is another example - Chess is easy to get into. A few days reading the rules and you will be able to move pieces on the board and perhaps learn some openings or tactics. But it will take you years or decades to be any good at it - difficult to master.

[Ackter]

I'm with x42 this time around.

(Except with the Resident Evil being hard bit. Play Demons Souls...)

[milnerpoint]

I think we will just have to agree to disagree X42bn6, just for a change hahaha

[BiggusD]

Completeley agree with X42bn6 on the team talk bit. "For the fans" is a piece of information just like any construction of language is, but the information it yields is worthless because it could mean anything in the context in which it appears.

It really is as simple as that.

[milnerpoint]

Wwfan posted some great explanations of team talks the other day which should help you understand what these mean a bit better.

[Ackter]

The point is, trawling through forums in order to find the answers is unacceptable.

The answers should be readily available on the actual screen where they're being used.

[milnerpoint]

The point is, trawling through forums in order to find the answers is unacceptable.

The answers should be readily available on the actual screen where they're being used.

i agree SI should definitely be more forthcoming with info, i would like to see them release a huge manual with everything explained, but that doesnt mean the system is shallow, its not shallow at all, its complicated and there isnt a 1 option fits all kind of solution which everyone seems to look for.

The one thing i would say is most games release a certain amount of info on what you can do in the game, for example final fantasy games, i played FF7 to death, but if you actually wanted to learn the full game you had to pay for an extra walk through, it was almost impossible to learn it all on your own, same goes for Fallout games, there is too much in them to put it all in the manual or in the game. I play COD and recently got into the zombie mode, there is very little explanation for Activation on how to play that feature, you have to look online and find tutorials on all the features of that part of the game, so SI are not alone in working this way.

[Ackter]

I don't - noone reads manuals.

They need to improve the way the information is presented to us in-game.

[Cougar2010]

Look at his "For the fans" issue where the assistant largely picks the same thing all the time. This suggests to the user that there is only one correct option - so what are the other 4 for?

At present, it is difficult to know which options are possibly-right and possibly-wrong, especially if the assistant keeps picking the same option - it is not immersive.

Urm, my assistant doesn't pick the same option each time so perhaps you need to look at the staff being employed.

I played three matches last night and the assistant recommended a different team talk for each match - "For the Fans", "You can win this" & "Expect a win" along with a few individual team talks. I usually look at his advice then decide whether or not to follow it.

[milnerpoint]

I don't - noone reads manuals.

They need to improve the way the information is presented to us in-game.

you cant expect everything to be laid out on a plate in game, otherwise where is the challenge? Yes we need more guidance, but to a point. Everyone can read, surely if your struggling finding a manual is the best start?

[Ackter]

The team talks could basically say anything at all at the moment and you'd still have the same chance of picking the one that means what you want to say.

You should be able to tell what they do without looking into them.

[Lazaru5]

I disagree with x42, Ackter and BiggusD - the game isn't hard to get into, it's difficult to master... if it was hard to get into then why are we ALL so bloody addicted to it? Exactly!

Just like with anything, you get out of it exactly what you put into it... if you want to reload every match so you win 100% of your matches you will NEVER understand the game... even if you play it for a million years! Why? Because that ISN'T how the game is designed to be played! Sure you might enjoy "cheating" your way to several titles, trophies, legendary status, etc but you haven't learnt how to play the game!

On the flip-side, if you want to play the game straight through only saving once a season then you had bloody better learn how the game works properly or you will have limited (if any) success...

Basically, you need to decide what you want to get out of the game and how you are going to do that. If you want to be a bloody genius at the game like milner then you are going to have to put the time and effort in! If you want to reload, then just keep on reloading... (but don't say that the game is broken just because you don't play it as it is meant to be played..)

[Lazaru5]

The team talks could basically say anything at all at the moment and you'd still have the same chance of picking the one that means what you want to say.

You should be able to tell what they do without looking into them.

The team-talks have direct correlations to the match-odds, the opposition, the media interaction, the player interactions, form, morale, last result, weather AND your tactics... They aren't difficult to 'figure out' if you are prepared to work at it, far from it.. as milner said, wwfan posted an explanation of the team-talks in another thread that is, for the most part, quite informative although I do disagree on some of his points (we all have differing ideas as to what works best )

[milnerpoint]

The team talks could basically say anything at all at the moment and you'd still have the same chance of picking the one that means what you want to say.

You should be able to tell what they do without looking into them.

But they dont all do the exact same thing each time, each has its own merits in different situations, you just have to learn what works at what time. Again ill say there is not 1 definitive option for any given situation which is what i get the impression people expect with this feature.

[Ackter]

Best way would be to pick a mood which represents how you feel and then be given the team talk options.

At least that way some of the mystery is removed.

[Lazaru5]

Best way would be to pick a mood which represents how you feel and then be given the team talk options.

At least that way some of the mystery is removed.

that's kind of what you do...

if you are a crappy team playing a good team then you aren't likely to "expect a win" are you? Similarly, if you are a good team playing a crappy team, you aren't likely to use "you can win today". Close games (i.e. where match odds are close) would require little bit more care... it's how you plan for the game (what you say to players/media) that matters then... if you say you expect it to be tough then you'd *probably* opt for a "you can win" or the (almost) ubiquitous "for the fans" where if you say that you are "confident as long as we stick to our gameplan" would *probably* result in a "for the fans" with individual instructions..

I'm generalising as it is so much deeper than that but you should get the idea... the "mood" is reflective of the "match"; easy games will be different to tough games... home games different to away games, league games to cup, and so on...

[Ackter]

I know how it works, I just do't agree with it.

[MaCeR]

Look at his "For the fans" issue where the assistant largely picks the same thing all the time. This suggests to the user that there is only one correct option - so what are the other 4 for?

The game basically needs a better way of gauging emotions and feelings, and that there needs to be some more in-depth suggestions on what each team talk option does. For example, "For the fans" might have a tooltip that when hovered-over, displays something like "Pros: Motivates loyal players or those who love the club, good against rival teams, good where teams lack motivation. Cons: Fires up the team possibly leading to rash challenges and cards, useless for disloyal players or players who want to leave, or may be an admission of last resort." Then we'd have morale, confidence, form and ratings on the team talk screen to help gauge things better, and if you ask your assistant to do something he will say why.

That in itself is immersive and requires little effort on the user's behalf. The real challenge then for the user is using this information to pick out the best options. It is immersive in the sense that the user will know which options are possibly-right and possibly-wrong - it is difficult in the sense that some options are better than others, and the user will have to use his or her own skill to find that out.

X42bn6 - there, I think, you hit the nail in the head. If the basics of teamtalks would be better explained, (like you described above) giving teamtalks would surely change from guesswork to something it should be.

I for one would be more than happy to see this implemented in to the game.

[milnerpoint]

Should there be a tactics hint during games for when your struggling to find a way past your opponent or struggling to keep an opponent out? If we're talking about a lack of info in game then surely if they were to provide complete guidance on each team talk and press conferences then they would have to do the same for the tactical side of things? I would have said learning the tactical side of things is much much harder than learning the motivational part of the game.

[Ackter]

Yes - and there is. There's an assistant feedback widget.

[vlobben]

Should there be a tactics hint during games for when your struggling to find a way past your opponent or struggling to keep an opponent out? If we're talking about a lack of info in game then surely if they were to provide complete guidance on each team talk and press conferences then they would have to do the same for the tactical side of things? I would have said learning the tactical side of things is much much harder than learning the motivational part of the game.

Why would they have to do that? I don't see how this "slippery slope" argument makes sense in this situation.

This is football manager, and we can expect the average player to know football tactics alot better than motivational psychology. If we at some point in the future had to design the balls being played with, SIgames would have to explain us some basics about aerodynamics, just like they have to explain us some basics of motivational psychology when they decide to make that an significant part of the game.

[milnerpoint]

Yes - and there is. There's an assistant feedback widget.

There is an assistant advice button when it comes to team talks as well.

[milnerpoint]

Why would they have to do that? I don't see how this "slippery slope" argument makes sense in this situation.

This is football manager, and we can expect the average player to know football tactics alot better than motivational psychology. If we at some point in the future had to design the balls being played with, SIgames would have to explain us some basics about aerodynamics, just like they have to explain us some basics of motivational psychology when they decide to make that an significant part of the game.

we're talking basic psychology here, all you have to do is try something out and learn if it works or not, just like when creating tactics, if it doesnt work you move onto the next situation. I would suggest people should be more aware of the basic psychology than tactics, the vast majority of football fans have zero tactical knowledge, despite what they think, everyone deals with basic human psychology on a daily basis.

[Ackter]

That's different - the assist advice during a match actually gives you info on which to make your decision, it doesn't make your decision for you giving no reasons at all.

[BiggusD]

that's kind of what you do...

if you are a crappy team playing a good team then you aren't likely to "expect a win" are you? Similarly, if you are a good team playing a crappy team, you aren't likely to use "you can win today". Close games (i.e. where match odds are close) would require little bit more care... it's how you plan for the game (what you say to players/media) that matters then... if you say you expect it to be tough then you'd *probably* opt for a "you can win" or the (almost) ubiquitous "for the fans" where if you say that you are "confident as long as we stick to our gameplan" would *probably* result in a "for the fans" with individual instructions..

I'm generalising as it is so much deeper than that but you should get the idea... the "mood" is reflective of the "match"; easy games will be different to tough games... home games different to away games, league games to cup, and so on...

I wish it was that simple. If you are huge favourites for a home game, telling them that you "expect a win" or "for the fans" would make your whole team either ****ing their pants out of sheer terror, or firing up so much that they completely lose their heads and go ballistic - or most likely both. "Wish luck" is likely to make them complacent or not giving a ****, and the same goes for "No pressure". "You can win this" reduces the chance of all of the above, but does a lesser job of motivating your players.

So there goes your logic...

[milnerpoint]

That's different - the assist advice during a match actually gives you info on which to make your decision, it doesn't make your decision for you giving no reasons at all.

the assistant gives advice like "we play better at a higher tempo" it doesnt explain why your team plays better at a higher tempo, it just tells you it does. During the match it will give you tips on individuals like "always mark player x tightly" but again it doesnt explain why.

Again ill say i agree SI need to explain these features better, because as this and many other threads have shown people either dont look into it enough to understand it, or simply struggle with the phrases, but i dont think we need ingame tips that appear each time you try to use a team talk.

[HarryMills]

Eagerly tried the demo, loathed it, especially the player interaction; so its the first one i've not bought. Never regretted it, but will take a look at FM12 when the demo comes out.

[milnerpoint]

I wish it was that simple. If you are huge favourites for a home game, telling them that you "expect a win" or "for the fans" would make your whole team either ****ing their pants out of sheer terror, or firing up so much that they completely lose their heads and go ballistic - or most likely both. "Wish luck" is likely to make them complacent or not giving a ****, and the same goes for "No pressure". "You can win this" reduces the chance of all of the above, but does a lesser job of motivating your players.

So there goes your logic...

complete nonsense. I use "for the fans" for EVERY home game, except for lower league teams when i use "expect a win", works fine for me, because i know my players can handle the pressure, again ill say it, there is not 1 single option that will work for every situation, learn about your own players and how they react and work from there, trying to find this perfect solution to all situations will hinder your ability to learn about the mechanics of the team talks.