I'm pretty unhappy with the way the ME handles complacency

[wwfan]

this is really disapointing. ive lost count of how many hours ive poured into watchin matches and even analyzing goals conceded post match to try and improve results. the above post sounds like ive been wastin time doin all that, id be as well just basin player/tactical decision on player rating alone.

The post you are replying to has very little value to it, so I wouldn't worry that much. Quite simply, if you are seeing your players leave wide open spaces or missing tackles on a regular basis, then you have a problem and need to deal with it. Can be tactical (i.e. tighten up and drop back) or motivational (throw a hair drier at half time / take all the pressure off, depending on circumstances). Usually a successful fix requires both (play more cautiously to see out the first half as best you can, deal with motivational issues at half time, go out and play a more aggressive second half).

[bigdunk]

The visual ME is just a representation using a number of animations and movements of the number crunching going on behind the scenes and does not truly reflect the match and also has no bearing on the scoreline. This has been confirmed many times before.

It would make no difference if you player went in for a tackle the game has already processed that the player will run through your defence and score, how the ME represents this is what SI still need to work on.

People are really misunderstanding the whole issue of the representation not matching the actual match engine. The match engine computes the matches second by second, pass by pass, shot by shot and so on. The match engine will have calculated that that player doesn't make a tackle and that the other player gets a clear run on goal and this will then play out exactly in the 3d - there is no match engine deciding that the team is going to have a shot on goal and then a different 3d engine picks an animation with a shot on goal. It doesn't work that way - what you see in terms of player movements and player actions is what the match engine has generated.

Where the discrepancy comes in, is the actual animations themselves - basically, you cannot tell how bad a bad tackle was, because there are only a limited number of tackling animations, you cannot tell how difficult a shot really was because there are only a limited number of shooting animations and so on. If a players commits a tackle, you think it wasn't that bad, but he gets a red card (which the commentary says was fair), then that's a represetation issue. If you concede a silly goal becuase a player did something stupid, then it's a tactical issue, a player issue (low decisions, concentration etc) or a bug. It's almost certainly nothing to do with the 3d not matching the match engine.

[BiggusD]

People are really misunderstanding the whole issue of the representation not matching the actual match engine. The match engine computes the matches second by second, pass by pass, shot by shot and so on. The match engine will have calculated that that player doesn't make a tackle and that the other player gets a clear run on goal and this will then play out exactly in the 3d - there is no match engine deciding that the team is going to have a shot on goal and then a different 3d engine picks an animation with a shot on goal. It doesn't work that way - what you see in terms of player movements and player actions is what the match engine has generated.

Where the discrepancy comes in, is the actual animations themselves - basically, you cannot tell how bad a bad tackle was, because there are only a limited number of tackling animations, you cannot tell how difficult a shot really was because there are only a limited number of shooting animations and so on. If a players commits a tackle, you think it wasn't that bad, but he gets a red card (which the commentary says was fair), then that's a represetation issue. If you concede a silly goal becuase a player did something stupid, then it's a tactical issue, a player issue (low decisions, concentration etc) or a bug. It's almost certainly nothing to do with the 3d not matching the match engine.

Haha second by second. Right.

[bigdunk]

Haha second by second. Right.

Ok then, if you don't believe it's simming the matches properly, second by second (it actually updates 8 times per second, but that's beside the point), what do you think it is doing? This should be interesting...

[BiggusD]

Ok then, if you don't believe it's simming the matches properly, second by second (it actually updates 8 times per second, but that's beside the point), what do you think it is doing? This should be interesting...

Since I can predict goals (conceded ones mostly) 10-20 seconds before they happen more often than not, how do you think the ME handles these scenarios:

A. My player and their player battle for the ball.

- they win

B. Their player runs with the ball, my player tries to tackle

- he either wins the tackle but they retain the ball, or he misses the tackle

C. Their player continues to run with ball/hits a pass to another player.

- B) is repeated with the same outcome x times

D. Their player crosses/plays a through ball/continues run

- C) is repeated with the same outcome x times

E. They shoot at goal, my keeper tries to save the shot

- They score

Now, how the hell is this possible every time they score a non-set pieces goal unless the actual sequence is the following:

A. They score a goal

- The ME calculates possible scenarios for how this happened.

I know instantly when the animation sequence leads to a huge chance regardless of how it starts out (including me having the ball and they getting the chance, and vice versa). Most of the time, I can also predict whether or not the chance is converted to a goal once a few seconds of the animation have passed. Tell-tale signs of a goal coming up are several missed tackles, headers or interceptions in a row, extreme passing quality unlike previous animations and of a kind disregarding skill, and obvious sequences of correct and/or erroneous player choices on both sides.

That is impossible unless there is a command in the ME that tells the animation sequence from the start what it will lead up to.

[bigdunk]

If you are only watching key highlights, then there's a reasonably high chance that every highlight will involve either a goal, or at least a shot on goal. You won't see all the times that a few players miss interceptions and the opposing team don't score, since that's not a key highlight, but you will see the few times it does. Plus, if you are repeatedly conceding very similar goals, then it's most likely a problem with either your tactics or with your players - if you have midfielders with poor tackling, then maybe they quite often lose out on tackles, leading opposing players to have a decent scoring chance. Or maybe there's some flaw/imbalance in the match engine somewhere that means once a player misses a key interception, his team mates react badly (heads go down etc), meaning they are also more likely to make mistakes, ending up with you conceding a goal. The same could be happening with the attackers - they do one good thing, which boosts their confidence, meaning they are more likely to do something else well.

And just think about it... If SI hadly genuinely gone down the route of pre-programming whole chunks of play and just playing a suitable one each time, they would need an absolutely astrononical amount of 'chunks'. The players in the matches obey your tactics to some degree, both formations and instructions (you can argue about how well they do this, but a 442 in tactics appears as a 442 in matches, and you can clearly see the difference between a player with mentality 1 and mentality 20, for example), so there's just no way SI could pre-program enough chunks of play for this to happen. It would be a bigger job that just making the match engine work properly in the first place. And if they had pre-programmed stuff, why would they do it so badly in certain cases? We've all seen stupid stupid things happen in the match engine, but if SI were just picking from a bank or pre-programmed chunks, surely they'd have at least made these chunks look somewhat realistic?

[Martyr1777]

wwfan.... what are you even talking about?

How did I give a solution while summarizing, quote it so I know exactly what comment you are talking about, like the first post first paragraph, first paragraph of the my last post before yours, what?

Second, you don't have the team talks 100% right, imo... and all any of us has is based on our opinion since SI never tell us details of how systems work (annoying). But based on my experience I see no reason why this isn't the case.

Expect a win is just as good when your team has max morale and you don't want them being complacent.

For the fans is a little more of an enigma, but I use it home games when my team has mid range morale.

You can win is just encouragement, just like the half time talk that exactly 'encourage'. So it's good for a team with low morale, regardless of opposition strength.

Good luck... honestly don't know, never use it because it never really fits any situation imo.

No pressure is good for limiting morale loss when you are playing a match you fully expect to lose. But beyond that it's important as an individual talk simply because of players that feel pressure badly. That makes perfect sense and as I said, I use it successfully to get good performances out of players with a low pressure attribute.

Oh and enjoy yourself? that's basically no pressure but it's only available on a friendly. Little details like that tend to hurt peoples credible knowledge.

None of that changes the fact that those few team talk do not allow for multiple impacts, again complacent and nervous... there is NO option that will help that. Some options I do like in team talks aren't available when I want to use them, and there are so few talks to start with it's like auto pilot to pick the right one... just like press conferences, the -RIGHT- answer is always obvious.

That's lack of depth pure and simple.

LazaruS...

First I told you, of the asst man feedback I get (which is mostly pure garbage) mentioning complacency about a -single- player is fairly accurate. But that's beside the point, the fact is it is POSSIBLE for a nervous player can be complacent and there isn't a way of dealing with it. Especially if a team is being very successful it's all the harder to prevent complacency.

I'm 'hung-up' on the complacency issue because -THAT"S THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD-... I'm actually trying not to derail it too badly thank you. But it does play hand in hand because the situation I experience fit perfectly with complacency and the limited ways we have to deal with it. You just don't understand... for the most part I have no issue getting the right talks for my players and my team is very successful. But there are situations that are impossible to handle due to a limited system.

The warn against complacency comes up a few games during the regular season... it's not just a finisher to the first tie of a pair. It's out there for 'regular' use but it never turns up when it would be useful because the system is doesn't know when it should be there. Perfect example is I play a regular season match, my team ALL have superb morale, they dominate one of the lesser teams in the league to the tone of 4-0 and I know my next match is one of the top teams of the league. I want to use 'warn against complacency' but it's almost never available and that's the most important situation to use it. It's a joke that it magically appears at what seems to be random times. Not saying it is random, but other things are so it's possible, it certainly -seems- random though.

Lastly, 'you can win' doesn't cause me problems dude... I use it very often and with good effect. Where did I ever say I think it won't cause complacency. I'll -never- use 'you can win' if my team has superb morale even if it's a tough opponent. I will use 'expect a win' to mitigate complacency... and don't tell me 'well that's why you have nervousness' because my nervous players I'll mainly use 'no pressure' even with high morale and a fair/strong team, I might use it with a weaker team and they will be fine with the high morale. If the team has max morale 'you can win' is obviously just going to cause more chance of complacency, just like 'no pressure'... if you don't have expectations of your teams, especially when they are riding high, they are more likely to get complacent obviously.

Saying you don't know what you're talking about has nothing to do with your success in game... hell a lot of people just let their asst man do press conferences and team talks yet are still successful. Doesn't mean you either don't see or don't admit to the weaknesses in the system.

Edit: Let me help you guys... you want a really credible argument against what I'm saying?

Maybe SI just don't want us to have an option for all possible situations... do I believe that? Not really, but with as easy as things are to sort out it would make sense that they want to limit options so we can't always pick the perfect one.

But like I said, don't think that's the situation at all... just a combination of over sight and shallow system. Not like it's a huge deal, there are a number of systems that are shallow and could certainly use some depth. The point is to say, 'SI, can we make this better so it's more interesting?'. Why is it so bloody wrong to ask for improvements to the game.

[wwfan]

wwfan.... what are you even talking about?

How did I give a solution while summarizing, quote it so I know exactly what comment you are talking about, like the first post first paragraph, first paragraph of the my last post before yours, what?

The last three words of your opening quote in post # 47 were 'for the fans'. Work the rest out for yourself. You're a bright guy, shouldn't cause you too many difficulties.

Second, you don't have the team talks 100% right, imo... and all any of us has is based on our opinion since SI never tell us details of how systems work (annoying). But based on my experience I see no reason why this isn't the case.

Expect a win is just as good when your team has max morale and you don't want them being complacent.

For the fans is a little more of an enigma, but I use it home games when my team has mid range morale.

You can win is just encouragement, just like the half time talk that exactly 'encourage'. So it's good for a team with low morale, regardless of opposition strength.

Good luck... honestly don't know, never use it because it never really fits any situation imo.

No pressure is good for limiting morale loss when you are playing a match you fully expect to lose. But beyond that it's important as an individual talk simply because of players that feel pressure badly. That makes perfect sense and as I said, I use it successfully to get good performances out of players with a low pressure attribute.

You can think what you like. I'm right. You're not. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is all there is to it. I've had confirmation from SI in the past, both in private correspondence and on the forums, that my summary is accurate. Like you, I'm annoyed that it isn't more transparent in the game, but that doesn't stop me from being right.

Oh and enjoy yourself? that's basically no pressure but it's only available on a friendly. Little details like that tend to hurt peoples credible knowledge.

No it isn't. You aren't paying enough attention. It is available when you are major odds on favourites. See where that credibility argument takes you now?

None of that changes the fact that those few team talk do not allow for multiple impacts, again complacent and nervous... there is NO option that will help that. Some options I do like in team talks aren't available when I want to use them, and there are so few talks to start with it's like auto pilot to pick the right one... just like press conferences, the -RIGHT- answer is always obvious.

That's lack of depth pure and simple.

It is your perspective that is at fault. I'm perfectly happy to agree with and fully support any argument that SI don't provide enough clarity about what things mean and do within the game and in the manual. I think it is their biggest weakness by a country mile. However, I will also tell it like it is and you are 100% wrong in at least half of your interpretations. People taking poor interpretations as gospel is another major problem and make these forums do as much harm as they do good (see BiggusD's total misintepretation of how the ME / highlights work as a further example). Afraid I don't have the time to couch this in more polite language today (or deal with BiggusD's issue either), so I hope you forgive my directness.

[Martyr1777]

For the fans? Then explain to me why I have in fact used 'far the fans' and watched my low pressure players get nervous in the match? Even simple 'you can win' can cause nervousness, I don't know if 'good luck' does but 'no pressure' is the only way to prevent it. 'For the fans, might work for complacency, but not the best situation.

So you are right and I'm wrong because you say so... link the info you've gotten from SI. I don't care if you are a mod, forums are forums and its all opinion without hard proof.

Heh... fine... only time I've been such dominating favorites it's been a friendly or an early round cup. So maybe you are right, doesn't mean it's not the same thing... 'no pressure'.

So if I'm 100% wrong with half my interpretation then how come I'm still so successful? Because the system is shallow and even picking things WRONG still gets good results. What sense does that make?

Either I'm right and the system is shallow because it's limited, or I'm totally wrong and the system is shallow because you still win even when getting it wrong. Which is it?

[milnerpoint]

The warn against complacency comes up a few games during the regular season... it's not just a finisher to the first tie of a pair. It's out there for 'regular' use but it never turns up when it would be useful because the system is doesn't know when it should be there. Perfect example is I play a regular season match, my team ALL have superb morale, they dominate one of the lesser teams in the league to the tone of 4-0 and I know my next match is one of the top teams of the league. I want to use 'warn against complacency' but it's almost never available and that's the most important situation to use it. It's a joke that it magically appears at what seems to be random times. Not saying it is random, but other things are so it's possible, it certainly -seems- random though.

based on that paragraph i dont think you full understand the team talks. You would not say to your team after a 4-0 win, "dont be so compancent next game", you would use that talk if you struggled to beat a team you expected to beat easily and if your team had not played well enough.

Dont accuse people of lacking credability when you dont seem to fully graps what your arguing about.

[Martyr1777]

Come on milner you know more then that....

the name of the talk is 'Warn against complacency in the next match' With the concept being, 'Great job, fantastic game, but focus for the next match, it's not going to be an easy one we can just show up and win'.

I don't see it as 'don't be -SO- complacent' next match at all, that doesn't make much sense to me. It would seem LazaruS doesn't think that either, otherwise why would you use it at the end of the first match of 2 legs?

[milnerpoint]

Come on milner you know more then that....

the name of the talk is 'Warn against complacency in the next match' With the concept being, 'Great job, fantastic game, but focus for the next match, it's not going to be an easy one we can just show up and win'.

I don't see it as 'don't be -SO- complacent' next match at all, that doesn't make much sense to me. It would seem LazaruS doesn't think that either, otherwise why would you use it at the end of the first match of 2 legs?

Your still wrong Martyr, your looking at it the wrong way, if you win 4-0 there is a good chance your team has not been complacent, that team talks says to your team, yes we won but dont take it so easy next game. It wont come up in a situation like that because its not needed. The complacency talk does not equate too "great job" at all, it means your satisfied you won, but are worried about how your team went about the win. If in that situation you dont want your players to get too big headed you just use none, your happy enough they won, but feel no need to say it in the dressing room. Then you make sure everything you do from there is geared towards your next game.

You would use that talk at the end of a first leg, if your team had the chance to bury the tie there and then but didnt, it doesnt really matter if you have a second leg, and the likely hood of the second leg being directly after the first are so slim it wouldnt make sense as you describe it.

[Coentrao]

Isn't the name of the talk "warn against complacency in the next time" though?

Let's say you are like 3-0 up then let 2 goals in on the second half and the opposition almost equalized, it's on those type of situations that i see that team talk is suitable for.

[Martyr1777]

What are you even talking about dude? How does dominating a match not risk overconfidence? That makes no sense at all man.

Look man, you usually make loads of sense, but not this time... Overconfidence and complacency come from too much success and being better then other teams. I can't imagine a player getting complacent off a loss, but it always happens when morale is high and the team is winning, doesn't have to be a weak opponent.

When you dominate a team and morale is high that is when you want to 'warn against getting complacent'. If like you say it's a good result but you didn't like the performance that is why there is a specific talk just for that. There is a talk that's just as rare as 'warn against complacency' (and never pops up when I want either) that is, 'good result but poor performance'.

Using none is just that, none.. no effect. It's fine if you don't want to say even 'good job' to your team. But it's not going to -actively- counter anything.

[milnerpoint]

What are you even talking about dude? How does dominating a match not risk overconfidence? That makes no sense at all man.

Look man, you usually make loads of sense, but not this time... Overconfidence and complacency come from too much success and being better then other teams. I can't imagine a player getting complacent off a loss, but it always happens when morale is high and the team is winning, doesn't have to be a weak opponent.

When you dominate a team and morale is high that is when you want to 'warn against getting complacent'. If like you say it's a good result but you didn't like the performance that is why there is a specific talk just for that. There is a talk that's just as rare as 'warn against complacency' (and never pops up when I want either) that is, 'good result but poor performance'.

Using none is just that, none.. no effect. It's fine if you don't want to say even 'good job' to your team. But it's not going to -actively- counter anything.

Still looking at it the wrong way mate, you cannot have a go at your team for being complacent when you have dominated a team and won easily, because they havent been complacent, you need that talk if you have struggled against a weaker team but still won, or like coentrao says if you have let a big lead slip, because then your team has shown complacency.

using none actually has more effect than your giving credit, it will help towards not over praising your players, which can lead to complacency in the long run.

[BiggusD]

If you are only watching key highlights, then there's a reasonably high chance that every highlight will involve either a goal, or at least a shot on goal. You won't see all the times that a few players miss interceptions and the opposing team don't score, since that's not a key highlight, but you will see the few times it does. Plus, if you are repeatedly conceding very similar goals, then it's most likely a problem with either your tactics or with your players - if you have midfielders with poor tackling, then maybe they quite often lose out on tackles, leading opposing players to have a decent scoring chance. Or maybe there's some flaw/imbalance in the match engine somewhere that means once a player misses a key interception, his team mates react badly (heads go down etc), meaning they are also more likely to make mistakes, ending up with you conceding a goal. The same could be happening with the attackers - they do one good thing, which boosts their confidence, meaning they are more likely to do something else well.

And just think about it... If SI hadly genuinely gone down the route of pre-programming whole chunks of play and just playing a suitable one each time, they would need an absolutely astrononical amount of 'chunks'. The players in the matches obey your tactics to some degree, both formations and instructions (you can argue about how well they do this, but a 442 in tactics appears as a 442 in matches, and you can clearly see the difference between a player with mentality 1 and mentality 20, for example), so there's just no way SI could pre-program enough chunks of play for this to happen. It would be a bigger job that just making the match engine work properly in the first place. And if they had pre-programmed stuff, why would they do it so badly in certain cases? We've all seen stupid stupid things happen in the match engine, but if SI were just picking from a bank or pre-programmed chunks, surely they'd have at least made these chunks look somewhat realistic?

Granted, my observations could easily be just the 3D representation of the ME sometimes making it look like the outcome of an animation is given from the start, but for me as a customer that distinction is irrelevant. I know that when I lose two headers, tackles or interceptions in a row I will concede a goal, so I just fast forward to have it over with once that happens (swearing). Yesterday I saw a friend of mine play a game with Huddersfield against some random L1 team (Swindon I think) and in the 84th minute an animation started. After about 5 minutes of in-game play they finally lost the ball over the sideline after having kept it on Huddersfield's half the entire time, him not even being close to taking the ball from them. I have never before seen anything like it, and I believe Barcelona would have been proud to have managed the same thing away against a better opponent fighting to equalize.

Of course, after approximately 10 seconds of the sequence both of us knew that breaking up their fantastic passing play would not happen because it was obvious that the animation would continue that way until there was a big chance and possibly goal. The goal didn't come but we agreed to make a shrine dedicated to their fantastic team promptly.

No team in L1 will EVER keep the ball in 5 minutes on someone else's half. Hell, in English football, particularly the Premier League, what happens if you keep the ball longer than 1/10th of a second is that at least three burly men hacks you down, then stomps on you repeatedly just for good measure.

[BossAsianMafia]

I've found "Warn against complacency" crop up quite consistently at the end of a narrow win. So the game DOES want it to be seen as "don't be so complacent".

wwfan, have to agree with Martyr here that without documented proof, your word is as good as mine, moderator or not.

Maybe you can explain how come my world-class AssMan recommends "You can win today" for dead-rubber matches in CL groups against weak opposition?

That doesn't seem to fit your "it's a tough match but you can win" scenario...

[Martyr1777]

Ok.. first, letting a big lead slip all depends on the situation. Maybe the opponent came out of half time more motivated to make a comeback, maybe injuries or cards played a role, maybe it was complacency, etc... So that's probably a poor example to work with for either side.

I'm not saying to have a go at my team for dominating and winning easily... I'm saying that for your case of the meaning behind 'warn against complacency' being 'don't be so complacent' means that they didn't play as hard in the match you are finishing as you would expect them too... So they didn't play as well as they could, 'good result poor performance'. But my point is more simple... team is riding high, winning easily, they just dominated the match... actively bring them down without being harsh.

What I am saying is when you're team is dominating and winning easily it's common sense that they will get complacent and that's when they will get complacent. Now, your solution to that is passive... use none to night hype them up anymore... but that doesn't -ACTIVELY- try to counter it. But don't try to claim there isn't a way to actively counter complacency. It's part of press conferences for starters, so obviously they are going to have an active option in team talks, common sense.

It's just how we are interpreting it... but again your interpretation seems to be at odds with not just mine but LazuruS based on what he said about the first leg match use.

I just wish the stupid talk came up more so I remembered what occasions I have seen it... I don't think it's ever come up on 'soft' wins, but only 'strong' wins (just not the strongest when I want it). But I can't say for sure since the last time I saw it was ages ago being that getting promoted puts my team on the weaker side of things for a while so it doesn't come up.

It makes more sense as a, 'don't get overconfident' thing then it does 'don't play complacent like that again' thing... that's just too off the wall in my mind.

Edit:

Maybe you can explain how come my world-class AssMan recommends "You can win today" for dead-rubber matches in CL groups against weak opposition?

That doesn't seem to fit your "it's a tough match but you can win" scenario...

Actually to be fair.. that's just the dumb asst man... I mean how many times do they also tell you to show a player onto his weaker foot when that player is strong on both feet, stuff like that. Even with decent attributes they still give completely silly advice in some cases.

[EnriqueZove]

1. I play with the MUFC and one way or the other I keep the expectation high for the team. It helps as the chances of the complacency are lowered herein. Keeping expectation one above the level you can easily keep the player on their toes.

2. Determination is the 2nd thing that needs a very good look in.

3. Expect the performance. Keep playing well. Full Time Talk according to the play, even if the captain needs to be shown anger. A official warning for below 6.3. 1 week wage for <6.

4. Weakness tab in the Coach/Scout report. You need a 20 JPA/JPP personal for that 3rd line.

5. Use regular substitution. Desire to be not the one to be substituted keeps the performance at best.

[milnerpoint]

Ok.. first, letting a big lead slip all depends on the situation. Maybe the opponent came out of half time more motivated to make a comeback, maybe injuries or cards played a role, maybe it was complacency, etc... So that's probably a poor example to work with for either side.

I'm not saying to have a go at my team for dominating and winning easily... I'm saying that for your case of the meaning behind 'warn against complacency' being 'don't be so complacent' means that they didn't play as hard in the match you are finishing as you would expect them too... So they didn't play as well as they could, 'good result poor performance'. But my point is more simple... team is riding high, winning easily, they just dominated the match... actively bring them down without being harsh.

What I am saying is when you're team is dominating and winning easily it's common sense that they will get complacent and that's when they will get complacent. Now, your solution to that is passive... use none to night hype them up anymore... but that doesn't -ACTIVELY- try to counter it. But don't try to claim there isn't a way to actively counter complacency. It's part of press conferences for starters, so obviously they are going to have an active option in team talks, common sense.

It's just how we are interpreting it... but again your interpretation seems to be at odds with not just mine but LazuruS based on what he said about the first leg match use.

I just wish the stupid talk came up more so I remembered what occasions I have seen it... I don't think it's ever come up on 'soft' wins, but only 'strong' wins (just not the strongest when I want it). But I can't say for sure since the last time I saw it was ages ago being that getting promoted puts my team on the weaker side of things for a while so it doesn't come up.

It makes more sense as a, 'don't get overconfident' thing then it does 'don't play complacent like that again' thing... that's just too off the wall in my mind.

Edit:

Actually to be fair.. that's just the dumb asst man... I mean how many times do they also tell you to show a player onto his weaker foot when that player is strong on both feet, stuff like that. Even with decent attributes they still give completely silly advice in some cases.

you seem to be suggesting that poor performance equals complacency and complacency equals poor performace, but thats not exactly right. A team can be complacent without playing that badly, they might just not have pushed the game as hard as you know they can, just like a team can play poorly without compacency having anything to do with it, even if you go on a huge winning streak with a big team, losing a game may not be down to your team being complacent.

I never once said there was no way to tackle complacency, quite the opposite, but the way you are seeing it is not correct, especially not in the FM context of things.

It really does mean you are saying to your players "dont be SO compacent in the next game otherwise you might not be so lucky", its nothing to do with "brilliant job boys but the next games a hard one so keep on your toes", thats what the press conferences, player chats and team talks for the next game are all about.

[Martyr1777]

I've found "Warn against complacency" crop up quite consistently at the end of a narrow win. So the game DOES want it to be seen as "don't be so complacent".

So thought about that a little more... now for it to be 'don't be so complacent next match' then it would have to be a narrow victory against a weaker opponent that the team got complacent against. Nor would it make sense if your next match was against a stronger opponent.

Now if it's a narrow victory against a stronger opponent then they obviously weren't complacent, it would be an exceptional victory. If an equal level opponent then it's a good solid game. So if weaker means they were complacent and stronger/equal is good, then that would mean you'd al but never have a use for 'good result poor performance'. But If the team struggle and get a close victory against a weaker opponent then 'good result poor performance' is plenty relevant as well... so it just doesn't make sense to have those two different talks for basically the same situation unless the both come up.

Look getting frustrated with this so before I start going too far again.

Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation... so SI, how about you make things a little more clear.

Maybe I'm 100% wrong with everything... well then considering how easy it is to have success when I'm totally wrong there is still a problem with the game.

Maybe I'm not wrong and its not that the system is all crap and stupid and needs to be junked... but the system is just shallow and needs a little more work to make it have some more depth. It's not a terrible thing nor a massive issue to address... just saying more depth would be nice.

Edit: For milner's last post...

And if you have a top team with lots of success and you have a narrow victory.. why doesn't it give you both 'don't be so complacent' -and- 'good result poor performance' so you can decide which the team did... is it automatically going to give you the 'right' one? Of course not.

Bottom line.. there is a big difference between 'don't be so complacent' and 'warn against complacency' The specific words themselves, not SI's meaning behind them. If you are right then they need to change the wording. Because I'm sure I'm not the only one that would think 'warn against complacency' does mean 'Don't get over confident boys.'

[milnerpoint]

So thought about that a little more... now for it to be 'don't be so complacent next match' then it would have to be a narrow victory against a weaker opponent that the team got complacent against. Nor would it make sense if your next match was against a stronger opponent.

Now if it's a narrow victory against a stronger opponent then they obviously weren't complacent, it would be an exceptional victory. If an equal level opponent then it's a good solid game. So if weaker means they were complacent and stronger/equal is good, then that would mean you'd al but never have a use for 'good result poor performance'. But If the team struggle and get a close victory against a weaker opponent then 'good result poor performance' is plenty relevant as well... so it just doesn't make sense to have those two different talks for basically the same situation unless the both come up.

Look getting frustrated with this so before I start going too far again.

Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation... so SI, how about you make things a little more clear.

Maybe I'm 100% wrong with everything... well then considering how easy it is to have success when I'm totally wrong there is still a problem with the game.

Maybe I'm not wrong and its not that the system is all crap and stupid and needs to be junked... but the system is just shallow and needs a little more work to make it have some more depth. It's not a terrible thing nor a massive issue to address... just saying more depth would be nice.

again tho, not quite as cut and dry as that, think about this situation, Man U vs Arsenal at old trafford, Arsenal just dont turn up at all and play as badly as anyone has ever seen them, Man u win 1-0, Fergie will be unhappy his team were complacent and didnt pump 4-5 goals past them and will warn them, "next game you better not take it as easy as you have today, or you could get punished by a team playing better"

Again complaceny and poor performance are not the same things.

[Martyr1777]

again tho, not quite as cut and dry as that, think about this situation, Man U vs Arsenal at old trafford, Arsenal just dont turn up at all and play as badly as anyone has ever seen them, Man u win 1-0, Fergie will be unhappy his team were complacent and didnt pump 4-5 goals past them and will warn them, "next game you better not take it as easy as you have today, or you could get punished by a team playing better"

Again complaceny and poor performance are not the same things.

Again.. then both should pop up at the same time so you don't automatically have the 'right' answer.

Edit: But to be honest.. I doubt it's that deep in FM.

[milnerpoint]

Edit: For milner's last post...

And if you have a top team with lots of success and you have a narrow victory.. why doesn't it give you both 'don't be so complacent' -and- 'good result poor performance' so you can decide which the team did... is it automatically going to give you the 'right' one? Of course not.

Bottom line.. there is a big difference between 'don't be so complacent' and 'warn against complacency' The specific words themselves, not SI's meaning behind them. If you are right then they need to change the wording. Because I'm sure I'm not the only one that would think 'warn against complacency' does mean 'Don't get over confident boys.'

because they are not the same thing! being complacent and playing poorly are two different things, not always associated.

Perhaps the wording could be different but your interperation of the wording is where you are going wrong i think.

[Martyr1777]

because they are not the same thing! being complacent and playing poorly are two different things, not always associated.

Perhaps the wording could be different but your interperation of the wording is where you are going wrong i think.

I know your point is that they are not the same thing.. and my point is it takes the guess work away from us as to which is the 'right' thing when only one shows up...

If you have 2 separate matches against weak opponents and they are both close wins. At the end of one you get the standard stuff + 'warn against complacency' the other you get standard + 'good result poor performance'... If what you are saying is correct then, hmm... I wonder if my team didn't do better because they were complacent or they just performed low.... oh wait, it's told me which by -limiting options-. If it put both up on both instances then you have to actually think about it. Not that you have to use those but I wish they were more common as is, so generally if it does pop up it's valid. Again, all this if you are indeed correct.

Now again if you are correct then whats the counter to complacency/overconfidence? None? That's not a counter, that's a mitigation for increasing morale when the team is being successful. But regardless of using 'none' you just have to win 3 straight and you'll likely have a full squad all superb morale. You have you're chance to work against it in press conferences, but that's a very weak option, having little effect unless you just say something you're players won't like. Making them upset will drop morale a bit, but only for a couple players and it's not exactly good for the long term. So what do you do if 'warn against complacency' isn't meant as a 'don't get over confident'?

Next... so the other two talks... 'expect a win/performance' is the obvious anti-complacency talk at the start of a match (goes back tot he nervous player bit though). Then under your reasoning at the end of the match you have 'you looked complacent... need to pick it up or you might get burned next match' for the 'don't be SO complacent' version, which comes up when the team was being complacent. So what about half time? Well LazaruS says if a player is being complacent you tell him you are 'disappointed', but 'disappointed' is for lower rating. So you can have a complacent player playing with a 6.6 or 6.5 rating, you tell them disappointed and they will get upset. So why isn't there a complacency specific talk at half time like there is at the end of the match?

I've got three different people flat out telling me I'm wrong, yet those three people's comments don't even match up completely.

Then any number of ways you want to put it there still an area of the system that is weak and my entire singular point is that the system is limiting and needs work, it's too shallow. But regardless of the number of ways you can spin it around I'm still wrong.

Well again, if I'm so wrong and don't have a clue what I'm doing with the game then how come I'm talking about being successful manipulating the system, my team is winning, I'm not whining about losing to stupid complacency or morale, even with players that have real weaknesses I still get good performances out of them using the system instead of avoiding the issue and selling the players, etc etc...

I'm doing all this but I have no idea what I'm talking about...

Even though all I'm saying is the system is lacking and needs more depth. I'm not saying it flat broken... it works at what it does but it would be better and more meaningful with more depth.

Whatever

Edit: Opps I forgot for the half time talk I have to explain how there is a complacency specific talk but it has nothing really to do with players that are complacent.

If you are playing well and leading a half time you can get the 'don't get complacent' talk, but that preventative, only shows when you are a winning at the half, and is only a team talk there isn't an individual option for it.

[milnerpoint]

I know your point is that they are not the same thing.. and my point is it takes the guess work away from us as to which is the 'right' thing when only one shows up...

If you have 2 separate matches against weak opponents and they are both close wins. At the end of one you get the standard stuff + 'warn against complacency' the other you get standard + 'good result poor performance'... If what you are saying is correct then, hmm... I wonder if my team didn't do better because they were complacent or they just performed low.... oh wait, it's told me which by -limiting options-. If it put both up on both instances then you have to actually think about it. Not that you have to use those but I wish they were more common as is, so generally if it does pop up it's valid. Again, all this if you are indeed correct.

you should be able to tell yourself if your team has played badly, or been complacent based on the match and post match stats, i dont always use the complaceny option when it comes up, only when i feel its warrented by using my own eyes and not the ME's eyes if you will. The same for any team talk, i dont base them on the options avaliable, i base them on what i think and then the options avaliable

Now again if you are correct then whats the counter to complacency/overconfidence? None? That's not a counter, that's a mitigation for increasing morale when the team is being successful. But regardless of using 'none' you just have to win 3 straight and you'll likely have a full squad all superb morale. You have you're chance to work against it in press conferences, but that's a very weak option, having little effect unless you just say something you're players won't like. Making them upset will drop morale a bit, but only for a couple players and it's not exactly good for the long term. So what do you do if 'warn against complacency' isn't meant as a 'don't get over confident'?

you dont just tackle complacency with one team talk at the end of a game its something you have to keep on top of all the time. If you won a game but a certain player was showing complacency and as such had a poorish game ill have a private chat and tell him so, and next game the pressure will be on him to perform. I only suggested using none as part of helping avoid your team becoming complacent, not as a cast iron answer for the problem.

Next... so the other two talks... 'expect a win/performance' is the obvious anti-complacency talk at the start of a match (goes back tot he nervous player bit though). Then under your reasoning at the end of the match you have 'you looked complacent... need to pick it up or you might get burned next match' for the 'don't be SO complacent' version, which comes up when the team was being complacent. So what about half time? Well LazaruS says if a player is being complacent you tell him you are 'disappointed', but 'disappointed' is for lower rating. So you can have a complacent player playing with a 6.6 or 6.5 rating, you tell them disappointed and they will get upset. So why isn't there a complacency specific talk at half time like there is at the end of the match?

there is, its dont let your performance drop, or do it for the fans, both will put pressure on the team to keep up the level of performance.

I've got three different people flat out telling me I'm wrong, yet those three people's comments don't even match up completely.

Then any number of ways you want to put it there still an area of the system that is weak and my entire singular point is that the system is limiting and needs work, it's too shallow. But regardless of the number of ways you can spin it around I'm still wrong.

Well again, if I'm so wrong and don't have a clue what I'm doing with the game then how come I'm talking about being successful manipulating the system, my team is winning, I'm not whining about losing to stupid complacency or morale, even with players that have real weaknesses I still get good performances out of them using the system instead of avoiding the issue and selling the players, etc etc...

I'm doing all this but I have no idea what I'm talking about...

Even though all I'm saying is the system is lacking and needs more depth. I'm not saying it flat broken... it works at what it does but it would be better and more meaningful with more depth.

Whatever

see answers in bold, i am too lazy to break apart the quote sorry.

[Martyr1777]

That's what I'm saying... we have various options to choose from right? Well why not give us both the complacency one and the poor performance one. So if we actually do want to use one in that fashion the only one presented isn't the 'right' one. More options more options more options. That creates at least some depth you need more attention to get it right instead of always getting the right one.

Ok, first private talks are the same a disappointing team talks... if a player didn't play well because he was complacent but didn't get a low enough rating then he'll get upset by the private talk since there isn't a complacency private talk in match performance. Angering players like that just creates a whole new world of issues. It makes perfect sense to have a complacency team talk that for when your team is just dominating to level them out a bit. More options and depth.

Edit: Opps I forgot for the half time talk I have to explain how there is a complacency specific talk but it has nothing really to do with players that are complacent.

If you are playing well and leading a half time you can get the 'don't get complacent' talk, but that preventative, only shows when you are a winning at the half, and is only a team talk there isn't an individual option for it.

'Don't let your performance drop' is the same as 'don't get complacent' only shows when you are winning already. So use for the fans when you are losing? Ok that sounds reasonable but it's only a team option not individual... regardless of it working or not, what id you want a different team option and have just one player you want to use that on.

More options and depth... that's all I'm saying.

Edit: Lets put it this way...

Corners we can give instruction for a number of things like marking short and tall player.

Freekicks we have a number of options as well but don't have that same short/tall player assignment.

Does that mean the set piece instructions are broken? No just means that don't have the same amount of depth and options. I can't imagine anyone saying, no we don't need those instructions for freekicks as well.

So just asking for the same thing with team talks.

[milnerpoint]

ideally we would all like to have the same options we feel we would have in real life when speaking to our players but as im sure me and you will both agree its impossible.

Yes it needs to be expanded on and improved but thats not to say the basic tools are not there for you to do your job properly, they are, just maybe not with as many options as we would all like but they are there.

[Martyr1777]

ideally we would all like to have the same options we feel we would have in real life when speaking to our players but as im sure me and you will both agree its impossible.

Yes it needs to be expanded on and improved but thats not to say the basic tools are not there for you to do your job properly, they are, just maybe not with as many options as we would all like but they are there.

Thank you... it's like pulling teeth some times.

Look I agree to have all the options available in real life is impossible... doesn't mean the 10-12 or so options available in any given situation is at all deep or challenging. But this all started with me telling LazaruS that we don't have all the tools... we have the -basic- tools but not -ALL- the tools. Because like it all started with, there isn't a good option for a player that can be both complacent and nervous.

As I said the best argument is that SI don't want it, that's fair enough but I doubt it is the case.

All I wanted is for someone defending it to finally admit it can use improvement... doesn't have to be real life.. just adding 4-5 more talks alone would make it much more interesting.

But this is why I toss out words like fanboy milner... because people will defend the game so intensely they just won't stop instead of simply agreeing 'it's not broken but could use some work'. If more defenders just said, 'ok sure, it could have a little bit more' there would be a lot less frustration and name calling from both sides.

Like I said a couple times, not like I was asking for an overhaul... just some additions, no one can say that's unreasonable for a defender to agree with. But instead of just saying ok, I have to be wrong about everything I say. Give you an idea why I get so annoyed with some people here?

[milnerpoint]

i dont think that anyone who defends the game thinks its perfect. Anyone who has played any game would like to see it improved, i dont think any of the so called "fanboys" including myself have said "yes FM11 is perfect and has everything we possible need".

You were still wrong in this thread, you seem to have the wrong opinion on how the team talks work and the effects they have, thats all anyone has said, you dont have to be right with every point you make and you dont have to be abusive to get your point across, like i said before it detracts from the good points you usually make and makes you look like someone just out to complain rather than being someone who is activly trying to improve FM.

[Martyr1777]

No you don't say things aren't perfect.. but you also do go out of your way to counter arguments about what does have problems instead of just agreeing if you do agree.

As for my misunderstanding... still not positive you are right... but that comes down to part of it issue then. Because if you are right about it all then 'warn against complacency' and 'for the fans' are not clear at all. I mean the first thing most people are going to think of for 'warn against complacency' is just a simple 'don't get overconfident' statement. Also I didn't try to be right with ever point, numerous times I said things along the lines of 'ok lets assume you are right, then it turns around the a hole is over here then'. When SI says I'm dead wrong about the actual meaning that's 100% pure proof, but they won't. But there are holes with the system that can be easily sorted out, probably with less time then was spend on putting agents together.

Now was I abusive with you? I was mildly with LazaruS and wwfan... but many other times some posts they make are just... 'this is how it is, I'm write you aren't, enough said'. Without backing it up with anything but rhetoric and that's what they were doing here. And if people want to think of me as a hater or complainer just to do it then they just have to look at the times I've defended aspects I don't think are a problem with the game.

Personally assuming you are right I don't like the way you're saying anyway. Last thing I want to do is let my team be complacent the entire game, don't think I've ever seen a player showing as complacent by the end of a match either. So a full team talk saying 'don't get complacent again' is a weaker option then 'don't get over confident for the next match' for dominating matches.

Yeah yeah, bitch about it this way and that way but hey, that's how I feel. Just seems silly, much prefer 'good result poor performance'.

[Ackter]

For future reference - it's pointless arguing with wwfan. The only person legitimately able to lay claim to knowing more about the match engine and the modules surrounding it is Paul Collyer himself.

[wwfan]

For the fans? Then explain to me why I have in fact used 'far the fans' and watched my low pressure players get nervous in the match? Even simple 'you can win' can cause nervousness, I don't know if 'good luck' does but 'no pressure' is the only way to prevent it. 'For the fans, might work for complacency, but not the best situation.

Because low pressure players do not react well to a demand to be professional. They need encouragement or a pressure reduction. As I said, it is very difficult to summarise the team talks succinctly. They interelate with too many aspects, such as personality, player age/experience, squad discipline, runs of form, strength of opposition, rivalry with opposition etc.

So you are right and I'm wrong because you say so... link the info you've gotten from SI. I don't care if you are a mod, forums are forums and its all opinion without hard proof.

The last time I got involved in such a discussion about team talks was over two years ago. I've no idea where the link is. From memory, it was Neil Brock who confirmed it. The other discussions I have had about it have been private mails between myself and SI employees, which I have no intention of making public.

Heh... fine... only time I've been such dominating favorites it's been a friendly or an early round cup. So maybe you are right, doesn't mean it's not the same thing... 'no pressure'.

It is used for a different reason and is a good example of how you are missing the depth of the team talk module. If the situation is right, then you can use a low pressure team talk for the same match that another time the expect a win team talk might suit. That's why it is so hard to summarise how things work. It always requires the user's reading of the situation.

So if I'm 100% wrong with half my interpretation then how come I'm still so successful? Because the system is shallow and even picking things WRONG still gets good results. What sense does that make?

Either I'm right and the system is shallow because it's limited, or I'm totally wrong and the system is shallow because you still win even when getting it wrong. Which is it?

Because team talks are not that important. At least 75% of the time, the team will play well as long as you have good tactical strategy, a well gelled squad and reasonable morale. Team talks only really help to maintain steaks and break slumps in key matches in which complacency or pressure are affecting the large majority of the starting 11. For the majority of matches, the team will play OK with a mid-level talk and some personal attention to players over or under performing.

You've been getting some excellent advice about how to use team talks to prepare for future games, especially the 'complacency' option. You don't 'warn against complacency' after a great performance. You praise. You do 'warn against complacency' after a close win in a match you should have dominated. Another great end of match option for a professional, experienced, disciplined side having won as expected is the 'no team talk' with a few individual words of praise for the high performers. That can also stave off complacency as you aren't praising them for playing just as you expected them to.

[wwfan]

That is impossible unless there is a command in the ME that tells the animation sequence from the start what it will lead up to.

The ME and the visual highlights are separate but related. When you watch the match, it is akin to watching the Match of the Day highlights, i.e. it is edited to ensure the viewer sees all the exciting moments without having to sit through the boring bits. In order for this to happen, the visual representation element of the ME needs to know what has happened in the match simulation element of the ME. The game is therefore played completely through in advance of you seeing the highlights.

However, unlike Match of the Day, you can change things by altering your tactics. The moment you alter your tactics, the match simulation element of the ME re-simulates the game based on the new tactical data.

Your management of the match therefore relates to the tactical instructions you feed into it in response to the action on the pitch. If you are using key highlights, it can be problematic in terms of reacting to match action, as the first highlight you see might be a goal. This can happen at any point, i.e. the highlight you see might actually occur after 10 minutes of heavy pressure you haven't watched because none of the chances in it were good enough to result in a key highlight, although there might have been a number of missed tackles and dangerous balls in them. If you watch extended highlights (my preference) or the full match, then you have the opportunity to react to this pressure by dropping deeper, tightening up, sending on a less tired player or two, playing on the counter etc. Every time you make a change, the match recalculates. If the changes are good, then you reduce the chance of conceding that late goal.

You have misinterpreted the ME mechanism as determinism. It isn't. You can change things if you are proactive and paying attention. If you aren't, then you always risk conceding the kind of goals you are complaining about, largely because the AI team is reacting to the scoreline and pushing for a goal and you aren't doing anything to prevent it.

[BossAsianMafia]

So thought about that a little more... now for it to be 'don't be so complacent next match' then it would have to be a narrow victory against a weaker opponent that the team got complacent against. Nor would it make sense if your next match was against a stronger opponent.

Now if it's a narrow victory against a stronger opponent then they obviously weren't complacent, it would be an exceptional victory. If an equal level opponent then it's a good solid game. So if weaker means they were complacent and stronger/equal is good, then that would mean you'd al but never have a use for 'good result poor performance'. But If the team struggle and get a close victory against a weaker opponent then 'good result poor performance' is plenty relevant as well... so it just doesn't make sense to have those two different talks for basically the same situation unless the both come up.

Look getting frustrated with this so before I start going too far again.

Maybe I'm wrong with my interpretation... so SI, how about you make things a little more clear.

Maybe I'm 100% wrong with everything... well then considering how easy it is to have success when I'm totally wrong there is still a problem with the game.

Maybe I'm not wrong and its not that the system is all crap and stupid and needs to be junked... but the system is just shallow and needs a little more work to make it have some more depth. It's not a terrible thing nor a massive issue to address... just saying more depth would be nice.

Edit: For milner's last post...

And if you have a top team with lots of success and you have a narrow victory.. why doesn't it give you both 'don't be so complacent' -and- 'good result poor performance' so you can decide which the team did... is it automatically going to give you the 'right' one? Of course not.

Bottom line.. there is a big difference between 'don't be so complacent' and 'warn against complacency' The specific words themselves, not SI's meaning behind them. If you are right then they need to change the wording. Because I'm sure I'm not the only one that would think 'warn against complacency' does mean 'Don't get over confident boys.'

Bingo. Just so you're clear, I do agree with you that there needs to be more depth and less influence to teamtalks.

I'm just saying that in this case you must have misunderstood the effect of that teamtalk.

[BiggusD]

The ME and the visual highlights are separate but related. When you watch the match, it is akin to watching the Match of the Day highlights, i.e. it is edited to ensure the viewer sees all the exciting moments without having to sit through the boring bits. In order for this to happen, the visual representation element of the ME needs to know what has happened in the match simulation element of the ME. The game is therefore played completely through in advance of you seeing the highlights.

However, unlike Match of the Day, you can change things by altering your tactics. The moment you alter your tactics, the match simulation element of the ME re-simulates the game based on the new tactical data.

Your management of the match therefore relates to the tactical instructions you feed into it in response to the action on the pitch. If you are using key highlights, it can be problematic in terms of reacting to match action, as the first highlight you see might be a goal. This can happen at any point, i.e. the highlight you see might actually occur after 10 minutes of heavy pressure you haven't watched because none of the chances in it were good enough to result in a key highlight, although there might have been a number of missed tackles and dangerous balls in them. If you watch extended highlights (my preference) or the full match, then you have the opportunity to react to this pressure by dropping deeper, tightening up, sending on a less tired player or two, playing on the counter etc. Every time you make a change, the match recalculates. If the changes are good, then you reduce the chance of conceding that late goal.

You have misinterpreted the ME mechanism as determinism. It isn't. You can change things if you are proactive and paying attention. If you aren't, then you always risk conceding the kind of goals you are complaining about, largely because the AI team is reacting to the scoreline and pushing for a goal and you aren't doing anything to prevent it.

The animations themselves are predetermined then, just as I said. I never said the whole match is predetermined. The whole notion of 8 updates a second in the animation sequence is absurd, knowing this.

The Extended highlights only show longer sequences of the same pre-determined animations as key highlights does, and as such is of no added value to me. If I see that I am put under pressure or don't produce chances that is when I change to Full Match. There I can see the cause of this. It is usually also a waste of time, though, because the root cause of any poor performance is the team talk. I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that. Since dropping deeper, playing wider, playing slower/shorter or faster/more direct, ticking off counter-attack or any other change to the tactic is essentially delving into completely unknown territory, the outcome of any such change is completely random. Dropping deeper, for example, may not in any way cause their fast strikers to stop cutting through my defenses. Pushing higher up may actually be more efficient, but normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with - any change is often ruining everything.

There is one question though, and this is something that has annoyed me the last 2-3 versions of FM: when the AI opponent reacts to the scoreline/situation, by pushing up and be more aggressive if they are under a goal for instance, why do they succeed so often? Let us say that it is in the 70th minute and I finally bagged a goal after creating 15 chances vs their 3 with my high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic. Then they need a goal, so they push forward in order to get one. I change nothing so I still play a high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic - the same one that saw them being overrun in 70 minutes. Why do they take over the match?

I am not saying that the AI tactical changes should never work or that the nature of football matches never change this way, but I think it is a problem for a computer game that such observations like these (I know I am not the only one) can lead to the conclusion that the only reason the human manager dominates matches is because the AI lets them, and once they need a goal they just go and get it. SI must make sure that their customers never get the feeling they are being played, regardless of the actual programming.

[wwfan]

The Extended highlights only show longer sequences of the same pre-determined animations as key highlights does, and as such is of no added value to me. If I see that I am put under pressure or don't produce chances that is when I change to Full Match. There I can see the cause of this. It is usually also a waste of time, though, because the root cause of any poor performance is the team talk. I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that. Since dropping deeper, playing wider, playing slower/shorter or faster/more direct, ticking off counter-attack or any other change to the tactic is essentially delving into completely unknown territory, the outcome of any such change is completely random. Dropping deeper, for example, may not in any way cause their fast strikers to stop cutting through my defenses. Pushing higher up may actually be more efficient, but normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with - any change is often ruining everything.

Just so many things wrong with this statement I am not even sure where to start.

1: Extended highlights show all the shots at goal, not longer pre-determined sequences of play. If you use extended highlights, you will often see you are struggling, and, importantly, in which areas before you have conceded. You can then make tactical adjustments to deal with the problem.

2: Team talks are nowhere near as vital as you are making out. If you know what you are doing tactically, you can always, always counter the effects of a poor team talk choice.

3: 'I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that' is one of the worst statements anybody can make. Does it work in hot, wet, dry, cold weather? On icy or chewed up pitches? On big ones and small ones? Against narrow formations, against defensive ones, against teams focusing on wing play, against teams packing the middle?

4: Dropping deeper, playing wider, passing moe slowly or more directly are basic elements of football. If you drop deeper you are getting more people behind the ball. If you play wider, you are trying to open more space. If you pass more slowly it might be an attempt to keep hold of the ball or to slow down play enough to cope with hot conditions. If you play more directly, it is either to try and quickly get behind a slow defence or to stop play getting bogged down in heavy conditions. Plus any other logical reason you might think of. If you aren't aware of basic tactical logic, it is no wonder you don't understand why things fail and blame team talks.

5: 'Normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with' is another absurd statement. Football is dynamic and tactics must be dynamic as well. The more reliant you are on one tactic, the more random your results will be, because you have never thought about how to play against different formations in different conditions. You could be struggling for all manner of reasons. However, if you have never even considered them and assume your tactic is perfect, then you will obviously, and in error, conclude it is the team talks that make the difference.

There is one question though, and this is something that has annoyed me the last 2-3 versions of FM: when the AI opponent reacts to the scoreline/situation, by pushing up and be more aggressive if they are under a goal for instance, why do they succeed so often? Let us say that it is in the 70th minute and I finally bagged a goal after creating 15 chances vs their 3 with my high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic. Then they need a goal, so they push forward in order to get one. I change nothing so I still play a high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic - the same one that saw them being overrun in 70 minutes. Why do they take over the match?

Because your tactic is designed to press for a goal, not to preserve a lead. Once you have a goal and they've opened up, the chances are the remainder of the game will be very open and any manner of things might happen. Let's say that after they change and the match opens up the chance of them scoring another goal goes to 40%, you scoring again at 50% (as you are the better team) with no more goals being scored at 10%. Consequently, in 2 out of every 5 matches, you will concede. Natural bias will mean these matches stick in the memory and you feel the game cheats you.

If, instead, you sat on the 1-0 lead and played more cautious, counter-attacking football you'd probably reduce the chances of them equalising to less than 10%, increase the no extra goals to 40% and, because they have opened up, not really reduce your own chance of scoring again as your better players beging to take advantage fo the space opening up on the counter.

I am not saying that the AI tactical changes should never work or that the nature of football matches never change this way, but I think it is a problem for a computer game that such observations like these (I know I am not the only one) can lead to the conclusion that the only reason the human manager dominates matches is because the AI lets them, and once they need a goal they just go and get it. SI must make sure that their customers never get the feeling they are being played, regardless of the actual programming.

It is user fault I'm afraid. The ME does not know which team is user controlled and which team is AI controlled. It just computes data.

Once again, I'm happy to support any argument that SI are failing to adequately document things or produce the kind of in-game hints/feedback that help the user combat these problems. However, the argument that a static tactic should always do well and that team talks are the only determining factor as to whether it does or not needs to be vigorously countered (as it is 100% wrong). The reason people who play this way struggle is because professional football, in real life and especially in the top flight, doesn't work this way. That it also doesn't in FM should be applauded, not seen as a sign of weakness. Only the inadequate help/documentation/feedback is an issue (and, I believe, a serious one).

One thing that would be really interesting to see is a break down of your tactical settings. It is very useful to understand how people are trying to play in order to work out which elements need most attention.

[Lazaru5]

Just so many things wrong with this statement I am not even sure where to start.

1: Extended highlights show all the shots at goal, not longer pre-determined sequences of play. If you use extended highlights, you will often see you are struggling, and, importantly, in which areas before you have conceded. You can then make tactical adjustments to deal with the problem.

2: Team talks are nowhere near as vital as you are making out. If you know what you are doing tactically, you can always, always counter the effects of a poor team talk choice.

3: 'I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that' is one of the worst statements anybody can make. Does it work in hot, wet, dry, cold weather? On icy or chewed up pitches? On big ones and small ones? Against narrow formations, against defensive ones, against teams focusing on wing play, against teams packing the middle?

4: Dropping deeper, playing wider, passing moe slowly or more directly are basic elements of football. If you drop deeper you are getting more people behind the ball. If you play wider, you are trying to open more space. If you pass more slowly it might be an attempt to keep hold of the ball or to slow down play enough to cope with hot conditions. If you play more directly, it is either to try and quickly get behind a slow defence or to stop play getting bogged down in heavy conditions. Plus any other logical reason you might think of. If you aren't aware of basic tactical logic, it is no wonder you don't understand why things fail and blame team talks.

5: 'Normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with' is another absurd statement. Football is dynamic and tactics must be dynamic as well. The more reliant you are on one tactic, the more random your results will be, because you have never thought about how to play against different formations in different conditions. You could be struggling for all manner of reasons. However, if you have never even considered them and assume your tactic is perfect, then you will obviously, and in error, conclude it is the team talks that make the difference.

Because your tactic is designed to press for a goal, not to preserve a lead. Once you have a goal and they've opened up, the chances are the remainder of the game will be very open and any manner of things might happen. Let's say that after they change and the match opens up the chance of them scoring another goal goes to 40%, you scoring again at 50% (as you are the better team) with no more goals being scored at 10%. Consequently, in 2 out of every 5 matches, you will concede. Natural bias will mean these matches stick in the memory and you feel the game cheats you.

If, instead, you sat on the 1-0 lead and played more cautious, counter-attacking football you'd probably reduce the chances of them equalising to less than 10%, increase the no extra goals to 40% and, because they have opened up, not really reduce your own chance of scoring again as your better players beging to take advantage fo the space opening up on the counter.

It is user fault I'm afraid. The ME does not know which team is user controlled and which team is AI controlled. It just computes data.

Once again, I'm happy to support any argument that SI are failing to adequately document things or produce the kind of in-game hints/feedback that help the user combat these problems. However, the argument that a static tactic should always do well and that team talks are the only determining factor as to whether it does or not needs to be vigorously countered (as it is 100% wrong). The reason people who play this way struggle is because professional football, in real life and especially in the top flight, doesn't work this way. That it also doesn't in FM should be applauded, not seen as a sign of weakness. Only the inadequate help/documentation/feedback is an issue (and, I believe, a serious one).

One thing that would be really interesting to see is a break down of your tactical settings. It is very useful to understand how people are trying to play in order to work out which elements need most attention.

This.

[Lazaru5]

After about 5 minutes of in-game play they finally lost the ball over the sideline after having kept it on Huddersfield's half the entire time, him not even being close to taking the ball from them. I have never before seen anything like it, and I believe Barcelona would have been proud to have managed the same thing away against a better opponent fighting to equalize.

You don't watch much of Huddersfield Town do you? This happens every week... honestly (but we're still 3rd )

The animations themselves are predetermined then, just as I said. I never said the whole match is predetermined. The whole notion of 8 updates a second in the animation sequence is absurd, knowing this.

The Extended highlights only show longer sequences of the same pre-determined animations as key highlights does, and as such is of no added value to me. If I see that I am put under pressure or don't produce chances that is when I change to Full Match. There I can see the cause of this. It is usually also a waste of time, though, because the root cause of any poor performance is the team talk. I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that. Since dropping deeper, playing wider, playing slower/shorter or faster/more direct, ticking off counter-attack or any other change to the tactic is essentially delving into completely unknown territory, the outcome of any such change is completely random. Dropping deeper, for example, may not in any way cause their fast strikers to stop cutting through my defenses. Pushing higher up may actually be more efficient, but normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with - any change is often ruining everything.

There is one question though, and this is something that has annoyed me the last 2-3 versions of FM: when the AI opponent reacts to the scoreline/situation, by pushing up and be more aggressive if they are under a goal for instance, why do they succeed so often? Let us say that it is in the 70th minute and I finally bagged a goal after creating 15 chances vs their 3 with my high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic. Then they need a goal, so they push forward in order to get one. I change nothing so I still play a high-defensive line, high close-down, attacking tactic - the same one that saw them being overrun in 70 minutes. Why do they take over the match?

I am not saying that the AI tactical changes should never work or that the nature of football matches never change this way, but I think it is a problem for a computer game that such observations like these (I know I am not the only one) can lead to the conclusion that the only reason the human manager dominates matches is because the AI lets them, and once they need a goal they just go and get it. SI must make sure that their customers never get the feeling they are being played, regardless of the actual programming.

You don't get it do you? As soon as you press "go to match" the computer processes the WHOLE match and calculates the result... you then get the "pre-match analysis" screen. You haven't pressed play but the computer already knows the result, if you change nothing for the whole game and the AI changes nothing for the whole game, that is the result that you will get - period! Already pre-determined before you have even played the match!

Now, as soon as you or the AI change something the computer RE-CALCULATES the whole match and generates a DIFFERENT result! The score might be the same and the scorers and times of goals might be the same, but *something* will be different (because you changed something...) even a single notch on a single slider on a single player is enough. Every change, however minor, causes the computer to recalculate the result which may or may not be in your favour.

Every time you or the AI makes a change there is a slight hang, yes? Why do you think this is? It is because the computer is re-processing and re-calculating the result....

[Lazaru5]

Hmm... first you say:

for the most part I have no issue getting the right talks for my players and my team is very successful.

...and then you say:

For the fans? Then explain to me why I have in fact used 'far the fans' and watched my low pressure players get nervous in the match? Even simple 'you can win' can cause nervousness, I don't know if 'good luck' does but 'no pressure' is the only way to prevent it.

A does not lead to B. If you get A right, then B doesn't happen...

Well LazaruS says if a player is being complacent you tell him you are 'disappointed', but 'disappointed' is for lower rating. So you can have a complacent player playing with a 6.6 or 6.5 rating, you tell them disappointed and they will get upset.

Angering players like that just creates a whole new world of issues.

Do you check your ass-mans team-talk feedback at all? Do you take any notice whatsoever of what effect your team-talks have? I regularly anger my players with disappointing or angry, why? because I want them angry, I want them fired up, I want them to know that if they aren't performing then I am not happy... and I am their BOSS!! They HAVE to perform for me... it is their job and I bloody well expect my players to do their jobs... that's what I pay them for! I demand perfection! I want 100-0 wins every match with 100 chances to 0 too, with the opposition only having possession when they kick-off after each goal... I know that I'll never get it, but I still bloody demand it!

But this all started with me telling LazaruS that we don't have all the tools... we have the -basic- tools but not -ALL- the tools. Because like it all started with, there isn't a good option for a player that can be both complacent and nervous.

Adding more options will create more confusion. The system works perfectly well as it is now. The choices are *usually* directly related to the match itself so if your team have played particularly badly but still scraped a result you might get the "good result but poor performance" or "good first half, poor second half" or whatever. You won't get them if your team has played exceptionally well!

The "warn against complacency" team-talk is one that I rarely use (because the majority of my team are rarely complacent) but I can believe that it could be used in the scenarios others have suggested AND the scenario that I suggested, the team-talks aren't "mutually exclusive" to a single scenario, they apply to a whole host of them.

However, you seem to think that if a particular option is available that isn't usually then that must be the "right" one... you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The option might be there but the reaction to it may not be the one that you expect it to be. For example, "good result, poor performance" - your players might not think that they have played particularly badly so telling them that they have *could* damage their morale or even upset them and cause them to not like you!

There are enough options both individually and collectively for you to manage your players and all of their little foibles (nervous, complacent, low confidence, etc) but it is your job (and part of playing the game) to discover how to do that - i.e. which of them works for your players.

The key thing is to remember that they are YOUR players... they aren't mine or wwfan's or milnerpoint's they are yours! We know what works for our players in any given situation because we have discovered it through trial and error. We have tried all/most of the team-talks options in various situations to discover which is the "right" one - the problem is though, what is right for us could be (and probably will be) wrong for you..

[Sheva Elite]

The guy who was talking about being able to predict goals was bang on. I'm starting to be able to predict now. All of a sudden the AI, will be zipping inch perfect passes around at 100mph.

I might go back to text commentary as this 3D thing is not telling me anything about my tactics.

[BiggusD]

Just so many things wrong with this statement I am not even sure where to start.

1: Extended highlights show all the shots at goal, not longer pre-determined sequences of play. If you use extended highlights, you will often see you are struggling, and, importantly, in which areas before you have conceded. You can then make tactical adjustments to deal with the problem.

2: Team talks are nowhere near as vital as you are making out. If you know what you are doing tactically, you can always, always counter the effects of a poor team talk choice.

3: 'I know the tactic works so it is definitely not that' is one of the worst statements anybody can make. Does it work in hot, wet, dry, cold weather? On icy or chewed up pitches? On big ones and small ones? Against narrow formations, against defensive ones, against teams focusing on wing play, against teams packing the middle?

4: Dropping deeper, playing wider, passing moe slowly or more directly are basic elements of football. If you drop deeper you are getting more people behind the ball. If you play wider, you are trying to open more space. If you pass more slowly it might be an attempt to keep hold of the ball or to slow down play enough to cope with hot conditions. If you play more directly, it is either to try and quickly get behind a slow defence or to stop play getting bogged down in heavy conditions. Plus any other logical reason you might think of. If you aren't aware of basic tactical logic, it is no wonder you don't understand why things fail and blame team talks.

5: 'Normally a tactic works only with the exact settings that the tactician has researched and concluded with' is another absurd statement. Football is dynamic and tactics must be dynamic as well. The more reliant you are on one tactic, the more random your results will be, because you have never thought about how to play against different formations in different conditions. You could be struggling for all manner of reasons. However, if you have never even considered them and assume your tactic is perfect, then you will obviously, and in error, conclude it is the team talks that make the difference.

Because your tactic is designed to press for a goal, not to preserve a lead. Once you have a goal and they've opened up, the chances are the remainder of the game will be very open and any manner of things might happen. Let's say that after they change and the match opens up the chance of them scoring another goal goes to 40%, you scoring again at 50% (as you are the better team) with no more goals being scored at 10%. Consequently, in 2 out of every 5 matches, you will concede. Natural bias will mean these matches stick in the memory and you feel the game cheats you.

If, instead, you sat on the 1-0 lead and played more cautious, counter-attacking football you'd probably reduce the chances of them equalising to less than 10%, increase the no extra goals to 40% and, because they have opened up, not really reduce your own chance of scoring again as your better players beging to take advantage fo the space opening up on the counter.

It is user fault I'm afraid. The ME does not know which team is user controlled and which team is AI controlled. It just computes data.

Once again, I'm happy to support any argument that SI are failing to adequately document things or produce the kind of in-game hints/feedback that help the user combat these problems. However, the argument that a static tactic should always do well and that team talks are the only determining factor as to whether it does or not needs to be vigorously countered (as it is 100% wrong). The reason people who play this way struggle is because professional football, in real life and especially in the top flight, doesn't work this way. That it also doesn't in FM should be applauded, not seen as a sign of weakness. Only the inadequate help/documentation/feedback is an issue (and, I believe, a serious one).

One thing that would be really interesting to see is a break down of your tactical settings. It is very useful to understand how people are trying to play in order to work out which elements need most attention.

I must make one thing clear here: I am not, in any way, struggling. I have made good tactics in CM/FM every year the last 17 years and enjoyed successful team management too. Achieving is not the issue here.

I answer your reply in order.

1. This would be a sensible response if I could be sure that the problem is correctly displayed in the animation, which I have given many examples of that it is not. What is the problem when for all intents and purposes my 11 men could just have disappeared off the face of the earth, that is the amount of opposiition they provide when the opposing team's semi-amateurs play like Barcelona? Then, with the same tactic, same players, I tell them to *insert profanities here* at half-time and the problem is fixed?

2. I have never seen or heard this happen in FM11.3. I can't say that I have tried everything, but at one point I just stopped trying since it was more efficient to fire up the players.

3. In short, yes. Ultradefensive 4-5-1 cynicism is hard but not impossible. I haven't noticed any particular problem regarding pitch conditions. Most losses come because I fail to score and then they get that one chance they always have towards the end of the game, and score. I never change tactical instructions within my functional tactic during a game. Rather, when I get the feeling that it would be beneficial to defend better, I change to a 5-4-1 tactic that I have ready and which I know works too. No experimentation out of desperation, that is my motto!

4. No if I drop deeper with my tactic, all the players including the defence still have high closing down instructions, so they just run about closing down when they shouldn't - leaving space behind them. If I want to drop deeper I would need to change that (and their mentalities as well as they are quite attacking). Essentially, in order to make Drop Deeper work properly, I would need to make another tactic with a deeper defensive line and more careful tactical instructions... which I have.

If I play wider, will my wingers play as they should on the attack? Would the strikers be able to one-two through balls as they usually do or would they be too far from each other? Would my "normal" instructions wingers cut inside as often or not? Hard to tell. I have tried to play wider when I play against 10 men, but can't really say it has worked, so I don't bother.

If I passed shorter, would my midfielders find the forwards, or would they not? If I used more direct passing, would that upset the whole system, or would it not? Since I play short passing and slow, why do I counter-attack so efficiently all the time? Coincidence? Luck?

All the instructions are set exactly where they are for a reason. That is why I don't change them.

5. The tactic is not perfect, but why fix something that is not broken? If I get the team talk correct, I win games even against opponents I have no business beating based on player qualiity and reputation. If I get it wrong (and this is why I say this stuff about player mentality being too fragile) I lose games against opponents that have no business beating me. I get most of them right.

About my question which you answered: The issue is not that the opponent pushes forward and this opens the game up, it is about opponent teams hardly managing to kick a ball anywhere but on row z in 70 minutes, then after I score they become the best team in the world... so if they are that good, why didn't they attack from the go? It is maybe an unfair question, but it does pop up in my head sometimes. Again, the issue is not that they try to push forward and score a goal, the issue is that they auto-succeed (of course, I don't notice so easily those teams who try but fail... I am aware of that )

So again, as a reply to your final comments, I do not struggle. I am doing fine with both Carlisle (a 442 tactic I am working on) which I won promotion with tonight, and Las Palmas where I am in the fifth season after winning BBVA and Champions Cup in the fourth (424). The frustrations I am voicing here aren't only mine, and I didn't come here until after the third patch of FM11 for a reason.

My tactic is easily found in the tactic section, as it is the only thread I have started there. I called it Plug-and-play initially but it really does need certain types to be effective.

[Martyr1777]

wwfan, break out you beat stick...

Lazarus you are a ****ing idiotic moron.

You tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about because I say: for the most part I have no issue getting the right talks for my players and my team is very successful.

Then say: or the fans? Then explain to me why I have in fact used 'far the fans' and watched my low pressure players get nervous in the match? Even simple 'you can win' can cause nervousness, I don't know if 'good luck' does but 'no pressure' is the only way to prevent it.

Your so damn stupid you don't know you actually have to get a bad result once to know it's a bad result. Guess what... I haven't repeated the problem, it's called LEARNING... such an idiot.

As for angering players... fine you want fired up players.. I want professional disciplined players.. there is a difference fool.

Adding options only creates confusion when SI is vague a hell about what things mean and never say it anywhere because they think not understanding game mechanics is good for the players.

All I'm saying...

You people are a damn joke, just can't admit to a single flaw... and it's amazing how LazaruS only shows up in interaction related posts... well I'm about to post a new thread about another I just saw, have fun with it you fool.

[Ackter]

Martyr - seriously, there's no need for the attitude regardless of how frustrated you get.

If SI were more transparent with the match engine modules, it'd be a whole lot easier to understand what wwfan is talking about, and a whole lot easier for people to work out what's going wrong for themselves.

[HakanMild]

Look 2 dimentional and let imagination roam.

[wwfan]

@BiggusD: In a nutshell, you have an aggressive, high pressing tactic that you use nearly all the time. Although it is good going forward, it obviously has defenisve flaws when the team isn't playing well or when the opposition is taking risks trying to get back in the game (it might be flawed in certain conditions as well). As such, you absolutely require the team to be on their game 100% of the time as you don't have any other way of playing. Effectively, you are unable to win when playing badly, so you need to be a motivational expert in order to ensure your players are at their best as much as possible.

It is a perfectly valid way of playing (ask 'Arry) but it is not the only way of playing. Your conclusion that team talks are the only thing that matter is flawed. It is for the way you play. However, if you have a solid tactical strategy (not a single tactic, but a strategy that takes into account many elements of football), team talks are pretty minor in comparison. Yes, it helps to have motivated players, but it is by no means the be all and end all.

I've looked through your tactics thread and it pretty much follows all the stuff written about 11.3 / 928 in the FML forums (which I'm sure Ackter read and can confirm). You are attacking with 4 players and defending with 6 and using a high pressure closing down strategy to reduce space. This results in two things:

1: Your forwards can often be reduced to going alone as there are not enough passing options in and around the box to break down the opposition defence. Consequently, they can be isolated pretty easily, which will result in a lot of shots but a low conversion rate.

2: If your defence is not fully motivated, the high pressure closing down strategy will backfire and gaps will appear in midfield and around your d-line, as players won't get into position quickly enough. Complacency and nervousness will have the same result. If you have struggled to get the opening goal against a team you should be beating, either of these are likely to occur in less determined / professional players, resulting in the opposition slicing through you.

Likewise, it can be difficult to get the ball out of defence as the passer wil be under pressure, prone to making mistakes and needing to make a difficult pass to a forward player quite a distance away from him. I'd expect a lot of interceptions and poor passes.

What you should do in such situations is drop deeper and close down less to get more players behind the ball, which provides cover for mistakes higher up the park that might otherwise lead to chances/goals. You should also try to play keep ball or get it away from goal quickly, depending on the discipline / concentration of your team. Not expecting you to believe me, but that is the easiest tactical solution that will help reduce your dependency on good motivation.

[TSH]

"next game you better not take it as easy as you have today, or you could get punished by a team playing better"

Again complaceny and poor performance are not the same things.

That is a crazy interpretation of the "warn against complacency" team talk. It has nothing to do with what you say and if SI intended such a meaning they should be ashamed by their inability.

It's unbelievable how people twist simple sentences in order to make what is obviously an SI embarrassment make sense.

Don't you people ever wonder why SI never explains what most of the mechanics mean?

It's really unbelievable what happens in these forums...

[BiggusD]

There aren't so many interceptions or poor passes. The 6 guys in the back normally pass very well, but they use the keeper a lot, drawing the opponent higher (even though I don't use Counter Attack) before he passes to one of the full backs who passes to his winger who cuts inside.

Yes you may be right, I do depend on overachieving, but that I would do anyways. I won the Premier League with Southampton in the third season in 10.3, and that is the ideal that I try to recreate. Hence I make tactics that allows me to overachieve. Making tactics that don't must be pointless yes?

Now that I have built up a quite strong team with Las Palmas, I depend less on perfect team talks and overachieving for wins and domination, but it is still important to not fail badly at them as that would destroy everything. As I did with Southampton when there was an over-importance on headers and jumping, I by-passed that problem by signing big, strong and fast players. Now the problem is the difficulty of motivation, so I buy players with high Determination and professionality and avoid players who may be difficult to motivate.

This over-importance on team talks is easily observed with other tactics as well. I play with friends often and they say the exact same thing: if the opponent is more motivated than you, you lose! They are using other tactics downloaded on this forum, for instance Mr.Houghs 4-1-2-3 tactics.

[milnerpoint]

That is a crazy interpretation of the "warn against complacency" team talk. It has nothing to do with what you say and if SI intended such a meaning they should be ashamed by their inability.

It's unbelievable how people twist simple sentences in order to make what is obviously an SI embarrassment make sense.

Don't you people ever wonder why SI never explains what most of the mechanics mean?

It's really unbelievable what happens in these forums...

well it does mean exactly what i said, as confirmed by far more experience people, if you think otherwise thats your mistake.

[Lazaru5]

wwfan, break out you beat stick...

Lazarus you are a ****ing idiotic moron.

You tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about because I say: for the most part I have no issue getting the right talks for my players and my team is very successful.

Then say: or the fans? Then explain to me why I have in fact used 'far the fans' and watched my low pressure players get nervous in the match? Even simple 'you can win' can cause nervousness, I don't know if 'good luck' does but 'no pressure' is the only way to prevent it.

Your so damn stupid you don't know you actually have to get a bad result once to know it's a bad result. Guess what... I haven't repeated the problem, it's called LEARNING... such an idiot.

As for angering players... fine you want fired up players.. I want professional disciplined players.. there is a difference fool.

Adding options only creates confusion when SI is vague a hell about what things mean and never say it anywhere because they think not understanding game mechanics is good for the players.

All I'm saying...

You people are a damn joke, just can't admit to a single flaw... and it's amazing how LazaruS only shows up in interaction related posts... well I'm about to post a new thread about another I just saw, have fun with it you fool.

OK, I'm stupid, I don't know how to play the game...

Lets see your status screen and your history screen... like these:

Now I know that you're probably not able to post a status page that shows only -12- saves in -2- seasons even if your history page might show a better win ratio, etc... but I can... and I have a 60% win ratio. If I can go fifteen matches between saves and still have a 60% win ratio I think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this game, no?

Everything I post is backed up by my own experience in the game. I play LLM so obviously top leagues and related problems are beyond my realm of experience in FM11 at this moment in time so I rarely comment on threads like that. Player interaction is the same at any level so I can quite properly comment and share my own experience with it on threads whose topic is player/media interaction which is why you see me commenting more on those threads than others where I have no experience of the subject matter...

Would you rather I make things up (like a lot of prolific posters seems to do) or would you rather I share the benefit of my own experience? Exactly...