Falling out of love with the game

[wwfan]

I have huge respect for crouchaldinho and do share some of his misgivings, especially in the tactical module, which I'd prefer to be far more sophisticated. I don't understand his love for FM08, which I thought was the worst iteration of the last 6-7 years by far. I also think FM11 is better than FM10, mainly because the ME is better balanced and narrow formations don't artificially overachieve. I do agree with his, and the general critique, that press conferences are badly implemented, although I don't 100% have the same reasoning.

Personally, I think there are too many press conferences at lower levels or for meaningless mid-table matches, which makes them repetitive and tedious rather than important things to think about before major games. They should be aligned to matches that matter, such as local derbies, relegation or promotion battles, or returning players (although only once per player, and only if they are regulars for the opposition). It is clear that many things aren't working as intended in this area. For example, I get asked time and time again about a returning player who never played a first team game for me and left 7 years ago. I can't even remember selling him. However, when I play against the team which, in consecutive seasons, spent $60m on my four times World Player of the Year and $40m on his midfield partner, nothing!! Likewise, I didn't even get an end of match conference after I scored a winner in the 94th minute to lift me out of the relegation positions for the first time since I took over on the last day of the season (albeit in FM10). In FM11, I lost out on the title on the last day of the season by failing to beat the 17th placed team at home, which the press also seemed remarkably uninterested in.

There are also not enough questions about the squad. For example, I currently have an 18 year old wunderkind who has scored almost 250 goals in 3 seasons at youth and reserve level. The press should be very interested in him and I should be under media and fan pressure to play him if my starting FCs start to under-perform. However, he seems to be invisible. As others have mentioned, long term context in media interaction is also missing. For example, I took Crewe from the BSP to the Premiership in successive seasons, which didn't warrant a mention in the press. I also raided a previous club for three of their key players, which was equally ignored. Less media interaction but more focused, relevant and intense when it does happen is my hope, although I appreciate it might be very difficult to do.

However, I do strongly disagree with some of the other opinions in this thread.

Criticism spurs players on IRL, in FM they get in a strop and perform awfully.

Totally subjective. Criticism spurs some players on, as it does in FM as well. Others need constant encouragement (Emile Heskey comes to mind). Others still need iron-hard discipline.

However, there could certainly be more explicit tools to help the manager understand how his players react to pressure / low expectations so he can work out how to better man-manage them. There is too much focus on the morale level without providing the tools to understand why it is happening.

And while they skinned the sliders so they're now set by a wizard, it's just polishing a turd. It means the life-cycle of a new FM goes like this:

1. tinker with tactics and get hammered,

2. eventually stumble upon (or download) a winning tactic,

3. stick with it and enjoy the trophies rolling in,

4. get bored with winning everything and stop playing.

Absolutely not true. If you have a solid understanding of real life tactical theory, it takes minutes to build a solid tactic through the TC. You can either pragmatically embrace the strategic dynamism of the shouts, or develop a system of play based around your player strengths. Although not understanding how to make tactics because of the abstract slider system used to be perfectly valid, it doesn't hold in the TC / shout system. If you can't work out how to put together a tactic through the TC, it is because you don't understand the terminology and theory of football tactics in real life. Yes, it could be better and more sophisticated, and there are obvious missing elements. However, it does allow users to translate a good degree of real life tactical ideas into the game without much effort.

I think the lack of good documentation or in-game feedback is the key element producing such critique. I don't think the average user can be expected to be as interested in tactical theory as I am, so need more of a helping hand to understand how things fit together. For example, it needs to be crystal clear that giving your defenders a mentality of 1 and attackers one of 20 is going to result in disjointed play, as they are following different strategic direction (you've basically said 'the team will focus on defending' to the defenders and 'the team will focus on attacking' to the attackers). One of the hints and tips actually advises you to do this, which really doesn't help. Likewise, letting the manager know that nobody is moving between the lines, resulting in static play, will be a great help (fixed through duties). Or that it might not be a good idea to play ultra short, slow tempo passing with an aggressive mentality as it is likely to get bogged down in the final third.

Scenario A: You've won 10 games in a row, but then, in team talks prior to match 11, you make a fatal mistake of encouraging your players instead of demanding a win. As a result, your players crumble, turn into headless chickens, lose the game, their morale plummets, and you're set for a 5-game losing streak.

Scenario B: Your world class striker has been fantastic for months, scoring right and left. Until a fatal press conference before a meaningless cup game. You (or your assistant) say the wrong thing about him or team's tactics and your fabulous striker turns into a Sunday league player. He's absolutely abysmal in the following match, his morale plummets and, consequently, he's useless for the next few games.

Players / teams go on form streaks / slumps in real life all the time. You are making the false assumption that your media interaction / team talk causes this. It might contribute slightly, but it is not the sole cause. It is perfectly possible to prevent slumps in form through tactical changes, including substitutions and rotation, team talks and player interaction.

A key problem in this area is how users are interpreting team talks. They are not clearly defined in game. Likewise, the motivational aspect is highlighted above the tactical / strategic one. The half time screen only focuses on the nature of the team talk, not on how the team might strategically approach the 2nd half. Of course, some managers only use the break for motivational purposes. However, others will determine how the team should approach the rest of the match. That is missing from the half-time options, making it seems as if the motivational team talk is more important that it actually is. As with the press conferences, the repeated focus makes them seem to be the causal factor for performance, when actually they are only contributory, generally in a minor way.

I do wish SI would sort out the AI though so the games a challenge, a robust AI system where they were tactically astute and made proper transfers would be amazing.

I agree that the AI managers are not sophisticated enough when making tactical decisions. However, getting that AI up to the required level is a huge task. In terms of AI squad management, it is not too bad if you load up the countries that traditionally produce top class players. Doing that gives the AI clubs enough of a talent pool to remain competitive. However, if you limit the talent, the user has a huge advantage.

Personally, I think the major issue is the efficacy of youth scouting. It is too easy to discover, buy and develop unknown talent. Developing a more realistic scouting system might be hugely beneficial here.

[speedas]

i for one can certainly agree with the OP.. and i realise the game has evolved to more than the fun football management game that the CM series was.. BUT the fact of the matter is SI release this game yearly like clockwork and while they do try and push the boundary's with new features,such as the player interaction, press conferences etc they dont realease a game that is as enjoyable to play as they did.. simple fact there's only so much you can do in 12 months, the more they try to do the less fun the game is to play.. take FM11 for example.. the new match engine looks better than 10's.. but the game is less enjoyable.. even after 11.3 the game is still suffering from bugs.. some of them even created by patch 11.3 due no doubt to the amount of time,work & coding involved.. i would still prefer if SI left MAJOR changes to the game, in development for another year and gave themselves more time to release a refined,relativly bug free game than getting to the 3rd patch and saying "thats all folks, see you in november.." that may find the fun factor returning..

Totally agree with that, Sega must invest into two teams. The first team will made FM 2013 with classic (and annoying) features and the second young and fresh team will made FM 2014 with two years for create with calm the game and be able to made a true evolution.

The player must feel each party is different, each club with his philosophy, each league is different compared to the others. More stats for imagine better a game and the football world during our party. Interface must be smooth and fast like FM 2007. A better IA for more challenge.

For me FM is dead since SI develop the 3D looks like SI believe arrogantly FM is perfect.

So SI must leave 3D developing for the heart of FM or/and Sega must invest more in SI.

And please SI, fix these ****ing bugs that exist since 2007, it's not fair at all.

[Bradley21]

I agree that the AI managers are not sophisticated enough when making tactical decisions. However, getting that AI up to the required level is a huge task. In terms of AI squad management, it is not too bad if you load up the countries that traditionally produce top class players. Doing that gives the AI clubs enough of a talent pool to remain competitive. However, if you limit the talent, the user has a huge advantage.

Personally, I think the major issue is the efficacy of youth scouting. It is too easy to discover, buy and develop unknown talent. Developing a more realistic scouting system might be hugely beneficial here.

Totally agree that its too easy to spot and nurture youths. Its too easy to find them, its too easy to train them, its too easy to buy them from clubs, i reckon bigger clubs especially should be more intent on keeping talent.

However i disagree that the AI works fine if you load up multiple leagues, ive never had a save thats even remotely offered any long term challenge, and this is purely down to the AIs tactical ineptitude and inability to buy the right players. I just wish the AI was more intelligent in every aspect of the game, would make it so much more challenging, and more rewarding.

[wwfan]

However i disagree that the AI works fine if you load up multiple leagues, ive never had a save thats even remotely offered any long term challenge, and this is purely down to the AIs tactical ineptitude and inability to buy the right players. I just wish the AI was more intelligent in every aspect of the game, would make it so much more challenging, and more rewarding.

It doesn't work fine, just better. I find it easy to dominate domestically, less so continentally if I load up all the top player bases. The top sides have enough good players to give you a continued challenge in Europe. However, the AI managers lose too often to poor teams in the leagues, which allows you to win domestically very easily. In my current game, Man City, Man Utd, Barca, Racing, Real, Inter, Milan and Lille all have really high class starting elevens, which at least keeps things interesting in the CL.

[Bradley21]

It doesn't work fine, just better. I find it easy to dominate domestically, less so continentally if I load up all the top player bases. The top sides have enough good players to give you a continued challenge in Europe. However, the AI managers lose too often to poor teams in the leagues, which allows you to win domestically very easily. In my current game, Man City, Man Utd, Barca, Racing, Real, Inter, Milan and Lille all have really high class starting elevens, which at least keeps things interesting in the CL.

Its true that europe is a little more difficult, but it still gets easy a season or two in. All the top clubs decline as a result of poor squad building so they end up on a par with the likes of Marseille, Napoli and Porto. And not because those teams are getting better, its simply because the top clubs dont replace their starting squad players with equal or greater talents. Infact the only team which rises is Atletico Madrid, providing they keep Aguero, the guys a machine and single handedly drags them upwards if he stays.

I actually had a situation where i was playing Porto in the champions league final in 2023 with my QPR team, and they had 2 players of mines on loan. Both were top class young strikers who couldnt get in my team, naturally they were ineligible to play against me in the final so the strikesr they fielded were pretty much SPL quality backups! In reality a team like Porto (who were top3 or 4 in the world at this point) would never become the best side in europes feeder club, let alone become utterly dependent on them for loan players.

[thesandman]

Natural FMers, like so many of us on here, were the ones playing Subbuteo by themselves when they were kids, keeping league tables and 'simulating' games. We were the ones pretending to be football managers before we even got the game, making up our own 'games' using the fantasy football charts in the newspapers each weekend. That's the sort of thing we were doing as kids! Then CM came along and blew our minds! So you see, CM/FM has never been just another game to me, it has been THE game.

Ah, the dreaded 'crunch' when playing Subbuteo, when you knew you were playing from now on one down, or with a midget held together with superglue (or blu-tack, the Subbuteo equivalent of magic spray...... )

Yes, I'm like you. But with longer feelings of the same.

I started playing with CM93/94 (yep, I'm old now). The game absolutely blew me away the first time I played it, it was compulsory in my flat to play multiplayer games along with a few ales.

As time went on, the games just got better. CM 01/02 was fantastic.

I gave up with CM4 and the way SI reacted over those games. They were just awful, littered with bugs, and I found their responses terribly arrogant and condescending. If they had simply said "yep, this a rewrite, you're right there are issues" I would have stuck with it.

Since then, I've 'come back' a few times. 08 was the last time, now 11 (just the demo so far). Now, the game just isn't as fun IMO. In an attempt to cater to everyone, some of the options are crazy.

The old games were more simplistic, but because of that you were more immersed in them. Now, it's painfully obvious with things like player interaction, and in particular team talks and press conferences, that rather than actually playing a game about football management, you're playing "guess the response that the computer thinks you should".

It actually drags you to realise that you are playing a computer game - whereas a great game will do entirely the opposite.

I used to love playing multi-season, really long career games. I just don't find I can do that now. It's too laborious and time consuming to play. When I find myself playing a game, and doing things I find a chore, that's a signal to stop. I'm supposed to be doing it for fun, to escape real life!!

Having said all that, I have got FMH on my iPhone, and it's superb. Really great, cut down version of the game to play when on public transport etc. the small team that have made that have done really, really well.

[shirajzl]

However, there could certainly be more explicit tools to help the manager understand how his players react to pressure / low expectations so he can work out how to better man-manage them. There is too much focus on the morale level without providing the tools to understand why it is happening.

I completely agree with this and appreciate some of the moderators (finally) admitted the morale aspect of the game is poorly implemented. As it is now, it's almost completely counter-intuitive, and while, given time, you can learn what are the right answers, that's not the point. That's what the defenders of press conferences/team talks in the current state don't seem to understand.

The old games were more simplistic, but because of that you were more immersed in them. Now, it's painfully obvious with things like player interaction, and in particular team talks and press conferences, that rather than actually playing a game about football management, you're playing "guess the response that the computer thinks you should".

It actually drags you to realise that you are playing a computer game - whereas a great game will do entirely the opposite.

I used to love playing multi-season, really long career games. I just don't find I can do that now. It's too laborious and time consuming to play. When I find myself playing a game, and doing things I find a chore, that's a signal to stop. I'm supposed to be doing it for fun, to escape real life!!

This is how many older players of the series feel. While the cause of this is partly connected to family/job obligations, if the game was more focused on core aspects, people would find the time because they would be looking forward to a few hours a week they can spend playing FM.

[wwfan]

I completely agree with this and appreciate some of the moderators (finally) admitted the morale aspect of the game is poorly implemented. As it is now, it's almost completely counter-intuitive, and while, given time, you can learn what are the right answers, that's not the point. That's what the defenders of press conferences/team talks in the current state don't seem to understand.

I actually disagree with this. There are no right answers or team talks, just better and worse options in relation to multiple factors, such as the reputation of the opposition, the players' current morale, the team's run of form and the media pressure applied by the other manager. The problem is not the implementation, which is far more in-depth than many realise, but rather how the average user thinks they work, which relates to poor documentation and in-game feedback, plus a long-standing reluctance to expand upon the short-terms used for each talk.

Only a couple of team talk options can be considered counter-intuitive:

1: For the fans: Actually, a demand for professionalism and between 'we can win this' and 'I expect a win' in demand level.

2: Don't let your performance drop / get complacent: Used to refocus players when the team is winning but playing badly. Terrible option if the team has played wonderfully well.

[shirajzl]

I actually disagree with this. There are no right answers or team talks, just better and worse options in relation to multiple factors, such as the reputation of the opposition, the players' current morale, the team's run of form and the media pressure applied by the other manager. The problem is not the implementation, which is far more in-depth than many realise, but rather how the average user thinks they work, which relates to poor documentation and in-game feedback, plus a long-standing reluctance to expand upon the short-terms used for each talk.

Well, for such a complex game, poor implementation of a feature in fact IS "poor documentation" and especially "poor in-game feedback". If you put an elaborate feature in the game and devoid users of proper explanation, it's poor implementation.

[Kenco]

I agree with wwfan on the returning players issue. I've been at my club for 12 seasons now, and a lot of deadwood has gone out of the door without even getting a game for me. Then they return 10 years later and there is talk of mutual respect going back to when I took over the club, etc. It comes up every time I go against certain former players, but not all former players for some reason.

Also, they often mention "(my name) stadium return for player x". When in fact he never played at this stadium, since it was built 8 years after he left!

[ronaldo_1978]

It only takes you to pick one team who you have never managed before and you end up falling back in love with it, I like a few of you lot was getting tired n bored of what I thought was the game but in reality it was my choice of teams and constantly buying the same old players. I picked a team called Litex Lovech and started a thread for themand I can honestly say It's like I have just found my love all over again for the game.

[THOG]

There are no right answers or team talks, just better and worse options in relation to multiple factors, such as the reputation of the opposition, the players' current morale, the team's run of form and the media pressure applied by the other manager. The problem is not the implementation, which is far more in-depth than many realise, but rather how the average user thinks they work, which relates to poor documentation and in-game feedback, plus a long-standing reluctance to expand upon the short-terms used for each talk.

I would completely agree with this if there were not also a random element at play in team talk effects. However, like much else, even the "better" options are still subject to the dreaded dice roll which compounds the sense of mystification and frustration. This is fine for the ME where the unexpected is expected to make matches entertaining, but such randomness is just irritating at the player management level, especially since an ineffective team talk can be such a match-breaker in the wrong circumstances. IMO, everything outside the match should be about setting up constants for the ME equations with static options that have static effects, randomness should only significantly be at play within the ME itself. The same can be said for individual player interactions like tutoring requests, PPM training, etc.

Now, if SI want to limit the effects of certain team talks, I would suggest introducing an RPG element to add another strategic layer rather than just subjecting the player to the mercies of an RNG. One approach would be to allow a player to amass "Inspiration" points based on their reputation and successes which could then be spent in certain circumstances to maximize certain team talk effects.

For example, it needs to be crystal clear that giving your defenders a mentality of 1 and attackers one of 20 is going to result in disjointed play, as they are following different strategic direction (you've basically said 'the team will focus on defending' to the defenders and 'the team will focus on attacking' to the attackers).

In fairness, it depends on what you want out of your players. An "ultra-rigid" approach like that can emulate a "desperate counterattack" tactic where you're basically playing Contain but want a striker or two hanging around the midway line in hopes of stealing an odd one-on-one.

[x42bn6]

Absolutely not true. If you have a solid understanding of real life tactical theory, it takes minutes to build a solid tactic through the TC. You can either pragmatically embrace the strategic dynamism of the shouts, or develop a system of play based around your player strengths.

You shouldn't need a solid understanding of real life tactical theory in order to build a solid tactic through the Tactics Creator.

The Tactics Creator is surely designed for those who are not very good at tactics or do not want to spend too much time on them.

Kids should be able to play this game - kids should be the lowest common denominator.

[Bradley21]

You shouldn't need a solid understanding of real life tactical theory in order to build a solid tactic through the Tactics Creator.

The Tactics Creator is surely designed for those who are not very good at tactics or do not want to spend too much time on them.

Kids should be able to play this game - kids should be the lowest common denominator.

Any tactical system no matter how easy to use requires some prerequisite knowledge. You cant expect a kid whos never seen football before to waltz into FM and make a super tactic all the time.

While its simple to make a solid enough tactic without being a real life tactical guru it should always take skill and proper understanding to make a proper set of tactics for every occasion, if it were dumbed down so much that a random 8 year old could build a super tactic id quit playing, its already far to easy to win.

Also i disagree that its purely designed for noobs, the TC is just a more realistic and logical way of doing things, as well as being a lot quicker and eliminating the need to pause the game to make changes all the time.

[x42bn6]

Any tactical system no matter how easy to use requires some prerequisite knowledge. You cant expect a kid whos never seen football before to waltz into FM and make a super tactic all the time.

While its simple to make a solid enough tactic without being a real life tactical guru it should always take skill and proper understanding to make a proper set of tactics for every occasion, if it were dumbed down so much that a random 8 year old could build a super tactic id quit playing, its already far to easy to win.

Also i disagree that its purely designed for noobs, the TC is just a more realistic and logical way of doing things, as well as being a lot quicker and eliminating the need to pause the game to make changes all the time.

You shouldn't need to be a tactics guru in order to get the best out of a feature.

The Tactics Creator should take minutes for anyone to create a tactic. It translates what they know and what they want into a Football Manager playing tactic. It should take minutes for everyone - not just smart players.

Football Manager should teach (and already does, with assistant advice) users with minimal tatical knowledge the principles behind each of the Tactics Creator functions, without exposing a solution. Like a Chess grandmaster teaching someone advanced Chess theory, without teaching him how to beat a specific opponent.

It has little to do with the end-product - it's the journey to get there in there first place.

[Rishi Modha]

If anything, it is arguably impossible for a game to be 100% realistic (Gödel's incompleteness theorems) - but that is really not the point, since FM isn't supposed to be 100% realistic, nor should it be an aim. It's a game first-and-foremost.

What does simulating reality have to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem? If anything, considering we're looking at producing human-like AI, we'd be heading straight towards Alan Turing.

[Twellman24]

What does simulating reality have to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem? If anything, considering we're looking at producing human-like AI, we'd be heading straight towards Alan Turing.

I know I'm not being very original but...OWNED

[x42bn6]

What does simulating reality have to do with Godel's incompleteness theorem? If anything, considering we're looking at producing human-like AI, we'd be heading straight towards Alan Turing.

An implication of Gödel is that any system can only be proved within itself. It can never be used to justify reality itself.

Football Manager is an axiom-based system - it is based on various rules - but can never prove anything outside itself.

Reality can be used to justify Football Manager, but Football Manager cannot be used to justify reality. Therefore they cannot be equivalent. Therefore, arguably, it is impossible to simulate reality - any simulation will be based on its own axioms, but you will need an outside reference point to extend it beyond that.

[Rishi Modha]

An implication of Gödel is that any system can only be proved within itself. It can never be used to justify reality itself.

Football Manager is an axiom-based system - it is based on various rules - but can never prove anything outside itself.

Reality can be used to justify Football Manager, but Football Manager cannot be used to justify reality. Therefore they cannot be equivalent. Therefore, arguably, it is impossible to simulate reality - any simulation will be based on its own axioms, but you will need an outside reference point to extend it beyond that.

Godel's incompleteness theorems provide epistemic limitations as opposed to metaphysical limitations. Just because we cannot know (or prove) that something is the case, does not mean that it is necessarily not the case. Overwhelmingly off-topic, so we ought to leave it here.

[x42bn6]

Godel's incompleteness theorems provide epistemic limitations as opposed to metaphysical limitations. Just because we cannot know (or prove) that something is the case, does not mean that it is necessarily not the case. Overwhelmingly off-topic, so we ought to leave it here.

So why did you bring it up in isolation?

[philly_flyer10]

2: Don't let your performance drop / get complacent: Used to refocus players when the team is winning but playing badly. Terrible option if the team has played wonderfully well.

That makes no sense at all, its no wonder people get fed up with the game if theres a total lack of logic.

Telling them to carry on playing great is a bad option?

[x42bn6]

That makes no sense at all, its no wonder people get fed up with the game if theres a total lack of logic.

Telling them to carry on playing great is a bad option?

The game is basically a perfect exponent of Sod's Law at times... :-/

Personally, I have never used "I am pleased" at half-time - it just stinks of "you know something bad is going to happen".

[Rishi Modha]

So why did you bring it up in isolation?

I get excited by the mention of Godel, apologies!

[wwfan]

You shouldn't need to be a tactics guru in order to get the best out of a feature.

The Tactics Creator should take minutes for anyone to create a tactic. It translates what they know and what they want into a Football Manager playing tactic. It should take minutes for everyone - not just smart players.

Football Manager should teach (and already does, with assistant advice) users with minimal tatical knowledge the principles behind each of the Tactics Creator functions, without exposing a solution. Like a Chess grandmaster teaching someone advanced Chess theory, without teaching him how to beat a specific opponent.

You still need a basic understanding of football. You shouldn't just be able to throw together random structure and see it do well. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a very good game or simulation of reality.

Anybody who knows that modern football requires players moving between the lines and that there are too basic theories of play (quickly get the ball forward v control possession) should be able to build something functional very quickly. Unfortunately, many people don't even seem to know that. I've lost count of the time I've seen stretched, low tempo, short-passing aggressive tactics. If you don't know multiple snatched shots and a susceptibility to the counter is likely to be the result of such a set up, you really don't know much about football. People tend not to take kindly to being told that on the forums and it can provoke a lot of anger. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of guiding feedback in-game, which is currently missing, as the hints and tips and assman feedback follow an older logic than that of the TC.

The Tactics Creator is surely designed for those who are not very good at tactics or do not want to spend too much time on them.

It was designed to remove the abstract confusion of sliders, not to guarantee you'd be able to make an excellent tactic. It will stop people without a clue from making horrible tactics while allowing those who know football to quickly make excellent ones, without either ever having to use a slider. Unfortunately, too many people think it is a tool for dummies and go back to the sliders (without knowing how they work either). That is a recipe for disaster. Firstly, you lose the dynamism of the TC / shout system. Secondly, you put yourself in a position where you can easily break things. Thirdly, you start thinking in slider clicks, not football terminology, and therefore learn nothing except how to exploit/break the ME. Pretty much every major contributor to the tactics forum uses the TC, as its terminology easily allows you to explain concepts. However, if the listener has no idea what the difference between a deep lying and advanced playmaker is in real life, that is a problem it is hard to solve.

That makes no sense at all, its no wonder people get fed up with the game if theres a total lack of logic. Telling them to carry on playing great is a bad option?

Please read what was said. They are not playing great. They are winning but playing badly. You are warning them not to get any worse. If they were playing well, you'd encourage them or praise them, not warn them about keeping their level up.

[thesandman]

In fairness, it depends on what you want out of your players. An "ultra-rigid" approach like that can emulate a "desperate counterattack" tactic where you're basically playing Contain but want a striker or two hanging around the midway line in hopes of stealing an odd one-on-one.

exactly. Think of the ruthless arsenal sides in their last few years at highbury when they had some real speed merchants up front in Wright, Anelka, or Henry. The amount of goals they scored with 2 or 3 passes from defense was astounding. In that tactic, the likes of keown would have had a mentality of 1, and Ian wright a 20. Or more critically for the way I play, I want my 6'4 non league clogger at dc to do nothing but defend. Do not even think about anything else. And I want my 5'6 pencil thin whippet if a goal poacher to do nothing but hang around up front and try and toepoke me a goal.

[wwfan]

exactly. Think of the ruthless arsenal sides in their last few years at highbury when they had some real speed merchants up front in Wright, Anelka, or Henry. The amount of goals they scored with 2 or 3 passes from defense was astounding. In that tactic, the likes of keown would have had a mentality of 1, and Ian wright a 20. Or more critically for the way I play, I want my 6'4 non league clogger at dc to do nothing but defend. Do not even think about anything else. And I want my 5'6 pencil thin whippet if a goal poacher to do nothing but hang around up front and try and toepoke me a goal.

However, the mentality system doesn't work like that. The most advanced FC in a formation will always stay high when the ball is deep. If you want them to be ready to instantly counter, then turn on counter-attack.

You also cannot translate mentality slider ticks into real life. That Arsenal team was built around their counter attacking threat. The defence was thus ready to quickly feed the attack. That will not happen with a 1-20 split. The defence will not ever try to make the release pass as it will be too risky given their defensive instructions.

Huge mentality splits are problematic as they inhibit the overall strategy of play. If the defence is only focused on defending and the attack only focused on attacking, you will get disjointed play. A 1-20 split goes against the logic of the system. You might be able to get it to work with luck, but it is more likely to result in horrible play.

[thesandman]

You still need a basic understanding of football. You shouldn't just be able to throw together random structure and see it do well. If that were the case, it wouldn't be a very good game or simulation of reality.

Anybody who knows that modern football requires players moving between the lines and that there are too basic theories of play (quickly get the ball forward v control possession) should be able to build something functional very quickly. Unfortunately, many people don't even seem to know that. I've lost count of the time I've seen stretched, low tempo, short-passing aggressive tactics. If you don't know multiple snatched shots and a susceptibility to the counter is likely to be the result of such a set up, you really don't know much about football. People tend not to take kindly to being told that on the forums and it can provoke a lot of anger. Therefore, there needs to be some sort of guiding feedback in-game, which is currently missing, as the hints and tips and assman feedback follow an older logic than that of the TC.

I agree.

Please read what was said. They are not playing great. They are winning but playing badly. You are warning them not to get any worse. If they were playing well, you'd encourage them or praise them, not warn them about keeping their level up.

Disagree entirely. Watch any interview either at half time (they have them now in Aus in most of the rugby codes) or after the game. When a team has a comfortable lead at half time, one of the major points the coach/players nearly always make, is about not letting their intensity drop in the second half, and making sure they maintain that level for the rest of the game. It's key in all team sports that when a side is winning well, they pay extra attention to NOT slackening off and letting the other side back into the game. So much so that's normally the main point discussed.

If a team is winning but playing badly, the advice is not "don't get any worse", it's "by jingo, we're lucky to be where we are. Pick it up a bit for the second half or we'll throw it away".

You never tell a team playing badly "don't get worse". That's completely illogical. I've played team sports for over 30 years, and never, every, when my side has been playing badly had the coach said "don't get any worse". It's always, always, about how to play better.

I can't imagine sport at the top level is any different.

[thesandman]

However, the mentality system doesn't work like that. The most advanced FC in a formation will always stay high when the ball is deep. If you want them to be ready to instantly counter, then turn on counter-attack.

You also cannot translate mentality slider ticks into real life. That Arsenal team was built around their counter attacking threat. The defence was thus ready to quickly feed the attack. That will not happen with a 1-20 split. The defence will not ever try to make the release pass as it will be too risky given their defensive instructions.

Huge mentality splits are problematic as they inhibit the overall strategy of play. If the defence is only focused on defending and the attack only focused on attacking, you will get disjointed play. A 1-20 split goes against the logic of the system. You might be able to get it to work with luck, but it is more likely to result in horrible play.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head then IMO.

If FM's system goes against common sense and logic, it's not really doing its job is it.

I don't want to have to work out how a mentality system works. I don't want to work out whether ticking counter attack over rides mentality or whatever other individual slider/attribute I have adjusted.

The absolute total and utter lack of feedback in the game as to what the results of my adjustments are is the key issue to me. I shouldn't have to come to a forum and pore over dozens of posts to work it out. I don't WANT to do that. I want to work the game out on my own, using my own ability. FM simply IMO nowadays doesn't provide that.

THAT is why playing FM feels like my job now (working out systems and spreadsheets), rather than simply a fantasy football manager game.

[thesandman]

I guess along with these frustrations, it's the big issues that come up year after year and never change that frustrate me the most.

I read a post here that said an issue in FM10 was "narrow tactics were too powerful".

Well, back in CM3 (when I was just connecting to the forums with my shiny new 56k dial up modem....), guess what? Narrow tactics were too powerful was the complaint back then as well. If over 10 years later, the same problems are apparent, what does that say? I got frustrated with FM08 after a while, so abandoned my favourite game, and loaded up a test one. Plugged in my CM3 narrow tactic, and bingo. Instant success.

Now, it's still happening.

What's next? Does the superkeeper still exist? The

"I had 23 shots to 1 and lost 1-0"

"IT'S UR TACTICS STUPID"

Is that still around?

[pigfacemonkeyman]

The game is basically a perfect exponent of Sod's Law at times... :-/

Personally, I have never used "I am pleased" at half-time - it just stinks of "you know something bad is going to happen".

This is a myth. I went through my first ten months of playing this game avoiding 'Pleased' at half time, because I read a couple of things similar to what you have written. I have since found that it is not a good move to use it for the whole team, but I use it on 2 or 3 players as part of my 'leading at half time' team talk formula, and my teams always play at least as well in the second half as they did in the first, and always win these matches.

[wwfan]

Disagree entirely. Watch any interview either at half time (they have them now in Aus in most of the rugby codes) or after the game. When a team has a comfortable lead at half time, one of the major points the coach/players nearly always make, is about not letting their intensity drop in the second half, and making sure they maintain that level for the rest of the game. It's key in all team sports that when a side is winning well, they pay extra attention to NOT slackening off and letting the other side back into the game. So much so that's normally the main point discussed.

If a team is winning but playing badly, the advice is not "don't get any worse", it's "by jingo, we're lucky to be where we are. Pick it up a bit for the second half or we'll throw it away".

You never tell a team playing badly "don't get worse". That's completely illogical. I've played team sports for over 30 years, and never, every, when my side has been playing badly had the coach said "don't get any worse". It's always, always, about how to play better.

I can't imagine sport at the top level is any different.

This is where the main problem in team talks are. In reality, a coach would focus on how to play better tactically / strategically, while letting the team know that they were lucky to be winning (don't get complacent / let your performance drop). Likewise, if you were playing well, the motivational focus would be on getting that little bit better and kill the match off (encourage) or to keep it going (pleased). However, it would be linked to instructions on how to do it, which would be the main focus. That is what is missing and that is why people think team talks have too much power.

Well, you've hit the nail on the head then IMO.

If FM's system goes against common sense and logic, it's not really doing its job is it.

I don't want to have to work out how a mentality system works. I don't want to work out whether ticking counter attack over rides mentality or whatever other individual slider/attribute I have adjusted.

The absolute total and utter lack of feedback in the game as to what the results of my adjustments are is the key issue to me. I shouldn't have to come to a forum and pore over dozens of posts to work it out. I don't WANT to do that. I want to work the game out on my own, using my own ability. FM simply IMO nowadays doesn't provide that.

THAT is why playing FM feels like my job now (working out systems and spreadsheets), rather than simply a fantasy football manager game.

The TC does most of this work for you. If you have gone back to sliders because you think a 1-20 mentality split should work, it is because you don't trust the TC and prefer your own interpretation of sliders. TC settings make it very clear that mentalities needs to link together. However, it is not clear anywhere else and the hints and tips actually suggest the opposite. Which is obviously a problem.

Once again, the idea that the TC is for dummies and not an equally complex but far user-friendlier input system seems to be the problem. The TC has not, in any way, dumbed down the tactical interface. It has made it football-friendly and shifted tactical decision making into the match action, which is a dynamic solution, not the static one of the sliders. As I say to everyone, embrace and trust the TC, especially if you aren't 100% certain what the sliders d and how they link together. You never need to touch one as the TC can produce a massive range of excellent tactics.

[philly_flyer10]

The game is basically a perfect exponent of Sod's Law at times... :-/

Personally, I have never used "I am pleased" at half-time - it just stinks of "you know something bad is going to happen".

Me neither, thats a "lose" button.

I never give any praise until the game is over.

[philly_flyer10]

Please read what was said. They are not playing great. They are winning but playing badly. You are warning them not to get any worse. If they were playing well, you'd encourage them or praise them, not warn them about keeping their level up.

Doing that is a guaranteed loss.

dont let your performance drop is a terrible option when youre playing well?

Again it makes no sense. You said its a bad option if they are playing well, its a perfectly logical option when they are playing well. Its just another way of saying keep doing what you were doing.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

Me neither, thats a "lose" button.

I never give any praise until the game is over.

No, it's not a 'lose' button. You mean you don't use it because you believe it to be.

Your statement is a perfect example of what I referred to in post #280. Stating as fact, something that you believe, is misleading and won't help anyone looking for guidance.

[wwfan]

Doing that is a guaranteed loss.

dont let your performance drop is a terrible option when youre playing well?

Again it makes no sense. You said its a bad option if they are playing well, its a perfectly logical option when they are playing well. Its just another way of saying keep doing what you were doing.

No it isn't. It is a way of saying 'that was only just good enough. Make sure you stay focused or we will let them back in this.'

Encourage is 'you've played well thus far. Just need to push on a little bit to ensure the result.'

Pleased is 'you've played very well and deserve to be leading. Keep it up.'

Each of these should be combined with tactical instruction, which is completely lacking in half-time talks. I appreciate that they are not clear enough, and that one word options are far too abstract, but they do work as intended.

Me neither, thats a "lose" button.

I never give any praise until the game is over.

Total rubbish. 'Pleased' works perfectly well if you use it when the team has played well. If you (Wolves) are 2-0 up against Arsenal having shaded all other stats, 'pleased' is completely valid. If you were playing Tranmere and the same thing happened, then 'don't let your performance drop' would be a better fit, as, although you are winning, you should be playing much better across the park.

[wwfan]

I guess along with these frustrations, it's the big issues that come up year after year and never change that frustrate me the most.

I read a post here that said an issue in FM10 was "narrow tactics were too powerful".

Well, back in CM3 (when I was just connecting to the forums with my shiny new 56k dial up modem....), guess what? Narrow tactics were too powerful was the complaint back then as well. If over 10 years later, the same problems are apparent, what does that say? I got frustrated with FM08 after a while, so abandoned my favourite game, and loaded up a test one. Plugged in my CM3 narrow tactic, and bingo. Instant success.

Now, it's still happening.

What's next? Does the superkeeper still exist? The

"I had 23 shots to 1 and lost 1-0"

"IT'S UR TACTICS STUPID"

Is that still around?

It has taken years to balance the ME to reduce the over-perfomance of narrow tactics. It was obviously not easy or it would have been achieved years ago. As soon as it happened, the first complaint was 'wide tactics are now over-powered', which was completely false. All that had happened was that balance had been achieved and all of a sudden those used to winning simply by packing the middle were getting flayed down the flanks.

The super keeper has never existed. It was just a knock on from many forum users employing narrow tactics, which resulted in a large majority of the chances being straight shots from rushed through balls with the forward being chased by defenders and the keeper coming out. Although narrow tactics produced lots of chances, most weren't very good, and they only worked through forwards eventually converting one of their many chances or scoring through set piece exploits. Once the AI team had to push to get back in the game, these tactics did much better as there was far more space at the back and the one-dimensional chance creation wasn't as problematic.

I did a series of tests which fundamentally proved that these tactics could be completely out-performed by dynamic, football logical ones. The problem is that they did do OK statistically (bar goals), so many users flocked to them over learning how to develop a realistic tactical strategy, which might not have done as well in statistical chance creation, but scored much more easily form those chances. The over focus of the user base on stats not context is the problem here. As is the over-focus on right / wrong motivational statements, rather than understanding them contextually. This is where the documentation / in-game feedback is at its weakest and needs a lot of work.

[thesandman]

It has taken years to balance the ME to reduce the over-perfomance of narrow tactics. It was obviously not easy or it would have been achieved years ago. As soon as it happened, the first complaint was 'wide tactics are now over-powered', which was completely false. All that had happened was that balance had been achieved and all of a sudden those used to winning simply by packing the middle were getting flayed down the flanks.

Or the ME was flawed. One or the other. Anyway, I realise a lot of the criticism is subjective (and at times irrational, as is the case with real football...) at times.

The super keeper has never existed. It was just a knock on from many forum users employing narrow tactics, which resulted in a large majority of the chances being straight shots from rushed through balls with the forward being chased by defenders and the keeper coming out. Although narrow tactics produced lots of chances, most weren't very good, and they only worked through forwards eventually converting one of their many chances or scoring through set piece exploits. Once the AI team had to push to get back in the game, these tactics did much better as there was far more space at the back and the one-dimensional chance creation wasn't as problematic.

Again though, particularly pre-2d match engine days, this is speculation. You didn't KNOW that what was why this was happening. it's guesswork.

Logic follows that if you're creating a tactic that creates massive amounts of chances, you're doing something right. Especially turning off the old "long shots" thing. If you're creating >20 chances a game, you're doing something right, right? Well, apparently not.

I did a series of tests which fundamentally proved that these tactics could be completely out-performed by dynamic, football logical ones. The problem is that they did do OK statistically (bar goals), so many users flocked to them over learning how to develop a realistic tactical strategy, which might not have done as well in statistical chance creation, but scored much more easily form those chances. The over focus of the user base on stats not context is the problem here. As is the over-focus on right / wrong motivational statements, rather than understanding them contextually. This is where the documentation / in-game feedback is at its weakest and needs a lot of work.

Again, people using statistics on a game that is heavily statistics based is hardly surprising.

Especially where in some parts (as per your teamtalk example) where you're supposed to suspend real life knowledge and understanding - but now you're saying in other parts forget statistics and go with real life?

I agree though. The lack of decent documentation and in game feedback is the major issue here. The game may work perfectly, if you know what each part of the interface does. if you don't, and you're left to fumble around, then it's going to lead to massive feelings of frustration and ultimately, people - like me - just not playing any more.

[thesandman]

Buy, sell, train, bring through youngsters, tweak tactics and play.....perhaps i am in the minority but that would do for me

I read your earlier posts, and I'm in the same boat age wise, history etc.

This sums it up for me perfectly. This is exactly what a football manager game should be about. Nail those, and everything else doesn't matter.

Add in career progression etc, so you can start at the bottom and move up the chain, and reasonably competent AI opponents, and that's it.

all the rest - agents, press conferences, player interaction etc. Rubbish.

As you say. Give me CM01-02 with a 3D visual and a tactics creator and I would buy it tomorrow.

[wwfan]

Or the ME was flawed. One or the other. Anyway, I realise a lot of the criticism is subjective (and at times irrational, as is the case with real football...) at times.

It was flawed. It didn't defend the centre or attack down the flanks well enough.

Again though, particularly pre-2d match engine days, this is speculation. You didn't KNOW that what was why this was happening. it's guesswork.

Logic follows that if you're creating a tactic that creates massive amounts of chances, you're doing something right. Especially turning off the old "long shots" thing. If you're creating >20 chances a game, you're doing something right, right? Well, apparently not.

I KNOW it was happening and have spent a lot of time and effort trying to stop it from happening. The major problem is that, to most users, it isn't obvious why chances are being missed. If you have a good ME eye, you can pick it. Common reasons are that the player had to shoot blindly on the turn, he had no angle for the shot and the keeper was well positioned, he was on his weaker foot, he was moving at pace and being chased, meaning he had to hurry the shot, he was moving away from the goal at an angle too great to get in an accurate and powerful shot, he chose to shoot from too far out, he hadn't got the ball under control or combinations of above.

Add in a too liberal interpretation of CCCs and keepers getting great ratings for making lots of easy saves, and frustration results.

Again, people using statistics on a game that is heavily statistics based is hardly surprising.

Especially where in some parts (as per your teamtalk example) where you're supposed to suspend real life knowledge and understanding - but now you're saying in other parts forget statistics and go with real life?

I agree though. The lack of decent documentation and in game feedback is the major issue here. The game may work perfectly, if you know what each part of the interface does. if you don't, and you're left to fumble around, then it's going to lead to massive feelings of frustration and ultimately, people - like me - just not playing any more.

I don't agree you have to suspend real life knowledge for team talks. You only need to understand the interpretation of each one. They all work perfectly logically. I agree that documentation is a major issue here.

As for statistics, if you use a football logical tactic, then stats will be equally logical. However, exploit tactics produce unrealistic stats. Ultimately, the only stat that really matters is the scoreline. If you score goals at 1 goal in less than 7 shots created, you will do well. If you require 10 plus shots to score, you will get frustrated. Football logic tactics enable the first. Exploit tactics produce the second, because they produce lots of one dimensional chance types, which the keeper usually saves.

The problem is that people expect the exploit tactics suddenly to come good and goals per shot ratios to magically come down. When they don't, or, in most cases, get worse as opposition teams sit back and frustrate they complain. Although again lack of documentation and feedback is the main problem, it is a sign of madness to keep on doing the same thing and expect different results. If you cannot convert chances while creating many, it is something you are doing, not the game trying to hurt you. The answers are out there. However, because of the complexity / lack of documentation / bad forum theories, you have to search hard to find them. That is a real problem.

[milnerpoint]

No, it's not a 'lose' button. You mean you don't use it because you believe it to be.

Your statement is a perfect example of what I referred to in post #280. Stating as fact, something that you believe, is misleading and won't help anyone looking for guidance.

exactly, using pleased at half time during the right match will work fantastically well, i suspect people who have a problem using it are saying pleased when they should be saying "dont let your performance drop" and hence it is having the wrong effect.

[x42bn6]

exactly, using pleased at half time during the right match will work fantastically well, i suspect people who have a problem using it are saying pleased when they should be saying "dont let your performance drop" and hence it is having the wrong effect.

If a feature confuses users for whatever reason, then arguably the feature is at least partially-culpable.

Personally, if someone is pleased at what I have done, it makes me happy, encourages me and reduces the level of pressure on me, and tells me that more of the same will do just fine. In other words, it doesn't make things worse.

If people are choosing the "Pleased" option for the wrong reasons, despite their beliefs of what is going on in the game, then there is a disconnect between their perception and the game's virtual reality, and the team-talks need to be modified to ensure that users do not get confused. It is clear that some (a lot of?) users struggle with the "Pleased" option as it does not match reality.

In essence I suspect "Pleased" is a confusing label to use.

I've always said that we need more team-talk options and many more annotations, hints and descriptions, as well as assistant advice.

[THOG]

The defence will not ever try to make the release pass as it will be too risky given their defensive instructions.

They will not pass but they will constantly make clearances to midfield, especially if you've set your GK's distribution to long kick.

Of course, a tactic like that could only "complement" a highly aggressive, fluid tactic by the opposition, so generally, your point is right.

[Ginola*]

In the last two months I've got back into the game again after a few months off.

I think the problem is that in making the game as realistic as possible, there's two much to do and some of the fun has been taken out of it. Maybe have options when you start up a game of whether to include press conferences etc ?

[Eborg]

The things that keep me sticking to FM 2009 are more or less strange to some and I don't know if I'm going to move to the new versions of game.

1) Old savegame - After investing a lot of time into it and slowly reaching year 2034 over the course of three real-life-years, I just don't want to let it go, regardless of the new features. According to SI, it is impossible and will remain so to introduce a way to continue your savegame in a different FM version. Therefore, you just have to scrap your success every year and go anew which can be very frustrating, especially in LLM when you bring a small club to glory.

2) Game skin - I HATE getting to know the new skin every year. I am aware there are user-created ones that resemble the previous editions, but can't it be added as an option in new editions? You just select a old skin you're accustomed of (with changes regarding the new features of course) and slot into the game right away - it just keeps the learning curve shorter.

[Lem]

The game is basically a perfect exponent of Sod's Law at times... :-/

Personally, I have never used "I am pleased" at half-time - it just stinks of "you know something bad is going to happen".

Same if the gap is two goals or less, seems to be the instant kiss of death. It's like saying "job done/ease off" - really I want more of a "keep going" kind of talk, like "don't let your performance drop", but that doesn't seem to function as such. It's very hit and miss, and I think a lot of the tactical stuff is too. I always struggled to work out the difference between a "direct ball" tactic and "long ball" - sounds the same idea to me!

[Ginola*]

Same if the gap is two goals or less, seems to be the instant kiss of death. It's like saying "job done/ease off" - really I want more of a "keep going" kind of talk, like "don't let your performance drop", but that doesn't seem to function as such. It's very hit and miss, and I think a lot of the tactical stuff is too. I always struggled to work out the difference between a "direct ball" tactic and "long ball" - sounds the same idea to me!

Everytime I tell my team not to get complacent I lose!

[Lazaru5]

If a feature confuses users for whatever reason, then arguably the feature is at least partially-culpable.

Personally, if someone is pleased at what I have done, it makes me happy, encourages me and reduces the level of pressure on me, and tells me that more of the same will do just fine. In other words, it doesn't make things worse.

If people are choosing the "Pleased" option for the wrong reasons, despite their beliefs of what is going on in the game, then there is a disconnect between their perception and the game's virtual reality, and the team-talks need to be modified to ensure that users do not get confused. It is clear that some (a lot of?) users struggle with the "Pleased" option as it does not match reality.

In essence I suspect "Pleased" is a confusing label to use.

I've always said that we need more team-talk options and many more annotations, hints and descriptions, as well as assistant advice.

The feature confuses because people don't watch the full game, only the highlights. They see the good bits and so they're "pleased" but they forget about the bad bits that they don't see, the misplaced passes, the overconfident flicks that waste possession, the Hollywood shots that your players wouldn't "normally" take on... (tbh, I don't really know what you do and don't see in "highlight mode" but I'm assuming it's more good than bad).

The amount of times I've asked my assistant for the ht team-talk and been like "eh, wtf? why are we pleased?" or "Why are we encouraging?" or whatever because the team-talk I'd planned had been completely different to his. Generally, when I choose the one I was going to go with, we win; but leave the assman's suggestion when I've thought it should be different and I can virtually guarantee that the most we'll get is a draw. I make mistakes too, I don't deny it, sometimes I say the wrong things - we all do, c'est la vie, but the ass-man is watching the same game as me, isn't he? He's giving me feedback that suggests I should say one thing, so why does he then say something else? Doesn't make sense..

The team-talk options though are, in the main, perfectly logical - I say "in the main" because there have been many occasions where I've decided that my ht team-talk will be one thing (e.g. "don't get careless") only for the option to not be there when ht arrives and that's where the game is most frustrating. For some reason, the team-talks don't always tally with what has happened on the pitch, or rather, what has "appeared" to have happened on the pitch and we're left with a choice of options that just don't seem to fit the circumstances - thankfully it's fairly rare, but it does still seem to happen (at least to me).

Overall, although I agree the wording can be confusing, I think that the team-talk options are OK as they are. Apart from the occasional time where I'm stumped cos the option I wanted to say isn't available, I usually know well in advance of a match what my pre-match team-talk will be; I've usually decided what my half-time talk will be some time before it actually arrives; and I don't give my full-time talk until I've briefly looked over the player/match stats, ratings, etc. (I analyse it in more depth later). If I make a mistake with my team-talk, I can usually pinpoint where/when/how and try to avoid making the same mistake twice. Similarly, if my team-talk(s) have led a player(s) to have a stormer, and I can attribute it directly to the team-talk, then you know I'm using it again... as often as possible!

Team-talks are just another part of the game one has to "master" to be able to "beat" it and though SI could make the wording more "situation specific" I don't think that they are really all that difficult to "master" (or at least understand). As I said at the opening of my post, I think the problem is most likely with the "highlight mode" not giving the manager enough information in the highlights it shows for him(her) to be able to make an educated choice of team-talk.

[Lazaru5]

Everytime I tell my team not to get complacent I lose!

Then you're using it at the wrong time... what does your assistant tell you happened in his team-talk feedback?

[shirajzl]

The feature confuses because people don't watch the full game, only the highlights.

Yes, because, surprisingly enough, people have lives. People work hard all week and want to spend their few spare hours having fun by playing a football management game, not trying to figure out a certain feature they have no in-game guidelines about.

[THOG]

Yes, because, surprisingly enough, people have lives. People work hard all week and want to spend their few spare hours having fun by playing a football management game, not trying to figure out a certain feature they have no in-game guidelines about.

Well, you should be able to make these decisions by looking at match stats and the player motivation screen. Match stats are pretty useful though it seems that the player motivation screen is frequently inaccurate... which is a problem since you should be able to trust the info that the game is giving you.

Though as you said, people have lives, and if the problem does come down to full match vs. highlights, it's pretty unreasonable to expect working people to spend 90 minutes on an imaginary match.