Falling out of love with the game

[CaptainPlanet]

Is it really that difficult to just make certain options (that a large amount of people have complained about) optional without penalty?

Match Prep, Agents, Team Talks, Press Conferences, Player and Board Interactions to name but a few.

[themadsheep2001]

To me there are 2 arguments against PCs: 1) It's unintuitive and it's hard for people to master and 2) Even if you master it, it's repetitive and boring. We're always arguing in circles with Lazaru5 et al because even if the proposed reason for frustration is (2), you assign the frustration to (1).

I think you're finally getting it. To some people, repetitiveness IS the problem. Whether they have "mastered" it is irrelevant.

Your first sentence is really the crux of your disconnect with the majority of the fanbase. Your argument is circular because by your premise there can never be any feature that you don't enjoy (all you need to do is to "master" it). To another person "enjoyment" (an emotion) and "mastery" (a skill) are not necessarily so tightly linked. Furthermore the upside of the PCs (hell the whole player interaction module) are so minimal compared to the downsides that people have no incentive to master PCs fully. We can also think of this as people being loss-averse (according to behavioral economics, a very common behavior) i.e. they would rather focused on minimizing the downsides to PCs (morale drop = lost matches) than maximizing the upsides (maintaining/boosting morale), especially as there are other easier/more intuitive avenues of achieving those same upsides (winning matches!).

Personally if they can 1) minimize the repetitiveness of PCs and 2) improve the documentation and intuitiveness, I would definitely consider PCs fun. I don't think it's fair to assume just because you enjoy this "complete experience" others should have the same definition of fun. Ultimately enjoyment is a subjective matter. Also, I think not many people will agree with you that they should forget FM is a game when playing it; we're not playing Second Life or Sims here . You seem to be taking this game way more seriously than the rest of us.

Not sure what you mean by "getting it", frankly it just sounds patronising, but this has been always been my stance on Press conferences. They work very well as a tool, which is the reason i tend to like them, but they are dull. There definiely need to be fewer press conferences, and a better context, i.e they need to be much more aware of what's happening in the game world

[shirajzl]

Is it really that difficult to just make certain options (that a large amount of people have complained about) optional without penalty?

Match Prep, Agents, Team Talks, Press Conferences, Player and Board Interactions to name but a few.

That is the main question now, but no one at SI has tried to reply to it and explain if/how it would be (im)possible...

[milnerpoint]

I cant see them ever making it something you can just turn off, it would then remove a great motivating tool within the game, even if your assistant goes to them they can be very useful, it would also unbalance things if the AI used them but the human user could not.

[shirajzl]

I cant see them ever making it something you can just turn off, it would then remove a great motivating tool within the game, even if your assistant goes to them they can be very useful, it would also unbalance things if the AI used them but the human user could not.

No, the option to turn them off before starting a new save would mean just that; they do not exist as such in your game. Neither you nor AI can use something that doesn't exist.

As for "it would remove a great motivating tool", we've agreed that some of us don't like and don't want press conferences, and finally, don't consider it "a great motivating tool"...Therefore there's a plead for a possibility to turn them off.

[Äktsjon Männ]

Few people keep bringing up the argument that press conferences are simulated properly because they are dull and repetitive in reality. Yes, real press conferences are probably not exactly something a manager looks forward to with great anticipation. But then they never have to answer the exact same identically worded often illogical and out of context questions every week. They are also not limited to five responses in their answers. Therefore, the only part FM press conferences manage to properly simulate is the tedium. But not the process of press conferences themselves which actually work nothing like they play out in the game.

The other assumption is that because press conferences are something every real manager has to deal with they have to be in the game. Well, there are lots of things real managers have to do during their working day that are about as relevant to player performances as their press comments. Like, say, having a lunch. The fans of this feature fail to realize how largely irrelevant actual press conferences really are. Unless something controversial is specifically said about someone there's no chance the players will ever care enough to give them a second thought. Actual press conferences are not a 'great motivational tool' at all. They're just something that take place so journalists would have something to write about. Linking them that directly to team performance in FM is quite far detached from reality.

[Siven]

Im the sort of person who plays FM to death for months, then stops playing for a few months....before i start again.

I find its a mixture of the tactical screen not being fluid enough for me to implement the more modern real life positions and roles into the game, the boring press conferences which can have a massive effect on morale and complacency so i typically have to do them........and the teamtalks, their wording is terrible and its hard to know which teamtalk option is best to use for each player. I try, yet my brother just uses his assistant because to quote him, the options are typically useless, confusing and seem to provole random effects.

[Chris Waddle]

I used press conferences as one of the reasons I have fallen out of love with the game. As I said earlier the idea is great, the implementation is awful.

For some wierd reason the after game, conferences hardly ever ask me about the game. My first save game is always as manger of Wednesday. Yes I get asked about playing the Blunts before the derby game, but should I manage to pull off a resounding victory, most times they don't even bother to comment to ask, especially if it's a game I am expected to win. I'm sorry, this is a massive game for me and my team. I want to enter the conference and gloat. I don't just want to gloat, I want to gloat big style! I want to be able to eulogise about my team. I want to be able to tell the fans that it was for them, I want to be able to be able to mention players in particular that I thought were awesome. In reverse, should we lose to them, I want to apologise to the fans, I want to be able to pick out players and complain - so what if I upset them, I am the manager and should I chose to castigate the team in a conference that should be available to me.

Should any blunt fans be reading this, I'm not a Wednesday fans with any animosity toward you, it's just to me, the biggest game in the world. I don't care what United do in any other game, they are still Sheffield and I love Sheffield. When it comes to the derby game all I want is a victory for the Owls.

What happens in the after game conference is I get asked if I am pleased. Of course I bloody am, I've just beaten the Blunts. Do I get to elaborate, of course not. Next thing I am being asked about a player I have never heard of. As soon as I see this question I know the conference is over. I respond 'No', conference ends. Rinse and repeat. What a complete and utter waste of time! I've used the derby game as a prime example of how awful the conference is. I should still be able to do all of these things for any game, but for god's sake, if they can't even factor in derby feelings what hope is there?

As I said, this is just one of the reasons I have fallen out of love. A great idea, obviously programmed on a friday afternoon when the rest of the office are heading off to the pub. I really wished they hadn't bothered, because as it is, I don't ever want to attend another.

I'm only commenting on this as it seems to be a focal point currently. If SI want my money for FM12, they need to have put massive effort into this and the other issues I have. Until they stop these things from being pathetically dull and inconsequential then they won't get a penny from me again.

[themadsheep2001]

Chris, definitely agree with some f what you are saying. The manager interaction is terrible, why are so many greyed out?! I want to be able to say what i want and when i want from that list, I want the choice to play mind games with any manager i'm facing, not just my rivals. Give me the choice, dont choose for me

[Lazaru5]

To me there are 2 arguments against PCs: 1) It's unintuitive and it's hard for people to master and 2) Even if you master it, it's repetitive and boring. We're always arguing in circles with Lazaru5 et al because even if the proposed reason for frustration is (2), you assign the frustration to (1).

I think you're finally getting it. To some people, repetitiveness IS the problem. Whether they have "mastered" it is irrelevant.

Your first sentence is really the crux of your disconnect with the majority of the fanbase. Your argument is circular because by your premise there can never be any feature that you don't enjoy (all you need to do is to "master" it). To another person "enjoyment" (an emotion) and "mastery" (a skill) are not necessarily so tightly linked. Furthermore the upside of the PCs (hell the whole player interaction module) are so minimal compared to the downsides that people have no incentive to master PCs fully. We can also think of this as people being loss-averse (according to behavioral economics, a very common behavior) i.e. they would rather focused on minimizing the downsides to PCs (morale drop = lost matches) than maximizing the upsides (maintaining/boosting morale), especially as there are other easier/more intuitive avenues of achieving those same upsides (winning matches!).

Personally if they can 1) minimize the repetitiveness of PCs and 2) improve the documentation and intuitiveness, I would definitely consider PCs fun. I don't think it's fair to assume just because you enjoy this "complete experience" others should have the same definition of fun. Ultimately enjoyment is a subjective matter. Also, I think not many people will agree with you that they should forget FM is a game when playing it; we're not playing Second Life or Sims here . You seem to be taking this game way more seriously than the rest of us.

You've not "got" what I said, I said that the PC's open other ways to "enjoy" the game. What's not enjoyable about watching your star striker bang in a first-half hat-trick just because you got the correlation between match-odds, press-conference and team-talk right? Why isn't it "fun" to see your team beat their biggest rivals in their own backyard because you'd sufficiently taken the pressure off them with your PC answers? To me that's enjoying the game, isn't it?

Why isn't it a "Second Life" type of game? Are you the manager of a professional football team IRL? (I doubt that many of us are). The game is an emulation of RL, we take on a different persona, we "become" somebody else... i.e. the manager of a professional football team. We shout at the monitor when our "players" don't do what we expect them to do. We get frustrated with them, and shout at them - sometimes even out loud and sometimes even breaking things IRL (apparently). If they "score" we cheer, we smile, whatever, we enjoy that bit, but we're not forgetting it's a "game"? When we're playing it the game itself draws you in until you are your in-game character, that's the addiction of it...

But then, through all that, far too many people forget that the computer is simulating RL itself, that the "players" that many view as "database entries" are intended to simulate real people, how well or badly the game does that is open to debate, but if they're meant to be "real" then we have to treat them as such, at least insofar as in-game scenarios dictate. If you give proper consideration to the "player" and who "he" is, what "he's" like (or would be like IRL) the interaction makes more sense. They are given a personality for a reason, the fact that you misunderstand how that plays out in the game (or don't like it) isn't the game's fault.

You do need to use your imagination to fill in the gaps, but that's the point of games, to stimulate that area of the brain. It's not about taking the game seriously, it's just about enjoying the game and letting it draw me into it (which it's supposed to do... ) in the short time that actually I get to play it.

Not sure what you mean by "getting it", frankly it just sounds patronising, but this has been always been my stance on Press conferences. They work very well as a tool, which is the reason i tend to like them, but they are dull. There definiely need to be fewer press conferences, and a better context, i.e they need to be much more aware of what's happening in the game world

I think there should be more PC's, madsheep, both before and after a game, every game! I want the ability to call them at other times too, when signing players, selling players, leaving a club, end of season, during pre-season... hell, I want the Press on a 24-hour call-out!

But then... there needs to be "a better context, i.e they need to be much more aware of what's happening in the game world" +1

And better/more questions/answers, for sure.

Of course, there needs to be a non-negative "get-out" of press-conferences too, but I honestly do want all the above (but with limitations for those that don't "get it" )

No, the option to turn them off before starting a new save would mean just that; they do not exist as such in your game. Neither you nor AI can use something that doesn't exist.

As for "it would remove a great motivating tool", we've agreed that some of us don't like and don't want press conferences, and finally, don't consider it "a great motivating tool"...Therefore there's a plead for a possibility to turn them off.

You don't consider it a "great motivating tool" because, for you, it isn't. It can be... it's not that it isn't one, it's because you either don't understand how to use it as one or you don't use in the same way that milnerpoint and I do.

Chris, definitely agree with some f what you are saying. The manager interaction is terrible, why are so many greyed out?! I want to be able to say what i want and when i want from that list, I want the choice to play mind games with any manager i'm facing, not just my rivals. Give me the choice, dont choose for me

+1 from me too. The manager interaction is worse now than it ever was. At least in FM09 and earlier we had all of the above (and more), now we don't even get to comment on promotion/title rivals (or I couldn't at least, I mentioned it in another thread somewhere?)

[CaptainPlanet]

I've no problem with people enjoying Press Conferences. Just make them optional so as to appeal to a wider range of players.

[pigfacemonkeyman]

You don't consider it a "great motivating tool" because, for you, it isn't. It can be... it's not that it isn't one, it's because you either don't understand how to use it as one or you don't use in the same way that milnerpoint and I do.

You appear to be stuck in a loop.

[thesandman]

You've not "got" what I said, I said that the PC's open other ways to "enjoy" the game. What's not enjoyable about watching your star striker bang in a first-half hat-trick just because you got the correlation between match-odds, press-conference and team-talk right?

Because I'd rather he scored a hat trick because of the way I set my team up, they way I instructed them to play and spotting a way to beat my opponents ON THE PITCH.

Why isn't it "fun" to see your team beat their biggest rivals in their own backyard because you'd sufficiently taken the pressure off them with your PC answers? To me that's enjoying the game, isn't it?

Again, not for me. Because I would hope the way I'd coached and set up the team would have more impact.

Why isn't it a "Second Life" type of game? Are you the manager of a professional football team IRL? (I doubt that many of us are). The game is an emulation of RL, we take on a different persona, we "become" somebody else... i.e. the manager of a professional football team. We shout at the monitor when our "players" don't do what we expect them to do. We get frustrated with them, and shout at them - sometimes even out loud and sometimes even breaking things IRL (apparently). If they "score" we cheer, we smile, whatever, we enjoy that bit, but we're not forgetting it's a "game"? When we're playing it the game itself draws you in until you are your in-game character, that's the addiction of it...

And we're going around in circles.

People here are saying they are falling out of love with the game because it IS becoming more about 'a persona', and less actually about football.

They are given a personality for a reason, the fact that you misunderstand how that plays out in the game (or don't like it) isn't the game's fault.

And yet again. It's not about misunderstanding the part of the game. It's about thinking it's ruining the game.

The other problem is, the impact of press conferences etc is absolute. Ever think a manager goes into the dressing room and says "you wouldn't believe the rubbish I've just said to the press...."Do the players even read what the manager says?

Don't you think maybe, the interaction the manager actually has with the players is far more important than a press conference?

[Svenc]

Wow, this thread often still saddens me for far too many reasons to discuss them all. Everything I said on page one still applies though - players are still giving the whole interaction thing a weight it never has in the game. In fact, it's near impossible to ever really upset or unsettle a squad or player unless you're doing the outright stupid, AI managers (check their history) occasionally go completele bonkers during a press conference as they are roughly meant to be have like humans rather than empty spreadsheets - or Football Managers obsessing about a game making or breaking effect that never was there, and so on and so on. The whole thing is already being catered to those that really don't want to do anything with it - just letting the ass man do it all will do you fine. And I'm sure it will stay that way in FM12 too.

Still a very good discussion about the feedback the game provides to the player - or often doesn't. In the in-game manual, for instance, SI are giving you the advice to check the match report (lots of text) to look for text commentary that indicates results of the manager's speech - why let him do that when it could as well be displayed someplace that is not hidden beneath lots of data, numbers and text alike?

[Raybouldinho]

I've read most of the posts in this thread and thought I'd offer my 2 cents worth.

I've been playing the game since CM97/98, and whilst I havent bought every version (more to do with the poor performance of my PC at the time meaning it was sooooo slow), I have enjoyed every game that I have ever bought made by SI. The hours spent playing the game and the immersion it has offered me has by far and away been worth the cost of between £15-30 (whatever I've managed to get it for at the time!).

Obviously in the early years I was playing the game, it was pretty much a game where you picked a squad, set a formation and bought and sold players. These are the basics of any football management game, obviously. As the series has developed its obviously added more and more aspects that football managers have to deal with in their day to day role.

I think a proportion of people are becoming a little disenchanted with the Football Manager franchise as they think that a lot of the newer features, media handling, player conversations etc are having more of a direct impact on results than they would in the real world, and certainly more than it used to in previous versions of the game. I think there is very much room for improvement in all aspects of the game and I'm sure SI share that view. If they didnt you would presume that they'd just release the same game every year.

It is a very difficult job that SI have. You have to remember that ultimately Football Manager is a game. Yes, it and the games creators aims to be as realistic as possible, but as soon as you press continue for the first time after loading up a new game, you enter the realms of fantasy, it straight away no longer becomes the same football world that we see in the real world. I think a lot of people would do well to remember that. You see comments on the forums like 'Well, thats stupid, because so and so would never happen'. The thing is, nothing surprises me any more in football. Just as an example, this time last year would anyone have ever thought that Wayne Rooney would be 2 months or so away from handing in a transfer request at Man Utd?

To strike the balance between having the game as realistic as possible without detracting from the enjoyment of the game is very difficult, and SI will never please everyone. There are people that are asking for more media and player interaction, as this is what managers are seen by us to be doing. Then there are people that are asking for more input into training and more tactical match day options. Then there are people who are asking for more control over financial matters and more interaction with the board. To add all of these things, and to please everyone, adds a lot into the game. SI could possibly be accused in some situations of rushing certain features, not testing the game sufficiently or even not working to fix problems quickly enough. However I do think that they are genuinely trying their best to get as many features in the game as possible without compromising its enjoyment.

The issue I believe for a lot of players who have probably been playing the game for 10+ years is that obviously as more and more features get put in, the more complex the game becomes. Someone who played CM97/98 and hasnt played any version of the game since would take an age to get used to FM2011/FM2012 and would probably need to use the tutorial. A lot of people still want the old days where the game was relatively simple and a season could be done extremely quickly. Unfortunately, this aint gonna happen with the depth of the game that we have now. I think nostalgia rose tints some peoples spectacles a bit more than they would like to admit.

[milnerpoint]

two very very good posts there from svenc and raybouldinho!

[shirajzl]

You don't consider it a "great motivating tool" because, for you, it isn't. It can be... it's not that it isn't one, it's because you either don't understand how to use it as one or you don't use in the same way that milnerpoint and I do.

Do you even read other posts before you reply? You're just saying the same thing over and over again, but in somewhat different words and phrases.

Again, people DO understand press conferences, but DON'T like them.

[themadsheep2001]

Do you even read other posts before you reply? You're just saying the same thing over and over again, but in somewhat different words and phrases.

Again, people DO understand press conferences, but DON'T like them.

I wonder if you read other posts, as its clear some people don't understand press conferences, while others do understand them and find them dull, and dont like them.

[Lem]

IMO - don't let your performance drop - is almost the exact wording I would use to guard against complacency, surely? I'm now talking wholely and solely about the IN GAME wording. Not any addition bits you've added or worked out on your own.

Considering it's also the option that gets changed to "don't get complacent" in cup finals/second leg games I'd say you're spot on.

[themadsheep2001]

Considering it's also the option that gets changed to "don't get complacent" in cup finals/second leg games I'd say you're spot on.

They act differently, but the wording for team talks in general is vague, add no documentation to go with it and its a bit of a mess really. Obviously its possible to get to grips with them but its needlessly difficult, which is shame becuase they work well once you do get to grips.

As an aside, dont get this notion at all that they are overpowered, they are merely one variable. A poor team talk can easily be overcome by in game tactical changes

[Lem]

I tend to only use a few that work for me. The opportunity to experiment in an unimportant fixture under the right conditions rarely comes up. They're very vague though, and judging from comments here completely counter-intuitive. It actually sounds like I've been using completely the wrong ones to what I was aiming for, but they're working.

[themadsheep2001]

I tend to only use a few that work for me. The opportunity to experiment in an unimportant fixture under the right conditions rarely comes up. They're very vague though, and judging from comments here completely counter-intuitive. It actually sounds like I've been using completely the wrong ones to what I was aiming for, but they're working.

They are largely contextual, so depending how good or bad your side/opp is some you may never use. You cant experiment against a weak side, because it'd be different against a strong side.

For the fans is one i never used, till i found out it sits somewhere between "expect a win" and "we can win this".

[CityAndColour]

I have approached team talks and press conferences the same way for 20 seasons, and in that time have won the EPL three times with Forest Green, along with a UEFA Cup and a League Cup. I also think both features are ridiculously confusing and non-sensical at times.

I also know that what press conference answer I give doesn't change the fact that full backs can't track runs, defenders stand on the spot, marking from set pieces is broken, the 3D produces an extraordinary amount of visual one on ones and on the whole, there's no balance or patience in the 3D. You play a good team, they play Barca/Youtube football on speed, you play a bad team and you do that.

And another 800 new features? I'm falling out of love with the game because it seems the real issues and the most important issues get overlooked, version after version.

"It's a know issue and under review" four releases in a row.

[shirajzl]

I wonder if you read other posts, as its clear some people don't understand press conferences, while others do understand them and find them dull, and dont like them.

Well, yeah, I forgot to add "some" people...

The main issue in general is what CityandColour said; the game's has had some deep issues for years now, but they're constantly overlooked. Maybe they have tried fixing them, but found it too difficult/time consuming. However, adding a bunch of new features is not a solution either.

[themadsheep2001]

Well, yeah, I forgot to add "some" people...

The main issue in general is what CityandColour said; the game's has had some deep issues for years now, but they're constantly overlooked. Maybe they have tried fixing them, but found it too difficult/time consuming. However, adding a bunch of new features is not a solution either.

Wholeheartedly agree, but we dont know what been been fixed/changed for FM12 yet, or what the new features are. I'll reserve any judgement until i get the demo

[daylight]

I think they have basically jumped the shark with this title.

I would pin point the time to when they released the game with stadiums in the match engine that had no people in them.

Like Raybouldinho I have played since 97/98 edition and have to say only the 3d match option has added any value to the game for me,all the team talks(for the fans at start of game and either I want to see more from you or encourage work just fine) and dealing with agents and the useless media "interaction" does nothing for me,It just slows the game down.

Yet again they are doing there yearly release with mostly dribble being added..great now you can use a different tone of voice when giving your team talk,wow that sounds ...yawn.

I have learned my lesson in the last few years and will not be buying at release,I may well pick it up next year on the Steam summer sale after the 3rd patch has been added or indeed may just give the game a miss for even a couple of years,there need to get the game out before Christmas every year regardless of the state it is in is basically taking the p*** out of the people that buy it.

Who knows maybe even Championship Manager series catch's up in a couple of years and I may turn my attention to that title for my football manager urges

[Lem]

They are largely contextual, so depending how good or bad your side/opp is some you may never use. You cant experiment against a weak side, because it'd be different against a strong side.

For the fans is one i never used, till i found out it sits somewhere between "expect a win" and "we can win this".

I always took it to be a motivator for rival matches (I think this was mentioned in the in game help somewhere). I used to use it sparingly so as not to lessen it's effects when I need it, but it doesn't seem to work now so I use other things.

It's almost always the option my ass man suggests though, which is why I feel forced to do team talks when I'd rather not.

[themadsheep2001]

I always took it to be a motivator for rival matches (I think this was mentioned in the in game help somewhere). I used to use it sparingly so as not to lessen it's effects when I need it, but it doesn't seem to work now so I use other things.

It's almost always the option my ass man suggests though, which is why I feel forced to do team talks when I'd rather not.

That's exactly how i used to use it (exactly because thats how its described in the in game tips), a perfect case of a vague team talk. And its things like that which turn people off them entirely. Now add that to all the other similar "little" issues and its easy to see why people become disillusioned. Now I'm no "fanboy" (hate using the word, but cant think of a better one to use), but neither will i jump on the bandwagon and blame the game for everything. Many of the features "work", but they are of often so vague/ or tedious that effort to get to know them makes it a chore. That shouldn't happen. Now this game is always going to be more complex, but then they need to make the game more obvious as they do so. I wont talk about the features since i don't know what they are, they may actually be the things we want. But i would really like to hear more about the core stuff, just to know what's going on with it, what's the direction, is it possible to see a stronger AI in the new future, just how hard is it do strengthen it etc?

[Pangaea]

I've read most of the posts in this thread and thought I'd offer my 2 cents worth.

I've been playing the game since CM97/98, and whilst I havent bought every version (more to do with the poor performance of my PC at the time meaning it was sooooo slow), I have enjoyed every game that I have ever bought made by SI. The hours spent playing the game and the immersion it has offered me has by far and away been worth the cost of between £15-30 (whatever I've managed to get it for at the time!).

Obviously in the early years I was playing the game, it was pretty much a game where you picked a squad, set a formation and bought and sold players. These are the basics of any football management game, obviously. As the series has developed its obviously added more and more aspects that football managers have to deal with in their day to day role.

I think a proportion of people are becoming a little disenchanted with the Football Manager franchise as they think that a lot of the newer features, media handling, player conversations etc are having more of a direct impact on results than they would in the real world, and certainly more than it used to in previous versions of the game. I think there is very much room for improvement in all aspects of the game and I'm sure SI share that view. If they didnt you would presume that they'd just release the same game every year.

It is a very difficult job that SI have. You have to remember that ultimately Football Manager is a game. Yes, it and the games creators aims to be as realistic as possible, but as soon as you press continue for the first time after loading up a new game, you enter the realms of fantasy, it straight away no longer becomes the same football world that we see in the real world. I think a lot of people would do well to remember that. You see comments on the forums like 'Well, thats stupid, because so and so would never happen'. The thing is, nothing surprises me any more in football. Just as an example, this time last year would anyone have ever thought that Wayne Rooney would be 2 months or so away from handing in a transfer request at Man Utd?

To strike the balance between having the game as realistic as possible without detracting from the enjoyment of the game is very difficult, and SI will never please everyone. There are people that are asking for more media and player interaction, as this is what managers are seen by us to be doing. Then there are people that are asking for more input into training and more tactical match day options. Then there are people who are asking for more control over financial matters and more interaction with the board. To add all of these things, and to please everyone, adds a lot into the game. SI could possibly be accused in some situations of rushing certain features, not testing the game sufficiently or even not working to fix problems quickly enough. However I do think that they are genuinely trying their best to get as many features in the game as possible without compromising its enjoyment.

The issue I believe for a lot of players who have probably been playing the game for 10+ years is that obviously as more and more features get put in, the more complex the game becomes. Someone who played CM97/98 and hasnt played any version of the game since would take an age to get used to FM2011/FM2012 and would probably need to use the tutorial. A lot of people still want the old days where the game was relatively simple and a season could be done extremely quickly. Unfortunately, this aint gonna happen with the depth of the game that we have now. I think nostalgia rose tints some peoples spectacles a bit more than they would like to admit.

I think this neatly sums up a lot of the frustration we are seeing in this thread.

I have played the game since CM1, back when 1-4-5 formations or something like that resulted in massive wins because the match engine didn't expect it and couldn't handle it. But I digress. It was great to be able to spin through seasons because what I love most about the game is building up teams from the bottom. Hard to do that when the game now requires 24+ hours to get through a season (on my computer at least).

A lot of great stuff has been added to the game to make it more realistic; features I think most of us thought were good at the time. I've been fine with team talks so far because it's done with one mouse click most of the time. And thankfully the ass man can handle the press with minimum fuss or negative consequences. But despite these things, the game is slower now and I spend most of my gaming time reading this forum or other webpages while waiting for the game to finish processing (and I don't load zillion leagues and players). That is the most frustrating part I think.

It has become apparent that FM seems to be really good versions every 2 years. The "pix features" games usually turn out very well with few (serious) bugs. Loved FM08, didn't buy 09. Loved FM10 (playing it at the moment). Never bought FM11. And from the look of things FM12 will be a good game too. Then the jury will be out on FM13, as I expect new 'revolutionary' features to be implemented then. I'd love revised training in FM12 or 13, but from what I've seen so far it looks like that may be done for 13 at the earliest. If it was in 12 I assume it would have been announced already.

[philly_flyer10]

As an aside, dont get this notion at all that they are overpowered, they are merely one variable. A poor team talk can easily be overcome by in game tactical changes

Disagree, using pleased or delighted at HT or I expect a win before the game has a massive effect on the outcome and its never good. I found this out by reloading games and trying different talks to learn about them. Try "I expect a win" away from from or when you less than 2-1 on to win at home and you will lose virtually every game even if youre favourites.

[themadsheep2001]

Disagree, using pleased or delighted at HT or I expect a win before the game has a massive effect on the outcome and its never good. I found this out by reloading games and trying different talks to learn about them. Try "I expect a win" away from from or when you less than 2-1 on to win at home and you will lose virtually every game even if youre favourites.

I use pleased all the time when its warranted( when im playing well across the board and im 2/3 up, normally go on to get 4 or 5 and some cases 6 while also using little tactical changes), and it works. And same with expect a win if my team has been on a streak, and look a bit complacent, though if im going to be close favourites and not nearing complacency i'd use "for the fans". So that kinda falls down there. Its about knowing when to use it for your side

[wwfan]

Disagree, using pleased or delighted at HT or I expect a win before the game has a massive effect on the outcome and its never good.

I regularly use 'pleased', and sometimes 'delighted', at half time. And nearly always go on to win. If 'pleased' didn't work and turned my team into gibbering wrecks, I'd lose at least 1/3 of my matches every season. Same for 'expect a win'. Using it when it makes sense brings rewards. Either you are doing something wrong or I am lying or deluded.

I found this out by reloading games and trying different talks to learn about them. Try "I expect a win" away from from or when you less than 2-1 on to win at home and you will lose virtually every game even if youre favourites.

Teamtalks are contextual. Talks that won't work for one game or one scoreline will work for another. Reloading games to 'discover' how they work is a complete waste of time.

[dreghorn2]

Teamtalks ugh..

I put together a reasonable Liverpool squad in season 2, created a basic 4-2-3-1 and ran together two, undefeated into late February, squads (both ending in crash dumps but that is a different complaint).

I played DMs at fullback and one of my strikers was a straight AMC, i thought i was quite the tactical expert. I noticed however that one of my strikers didn't seem to get involved enough in the action so i played him at AMC, he still didn't but i kept winning, then i really started to experiment, game after game i moved my forward players into different positions (i mean all over, never the same, game in game out), and, i kept on winning. The key of course, was teamtalks i knew how my team responded to them.

I was much humbled but very concerned, i just kept my team reasonably fit and gave the right teamtalks and i was practically unstoppable. After the 2nd crash i stopped playing.

I am a long time reader of this and many FM sites, and love the tactical side of the game. Tactics, in my humble opinion, have taken a back seat ( a very back seat) to the motivational aspect of the game.

Much to my sadness.

[thesandman]

I am a long time reader of this and many FM sites, and love the tactical side of the game. Tactics, in my humble opinion, have taken a back seat ( a very back seat) to the motivational aspect of the game.

Much to my sadness.

Yep. How I feel.

My real point is that instead of all this 'fluff' around the edge of the games, where team talks, morale etc seem to over rule everything, how about fixing things that really matter (or at least making them great).

Here's some highlights from another thread...

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/272229-AI-Buying-Philosophy.-Is-it-a-bug

Why after three seasons in the game do most clubs have the exact same players in the exact same positions as at the start of the game?

Result of poor game AI. They don't/won't buy players for the positions they actually need, and rarely are any bids for the big-time players made. It's why Utd never replace Carrick, Berbatov and don't give youngsters like Wellbeck a chance. A team like City, for example, will 5 or 6 AMRLC's, but neglect central defence.

It's an illogical and poor AI system, that's all.

If someone has a long-term save going they should post some screen shots of their current AI-managed Champions League holders, AI-managed Premiership, La Liga, and Seire A championship squads to show just how poor they become compared to how they start out in season 2010/11.

Maybe then SI would take note of how flawed the core of this game really is.

I've thought about doing it myself - including a massive write up with stats and graphs showing just how weak the entire gameworld becomes with each passing season, but to be honest I really don't have the energy anymore because I know SI won't bother looking, and if they did they still probably wouldn't comment on it. They never do when it comes to AI team building and transfer policy.

Its seems its always destined to be a game for short-term players. Play 5 or 6 seasons, quit and start a new game... rinse and repeat

. I'm hoping this new feature manage anywhere will encourage more players to keep playing their saves longer, then more people will notice the flaw and complain about it.

Its pretty commond knowledge that the AI is flat terrible in squad building and newgen development.

So, this is all part of it for me. These "side games" (that's what they are to me, these chats and stuff) are becoming more and more important - so much so as dreghorn2 has posted its' more important than his tactics - than the actual football aspect of the game; and the important parts, the core of any football game - the opposition managers AI, the matches themselves, tactics, the transfer system - are as flawed as they have been for years, and seem to be getting little attention.

[thesandman]

and another thread echoing the same sentiments...

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php/272261-Poor-AI-squad-building-means-the-game-gets-significantly-easier-after-the-first-few-season

[philly_flyer10]

I am a long time reader of this and many FM sites, and love the tactical side of the game. Tactics, in my humble opinion, have taken a back seat ( a very back seat) to the motivational aspect of the game.

Much to my sadness.

Exactly, which is why I quit too, I want it to be realistic and not have to schedule a mid week game against a nobody to have a chance to win the w/e game because the morale is so poor.

You can go months without losing with high morale without even touching the tactics but on the other hand you can go months without winning if you get very poor morale. My team lost 4-0 at home in the 1st game and then went to Everton and won 1-0. That can never happen in FM because theyd be all Emoed out and would be practically slitting their wrists before the game. Morale doesnt change drastically after 1 win or loss like it does in FM unless its a very unexpected win or loss.

FM became a game where its like you have to keep a power up at 100% to succeed.

[themadsheep2001]

Exactly, which is why I quit too, I want it to be realistic and not have to schedule a mid week game against a nobody to have a chance to win the w/e game because the morale is so poor.

You can go months without losing with high morale without even touching the tactics but on the other hand you can go months without winning if you get very poor morale. My team lost 4-0 at home in the 1st game and then went to Everton and won 1-0. That can never happen in FM because theyd be all Emoed out and would be practically slitting their wrists before the game. Morale doesnt change drastically after 1 win or loss like it does in FM unless its a very unexpected win or loss.

FM became a game where its like you have to keep a power up at 100% to succeed.

The bold isnt particularly true to be fair. I lost 5-1 to Real Madrid (playing as United), then went on to win my next 9 games on the trot. It certainly can happen in FM

[wwfan]

Exactly, which is why I quit too, I want it to be realistic and not have to schedule a mid week game against a nobody to have a chance to win the w/e game because the morale is so poor.

You can go months without losing with high morale without even touching the tactics but on the other hand you can go months without winning if you get very poor morale. My team lost 4-0 at home in the 1st game and then went to Everton and won 1-0. That can never happen in FM because theyd be all Emoed out and would be practically slitting their wrists before the game. Morale doesnt change drastically after 1 win or loss like it does in FM unless its a very unexpected win or loss.

FM became a game where its like you have to keep a power up at 100% to succeed.

No, that is one way of doing well. In FM, as in real life, some managers succeed by developing a highly motivated squad full of determined players. Alex Ferguson has been very explicit about this being his modus operandi. When he determined that he needed a bit more tactical nous to succeed in Europe, he hired a tactical expert to work with him in this area. The expert has since failed in his own management career, largely because he doesn't have Ferguson's expertise in man-management and squad development.

Other excellent tacticians have failed because of their poor man-management skills. Others have failed because they haven't run a disciplined enough ship. Others haven't been able to be tactically flexible enough to cope with the rigours of the top-level game. Read Gary Neville's damning critique of Glen Hoddle, Kevin Keegan, Steve McClaren and, to a lesser extent, Sven Goran Eriksen, as evidence.

Tactical expertise is almost never enough in the modern game to guarantee success. The system approaches of Sacchi, Lobanovskyi and Bilardo will fail in the modern game as they will struggle to control the egos and over-confidence of hyped up superstars believing they are bigger than the team. If you cannot control the players, then you will not do well in modern football.

However, that is not to say the tactical side does not have its merits. Some managers develop systems around their players (Guardiola at Barcelona), others build squads around systems (Wenger's footballing philosophy being a prime example, although it seems to be struggling in his third attempt to develop a great team), others remain extremely pragmatic and align tactics to their squad strengths and match requirements (Mourinho and Benitez, possible Dalglish, are good examples), whereas others still fit square pegs into round tactical holes, sticking religiously to a system no matter who is in the team (Allardyce, perhaps Capello). In contrast, managers such as Redknapp and Hodgson are motivators with very simple tactical plans (fast and fluid in Harry's case, direct and positionally rigid in Roy's).

It is perfectly possible to build different tactical systems in FM. I have succeeded using British-style attacking systems, continental style counter-attacking ones, Argentinian enganche centred ones, Brazilian rigid centre v flair wide and top ones, controlled Germanic efficiency, Italian defensive systems supporting a TQ/poacher frontline and pragmatically switching tactics to cope with opposition strength, conditions, scorelines etc. However, for any of them to work you need the following:

1. A good understanding of real life tactical theory and the ability to translate it into the TC
   
2. The ability to build and maintain a disciplined and well-motivated squad
   

If you can do that, then you will do well. If you also build a high class squad, you'll dominate, as, over time, the AI squad building won't be as good as yours. Good players playing well are always the most important thing.

An alternative method, and one that has always proved popular over the years, is developing a super-tactic that breaks the ME. If you have one of these (and they are getting less efficacious as the ME grows in sophistication) and have a good squad, the following will happen:

1. When the team plays well, the tactic will outperform the AI tactic enough to take advantage of the ME holes you are exploiting
   
2. When the team doesn't play well, the AI tactic will rip through the holes that your tactic unavoidably has (if it is exploiting a hole it will leave holes of its own to do so)
   

If this is the way you lay, you will see three things on a regular basis:

1. Your team regularly creating lots of chances but converting few of them
   
2. Your team occasionally playing horrifically badly and getting ripped apart by an inferior side
   
3. Your team losing to one shot, one goal or conceding late, soft equalisers
   

Furthermore, if this is your method of playing, team talks / morale issues will seem to be the key factor for everything, largely because it is the only thing making any difference to your game. If you employ tactical solutions that enable goals to come from different sources depending on the opposition formation / match conditions (shouts really help here), then you won't worry about player morale very much. You'll try to keep it high, but you can cope with bad performances.

Sorry for the long post, but I get fed up with people who have never written a word about tactics complain that the game is no longer tactically sophisticated enough and that teamtalks are everything. The tactics are far more sophisticated and dynamic than they were a few years ago. You just haven't embraced them. I'd argue that nearly everybody who is complaining about teamtalks being hugely overly influential is playing in a very 'gamey' way ands hasn't really thought through or doesn't really understand their tactics or football tactics generally (every time thus far somebody complaining about this has forwarded me their tactics, this has been the case). I've nothing against people wanting to win by doing this, but I do think their conclusions are badly skewed and should be countered accordingly.

[shirajzl]

Well, I can employ the simplest 442, do the team talks right and win most of the time. That's your way of tactics being sophisticated? The point is that players morale shouldn't matter that much. It may be realistic, but that doesn't necessarily means it's fun. The developers of this game seem to think if you add a bunch of features/duties that RL managers have, the game would be better, even if those features are tedious, confusing and/or repetitive. This is a game, first and foremost. Thus it should include everything that is fun, not everything that's realistic. Classic overkill.

[philly_flyer10]

Teamtalks are everything, I never even changed my tactics. I won promotion in the 1st season and did well in the prem.

People arent complaining its hard, its too easy once you get on a run but it real life its much more random.

Having played a decent level of football for a long time, I can tell you morale is wiped clean once you start the game. You might get a "oh here we go again" if you concede 1st when on a losing run but apart from that, it has little effect, in FM morale is more important than anything.

[wwfan]

Well, I can employ the simplest 442, do the team talks right and win most of the time. That's your way of tactics being sophisticated? The point is that players morale shouldn't matter that much. It may be realistic, but that doesn't necessarily means it's fun. The developers of this game seem to think if you add a bunch of features/duties that RL managers have, the game would be better, even if those features are tedious, confusing and/or repetitive. This is a game, first and foremost. Thus it should include everything that is fun, not everything that's realistic. Classic overkill.

It is relatively easy to build a basic 4-4-2. As it should be for anyone versed in British football.

Which team/s are you using when you win so easily? What is most of the time?

Have you ever tried to develop a counter-attacking system reliant on deep-lying playmakers that plays keep ball at the back and counters with lightening speed?

Have you tried to develop an Argentinian style 4-3-1-2, with an enganche as the fulcrum?

Have you tried to do well without buying players top quality players?

Have you tried to change your tactics to get back in a game when your players are lacking in morale or motivation, or do you just assume 'this is the match I'l lose because my team talk was bad?'

Teamtalks are everything, I never even changed my tactics. I won promotion in the 1st season and did well in the prem.

People arent complaining its hard, its too easy once you get on a run but it real life its much more random.

Having played a decent level of football for a long time, I can tell you morale is wiped clean once you start the game. You might get a "oh here we go again" if you concede 1st when on a losing run but apart from that, it has little effect, in FM morale is more important than anything.

Did you even read my previous post? It was pretty explicit in pointing out that if you were using a tactic that did well through exploiting an ME hole, exactly what you are saying happens would happen. I suspect your tactic is, accidentally or by design, exploiting an ME hole or two.

As for your second paragraph, I find that absurd. Anyone who has played sport at any serious level will recognise that confidence is key. If you lose belief, then you are going to lose an awful lot of matches.

[philly_flyer10]

But you dont go out think youre going to lose, you dont lose all confidence just because you lost the previous game, it would take a horrible run of results to lose confidence, not 1 loss.

My tactic didnt exploit a ME hole, I tried a test and they went on a massive losing run once their confidence went to very low. The tactic did not matter. The only important thing was keeping morale very high. Id win with it at very high and lose with it at very low.

[themadsheep2001]

But you dont go out think youre going to lose, you dont lose all confidence just because you lost the previous game, it would take a horrible run of results to lose confidence, not 1 loss.

My tactic didnt exploit a ME hole, I tried a test and they went on a massive losing run once their confidence went to very low. The tactic did not matter. The only important thing was keeping morale very high. Id win with it at very high and lose with it at very low.

and yet you can win with morale low and lose with morale high. Morale isnt some all deciding factor that makes everything invalid

[wwfan]

But you dont go out think youre going to lose, you dont lose all confidence just because you lost the previous game, it would take a horrible run of results to lose confidence, not 1 loss.

Not, one loss, no. But you seemed to be talking about streaks of form.

My tactic didnt exploit a ME hole, I tried a test and they went on a massive losing run once their confidence went to very low. The tactic did not matter. The only important thing was keeping morale very high. Id win with it at very high and lose with it at very low.

Which is still exactly as I stated in my earlier post. If the tactic has structural holes, it will do fine when the players are pumped and collapse when morale is low. If you upload it somewhere, I'd be happy to provide a detailed analysis. If I'm wrong and it doesn't have illogical structure and isn't exploiting anything, I'll humbly apologise and move on.

[dreghorn2]

Sorry for the long post, but I get fed up with people who have never written a word about tactics complain that the game is no longer tactically sophisticated enough and that teamtalks are everything. The tactics are far more sophisticated and dynamic than they were a few years ago. You just haven't embraced them. I'd argue that nearly everybody who is complaining about teamtalks being hugely overly influential is playing in a very 'gamey' way ands hasn't really thought through or doesn't really understand their tactics or football tactics generally (every time thus far somebody complaining about this has forwarded me their tactics, this has been the case). I've nothing against people wanting to win by doing this, but I do think their conclusions are badly skewed and should be countered accordingly.

Sorry-- with all due respect to someone very passionate about the game, and someone whom i have read frequently throughout the years, i could not disagree more strongly.

I am North American and do not have the background to allow my teams, despite my research, to succeed tactically to the levels i have achieved, without my team talk acumen-- it is a simple as that, nothing else.

The game claims/hopes to be deep and sophisticated, it simply is not. I am not, repeat not, a tactical genius but can win playing players out of position, players in roles they are not accomplished in, and players playing a different position practically every game, as long as they are comparable in skill level to the league they participate in.

Thats it, no more. Simple as, and its a shame.

[shirajzl]

It is relatively easy to build a basic 4-4-2. As it should be for anyone versed in British football.

Which team/s are you using when you win so easily? What is most of the time?

Have you ever tried to develop a counter-attacking system reliant on deep-lying playmakers that plays keep ball at the back and counters with lightening speed?

Have you tried to develop an Argentinian style 4-3-1-2, with an enganche as the fulcrum?

Have you tried to do well without buying players top quality players?

Have you tried to change your tactics to get back in a game when your players are lacking in morale or motivation, or do you just assume 'this is the match I'l lose because my team talk was bad?'

Tactics in FM are elaborate if you want them to be, I give you that. However, the point is you can keep everything under control without bothering much about tactics and focusing on keeping your players' morale up. That shouldn't be the case, it should be vice versa.

[philly_flyer10]

and yet you can win with morale low and lose with morale high.

Of course you can or streaks would never end but its a fact streaks go on to long both ways and thats all due to the over important morale.

I uninstalled the game when I realised I should never criticise a loss, realised that 5 very easy games was the way to start pre season or thought about arranging a friendly to build up morale.

[themadsheep2001]

Of course you can or streaks would never end but its a fact streaks go on to long both ways and thats all due to the over important morale.

I uninstalled the game when I realised I should never criticise a loss, realised that 5 very easy games was the way to start pre season or thought about arranging a friendly to build up morale.

Its not a fact at all, i frequently criticise losses, far more than i sympathise. if it was fact i should be struggling everytime i do so, yet I dont.

[philly_flyer10]

Tactics in FM are elaborate if you want them to be, I give you that. However, the point is you can keep everything under control without bothering much about tactics and focusing on keeping your players' morale up. That shouldn't be the case, it should be vice versa.

Im glad someone gets it, you should not be scared to lay into your team because morale will drop massively.

Thats my style of management and theres no point playing if you have to treat the whole team like wrist slashing emos and cant criticise them after your prem team was just beaten at home by rochdale.

[dreghorn2]

Have you tried to do well without buying players top quality players?

Have you tried to change your tactics to get back in a game when your players are lacking in morale or motivation, or do you just assume 'this is the match I'l lose because my team talk was bad?'

.

Just as an aside, my tactic was a 4-2-3-1 that SFraser discussed in a FM 10 thread. Far from gamey. I think the only alterations i used to make were to change from balanced to very fluid and back -- random really-- but as long as i told Luis Suarez 'i have faith', the worst he would do was be never truly upset. I had the rest of my squad pretty much figured out as well.