Football Manager 2014 - Update 14.2.2 - Feedback Thread

[Brendanlacey]

Hey Ive been offline for a few weeks and having done a search cant find exactly an answer..

Has the bug with starting unemployed where no clubs will hire been fixed?

[HUNT3R]

Hey Ive been offline for a few weeks and having done a search cant find exactly an answer..

Has the bug with starting unemployed where no clubs will hire been fixed?

Yes, it has.

[Brendanlacey]

Super dooper great work!

[Jimbokav1971]

I think it would help legibility if FM used a font with an outline to get round the low contrast/clashing colours problem. Black or white depending on how light/dark the colours are. Get the wrong kit colours and you can find yourself wanting to change clubs just so the commentary is readable!

It's amazing how something so basic can have such a huge impact in the game.

[jujigatame]

But this isn't really true, and to be honest I think its very misleading to tell someone they can't count on consistency.

How isn't it true? I mean, it's true based on the existence of the hidden "consistency" attribute alone, but more than that it seems very clear in some matches that your players are simply not trying as hard as usual, due to some combination of consistency/complacency/nervousness/etc. It's still possible to win those games, but it's obvious that the team isn't playing the same way it had previously.

[themadsheep2001]

How isn't it true? I mean, it's true based on the existence of the hidden "consistency" attribute alone, but more than that it seems very clear in some matches that your players are simply not trying as hard as usual, due to some combination of consistency/complacency/nervousness/etc. It's still possible to win those games, but it's obvious that the team isn't playing the same way it had previously.

Having things that affect consistency (positively or negatively) isn't remotely the same as saying "you cannot count on any sort of consistency"

[jujigatame]

I know how you feel because being an "oldy", the commentary was often what I looked for to gauge the significance of something that seemed insignificant to me on the pitch but was deemed a key highlight, (ie. why was it key? What was I missing?) I have been sorely tempted to use the editor for the first time just to change the colours but have managed to restrain myself.

Unlike jujigatame, I don't have an issue with using just 1 tactic, and have found the very consistency that he says he lacks over the course of an 11 season save. The question isn's so much, "Is that consistency acheivable in FM14", (because some have proved that it is), but is the commentary a useful enough tool on it's own for you to be able to analyse the game and react accordingly.

If you keep a beady eye on the stats, then I would say probably yes, but it's gonna be an awful tough job if I'm honest.

[Edit]

Can I just say, that the idea of playing match after match after match for season on season without tweaking seems completely ridiculous to me. Absolutely brain-dead idiotic. If you are defending very deep, but you are playing against a really dominant huge TM that is lacking in pace, then doesn't basic common sense tell you to defend higher up just against this bloke? By the same token, if you are playing a high defensive line but playing against a team that you think will counter-attack you with lots of pace, doesn't it seem sensible to consider defending slightly deeper? I'm not saying that you change your whole tactic, but if you aren't willing to "tweak" stuff like this then you deserve exactly what you get in my opinion. (Not aimed at lennon67 by the way).

Except it's difficult and time consuming to know what tweaks to make, and I'm highly dubious anyway that those tweaks have anything more than negligible effects (on actual odds of winning) when combined with morale/motivation, consistency, player quality, luck, etc. The assman and backroom advice are 99.9% useless. I might change my mentality 1 notch up or down depending on opponent quality, or change between a few different similar tactics depending on available personnel, but I am never going to be some sort of wizard of micromanagement without significant help, and I believe that those that fancy themselves as such are essentially consuming a placebo.

[themadsheep2001]

Except it's difficult and time consuming to know what tweaks to make, and I'm highly dubious anyway that those tweaks have anything more than negligible effects (on actual odds of winning) when combined with morale/motivation, consistency, player quality, luck, etc. The assman and backroom advice are 99.9% useless. I might change my mentality 1 notch up or down depending on opponent quality, or change between a few different similar tactics depending on available personnel, but I am never going to be some sort of wizard of micromanagement without significant help, and I believe that those that fancy themselves as such are essentially consuming a placebo.

Then you'd be quite wrong in truth, and as long as you subscribe to that line of thinking, you're going to have the same issues over and over.

[jujigatame]

Having things that affect consistency (positively or negatively) isn't remotely the same as saying "you cannot count on any sort of consistency"

How so? I don't understand your point.

[Jimbokav1971]

jijigatame. I must just be really really really lucky with San Marino then. (Placebo)

[HUNT3R]

I'm not the best tactician. I made up for it by watching matches in full. Then I'd make the adjustments in-match as I notice little things.

This season, I decided I'm going to watch games in Comprehensive. I only ever switched between 2 tactics. One a counter tactic. The other a Control tactic. I took a relegation favourite to 8th out of 16 teams.

I didn't feel as "in control" as when I did watching full matches, because my tactics aren't the best and I can't read stats and know what's going wrong. Still, nothing felt "random".

[tomtuck01]

This kind of apologist crap needs to stop. The Porto keeper ffs.

Indeed the Porto goalkeeper doesn't ever make mistakes. Deary me.

I bet people don't moan when it goes for them..................

[hubx]

sorry maybe it is not allowed to ask this, but when will a new update be released with the winter transfers ??

[themadsheep2001]

How so? I don't understand your point.

Consistency is possible but it's upto you as a manager to help maintain that. From recognising an issue in match and turning a drawing/losing position into a winning one, to keeping inflated egos in check when on a good run. It's about recognising the factors be it tactical, player ability or man management, and trying to keep them in your favour.

[tomtuck01]

sorry maybe it is not allowed to ask this, but when will a new update be released with the winter transfers ??

It has been asked and aswered numerous times. A quick scan of the previous page will tell you.

[jujigatame]

Then you'd be quite wrong in truth, and as long as you subscribe to that line of thinking, you're going to have the same issues over and over.

No, I don't think I'm wrong at all. I've played over 250 hours of FM14. Much of the game is down to luck, and anyone who's spent a significant amount of time playing it should agree to at least some degree. We all know that you can replay the same match with the same tactic and personnel and see a completely different result. This is exacerbated by the fact that defensive errors and goalkeeping errors are fairly prevalent in this ME. You might drop 3 points because of errors that simply wouldn't happen if you replayed the match. That's part of the game. In addition, morale/motivation/consistency have major effects on player performance. Sometimes players storm after the ball, sometimes they seemingly can't be bothered.

The idea that making small tweaks like "higher line" in place of "much higher line" is changing your odds by more than a tiny percentage is, in my opinion, a fantasy. For much of those 250+ hours I played with what many would call unsound tactics. Too many players on attack duty, fullbacks too static and defensive, etcetera. Over time, I read advice on the T&T forum and other help sites and improved my tactics. But my results never changed all that much. There were always games where I dropped points from errors, where my players couldn't were inexplicably nervous, etc. Invariably a run of great success would be offset by a run of awful play. And eventually I got lucky enough to win a CL final 5-3 against Barcelona in a match where a minimum of 5 of the 8 goals scored were done due to defensive/keeper errors. And that's where I stopped. Because even a big victory like that is unsatisfying when it comes due to an error-prone slopfest of a match, where I can only assume that if I replayed it with the same tactics I'd probably lose.

[jujigatame]

I'm not the best tactician. I made up for it by watching matches in full. Then I'd make the adjustments in-match as I notice little things.

This season, I decided I'm going to watch games in Comprehensive. I only ever switched between 2 tactics. One a counter tactic. The other a Control tactic. I took a relegation favourite to 8th out of 16 teams.

I didn't feel as "in control" as when I did watching full matches, because my tactics aren't the best and I can't read stats and know what's going wrong. Still, nothing felt "random".

If you have the time to watch matches on full, more power to you. It already takes me like 2-3 weeks to play through a full season on "extended".

[HUNT3R]

If you have the time to watch matches on full, more power to you. It already takes me like 2-3 weeks to play through a full season on "extended".

My point was that someone like me, who is used to watching matches in full and fiddling with everything was able to over-achieve by just using 2 tactics. I might as well have watched it on Key Highlights, because I rarely changed anything in-game.

[jujigatame]

Consistency is possible but it's upto you as a manager to help maintain that. From recognising an issue in match and turning a drawing/losing position into a winning one, to keeping inflated egos in check when on a good run. It's about recognising the factors be it tactical, player ability or man management, and trying to keep them in your favour.

Except I'm not convinced that the game models man management realistically or that it is even possible to do so. I would strongly prefer that this portion of the game have minimal effects or even be removed entirely.

I mean, it's not like I was ever doing anything crazy in this regard. Let the assman do teamtalks most of the time and I almost always got upward green arrows, whether I was praising or criticizing a team. That didn't stop nervousness or complacency though, and I think the game vastly overestimates the effects of those factors on most high-level professional athletes.

[jujigatame]

My point was that someone like me, who is used to watching matches in full and fiddling with everything was able to over-achieve by just using 2 tactics. I might as well have watched it on Key Highlights, because I rarely changed anything in-game.

I'm not saying overachievement is impossible at all.

[HUNT3R]

So what are you saying? That morale/motivation and luck has too big a say on who wins a match?

[Dagenham_Dave]

He's basically exploring every avenue possible to blame the game for his shortcomings rather than take responsibility for his own actions.

That's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong.

[Jimbokav1971]

I mean, it's not like I was ever doing anything crazy in this regard. Let the assman do teamtalks most of the time and I almost always got upward green arrows, whether I was praising or criticizing a team. That didn't stop nervousness or complacency though, and I think the game vastly overestimates the effects of those factors on most high-level professional athletes.

You are of course assuming that every time you see a green arrow that it is actually a good thing.

Someone else pointed this out to me, (in this thread in fact I think), and let's just say it doesn't always have to be the case. You keep telling players what they want to hear, and then you are surprised that they can become complacent.

Then..... after they have become complacent, you are surprised that your team has no consistency.

No?

[Edit]

I must admit I was making this mistake too by the way.

[Filke]

You are of course assuming that every time you see a green arrow that it is actually a good thing.

Someone else pointed this out to me, (in this thread in fact I think), and let's just say it doesn't always have to be the case. You keep telling players what they want to hear, and then you are surprised that they can become complacent.

Then..... after they have become complacent, you are surprised that your team has no consistency.

No?

[Edit]

I must admit I was making this mistake too by the way.

Tell me what players don't want to hear. How you handle teamtalks, is it common sense to tell players at home that you expect win and you're favorite.

[HUNT3R]

Tell me what players don't want to hear. How you handle teamtalks, is it common sense to tell players at home that you expect win and you're favorite.

It's not as simple as that. One example: Can your players handle the pressure of being the favourites AND you telling them you expect a win?

Look at the context of every talk. That's the key.

[jujigatame]

So what are you saying? That morale/motivation and luck has too big a say on who wins a match?

What I'm saying is that the game has so many hidden and/or opaque factors modifying player behavior (including morale/motivation) that it is often like watching a completely different team from game-to-game without the player actually changing their input, and that this is very frustrating. I'm also saying that the game gives you insufficient tools and feedback to combat this, and that this feeling of dumb luck is compounded by the preponderance of goals scored by keeping/defending errors in this version of the ME.

[jujigatame]

He's basically exploring every avenue possible to blame the game for his shortcomings rather than take responsibility for his own actions.

That's how I see it anyway, I could be wrong.

Except the AI seems to have the same problems.

[Filke]

It's not as simple as that. One example: Can your players handle the pressure of being the favourites AND you telling them you expect a win?

Look at the context of every talk. That's the key.

Probably cant handle, its a crappy team. What to tell them then? Im favorite and they cant handle pressure.

[jujigatame]

You are of course assuming that every time you see a green arrow that it is actually a good thing.

Someone else pointed this out to me, (in this thread in fact I think), and let's just say it doesn't always have to be the case. You keep telling players what they want to hear, and then you are surprised that they can become complacent.

Then..... after they have become complacent, you are surprised that your team has no consistency.

No?

[Edit]

I must admit I was making this mistake too by the way.

Except where does this theory come from? Do we have any official documentation from SI that says it? AFAIK we just have message board speculation. If you come down on your players hard repeatedly after solid victories, they start complaining and becoming unhappy. So I have a hard time believing that this is what you're "supposed" to do to combat complacency. It would seem like a horrid piece of UI design to suddenly have green arrow become a bad thing in certain limited contexts, without any further explanation.

[themadsheep2001]

Except I'm not convinced that the game models man management realistically or that it is even possible to do so. I would strongly prefer that this portion of the game have minimal effects or even be removed entirely.

I mean, it's not like I was ever doing anything crazy in this regard. Let the assman do teamtalks most of the time and I almost always got upward green arrows, whether I was praising or criticizing a team. That didn't stop nervousness or complacency though, and I think the game vastly overestimates the effects of those factors on most high-level professional athletes.

Much of the game isn't down to luck at all (otherwise you wouldn't get people consistently overperforming), and tactics are more important than ever. This has been demonstrated in a lot of the threads in T&T. You may consider it a fantasy, but again experiences show otherwise. No one could be a better demonstration of that than many of Cleons threads.

Man management is handled pretty well for the most part (private convos can do with more work), and learning to utilise it is part and parcel, unless you make up for it via player quality and/tactical nous.

[HUNT3R]

What I'm saying is that the game has so many hidden and/or opaque factors modifying player behavior (including morale/motivation) that it is often like watching a completely different team from game-to-game without the player actually changing their input, and that this is very frustrating. I'm also saying that the game gives you insufficient tools and feedback to combat this, and that this feeling of dumb luck is compounded by the preponderance of goals scored by keeping/defending errors in this version of the ME.

I disagree completely. There are more factors than just player quality and tactics, sure.

You're making the other factors sound random, when it just isn't. You have the input into team talks. You have the input in Press Conferences. You can slightly alter how you play, depending on the weather.

You then get widgets during a match to tell you what a player's state of mind is. At half-time you can change this again. If that didn't work, you have the option to sub him off. After the game, you have another team talk.

At every team-talk you get feedback from your assistant to how the player reacted. After every match you can get even more detail as to how they reacted.

You can also get additional information during a match, when your assistant manager says (as an example) "Player X is starting to show signs of over-confidence"

The information is there. It's not always in the easiest places to find, but it's there. The problem I see, is that we as users struggle to put 2 and 2 together and get 4.

[HUNT3R]

Probably cant handle, its a crappy team. What to tell them then? Im favorite and they cant handle pressure.

How about telling them "If you play your own game, you'll get the result"? That should calm the nerves, if that's the problem you're having.

Sorry for editing your post by accident! Clicked on the wrong button. Meant to "reply".

[Jimbokav1971]

Except where does this theory come from? Do we have any official documentation from SI that says it? AFAIK we just have message board speculation. If you come down on your players hard repeatedly after solid victories, they start complaining and becoming unhappy. So I have a hard time believing that this is what you're "supposed" to do to combat complacency. It would seem like a horrid piece of UI design to suddenly have green arrow become a bad thing in certain limited contexts, without any further explanation.

It comes from, (as far as I know), one bloke experimenting and wondering what would happen if....

SI don't tell you how to play this game. They don't tell you what works and what doesn't work. It's up to you to work that you yourself.

I too was under the impression that every time I saw a green arrow it was good news. Actually no. How I read that now is that the player received my comment well. Unfortunately, the reality is that I might not always want them to be happy at what I am saying.

Linking this in to player personality, (again), and the opposition, (context remember), then the same comment in different games to different people can be completely different.

Look, I don't need someone at SI to tell me what works and what doesn't work. I am more than capable of working that out myself. Why it works as it does, and pin-pointing exactly what the driver in any "event" was is harder.

I have absolutely not a single shred of proof, nor do I intend offering any at some point in the future. I you like green arrows then fill your boots and continue as you are. I'm not adverse to the occasional red arrow myself, (especially when dealing with certain personalty types).

[Edit]

Just as a little hint though, why sometimes do some players react poorly, yet other players react well to the same comment in the same match against the same opposition?

They are both in the same team. The score is the same for both players. Assume just for a moment that both players are performimg at a similar level.... so what is the difference and how do you manage that? Your response would seem to be that the answer is to tell both players what they want to hear, (leading to green arrows). My suggestion is that sometimes you get a better response by creating a red arrow.

[HUNT3R]

Except where does this theory come from? Do we have any official documentation from SI that says it? AFAIK we just have message board speculation. If you come down on your players hard repeatedly after solid victories, they start complaining and becoming unhappy. So I have a hard time believing that this is what you're "supposed" to do to combat complacency. It would seem like a horrid piece of UI design to suddenly have green arrow become a bad thing in certain limited contexts, without any further explanation.

There's no official documentation regarding this. It was me who told Jimbokav1971 and I'm not the only one to have noticed it. You just have to observe what happens in your game.

I've noticed my players just before half-time "looking very confident" when we're 2-0 or 3-0 up. Telling them I'm pleased, resulted in "looking complacent" just after half-time. In other similar situations, I've used other team talks and I didn't get the same result. Instead they either stayed at "looking very confident" or went down to "looking confident". That makes it pretty obvious.

[Filke]

How about telling them "If you play your own game, you'll win"? That should calm the nerves, if that's the problem you're having.

Sorry for editing your post by accident! Clicked on the wrong button. Meant to "reply".

Thanks, never thought that option have that effect on players. Is there any rule of what tone should I use for professional teams and these little less professional? Maybe assertive for professional and passionate for other? I usually don't take body language tab very seriously so im wrong there, will pay more attention to that.

[Jimbokav1971]

It was me who told Jimbokav1971 and I'm not the only one to have noticed it. You just have to observe what happens in your game.

Haha. Sorry. Couldn't remember who it was otherwise I would have mentioned you. It properly opened my eyes, so thanks. It's making me look at lots of stuff like that differently now.

[HUNT3R]

Thanks, never thought that option have that effect on players. Is there any rule of what tone should I use for professional teams and these little less professional? Maybe assertive for professional and passionate for other?

I have no idea if there are rules or not. I get to know my players and how they react. I try and see the context before doing the team talk. I have my theories, but I'm not sure if they are correct. Best thing to do is to get to know your squad and remember what team talk has what affect in what context.

[Cougar2010]

Thanks, never thought that option have that effect on players. Is there any rule of what tone should I use for professional teams and these little less professional? Maybe assertive for professional and passionate for other? I usually don't take body language tab very seriously so im wrong there, will pay more attention to that.

I've struggled much more with team talks since tones were introduced.

I've always based teamtalks on my real life management experience and its generally been successful but tones don't seen to work out the way I would have expected. Calm & assertive are the two that I feel I would use IRL a lot, calm seems to work ok but assertive doesn't. The AMs tend to use passionately quite a bit and I've settled for using my AM as a guideline in this version.

[Brendanlacey]

Just a second quick question on the starting unemployed, having still not been offered any jobs.. is there anything about the managers age that might restrict offers? My manager in the game is 26, sunday league and ive loaded down to league 2 in england and a few other countries (am I wrong in thinking the game should adjust if league 2 is lowest playable league? ) Im currently holidaying with apply to all selected as I read somewhere that could be the answer?

[HUNT3R]

I've struggled much more with team talks since tones were introduced.

I've always based teamtalks on my real life management experience and its generally been successful but tones don't seen to work out the way I would have expected. Calm & assertive are the two that I feel I would use IRL a lot, calm seems to work ok but assertive doesn't. The AMs tend to use passionately quite a bit and I've settled for using my AM as a guideline in this version.

The Passionate tone is the one I struggle to place. I suppose, like RL, it isn't something you use very often.

[Filke]

Calm should be used when players are frustrated and nervous, right?

[Cougar2010]

The Passionate tone is the one I struggle to place. I suppose, like RL, it isn't something you use very often.

Yes, thats what I would have said Hunt3r saving them for rivals/cup games/finals/end of season etc.

I've now used around five AMs over a couple of saves though and passionately seems to be their most used tone.

[themadsheep2001]

The Passionate tone is the one I struggle to place. I suppose, like RL, it isn't something you use very often.

I've used it in big derbies/games when I've wanted the match to be more attritional, like playing Man City away.

[jujigatame]

Much of the game isn't down to luck at all (otherwise you wouldn't get people consistently overperforming), and tactics are more important than ever. This has been demonstrated in a lot of the threads in T&T. You may consider it a fantasy, but again experiences show otherwise. No one could be a better demonstration of that than many of Cleons threads.

Man management is handled pretty well for the most part (private convos can do with more work), and learning to utilise it is part and parcel, unless you make up for it via player quality and/tactical nous.

1) Well of course "much" of it isn't down to luck. But much of it is. I think there is a lot of "fooled by randomness" going on when people play FM. I've done it myself countless times. Changed a bit of a tactic and thought it made the difference, only to find that it didn't do much of anything and that we just had a few good games.

2) It's possible we simply will not agree on this. I do not think man management is well implemented, and I certainly do not think it adds to the realism or enjoyment of the game in any way. It essentially amounts to choosing one of 2 or 3 primary options and watching a bunch of arrows go up and down, which apparently may or may not be completely misleading.

[jujigatame]

There's no official documentation regarding this. It was me who told Jimbokav1971 and I'm not the only one to have noticed it. You just have to observe what happens in your game.

I've noticed my players just before half-time "looking very confident" when we're 2-0 or 3-0 up. Telling them I'm pleased, resulted in "looking complacent" just after half-time. In other similar situations, I've used other team talks and I didn't get the same result. Instead they either stayed at "looking very confident" or went down to "looking confident". That makes it pretty obvious.

This is good know, assuming it is consistently true and not an imagined phenomenon. But I don't find it particularly realistic, and I also think it's absurd to assume people should just figure this stuff out for themselves without any decent documentation or assman advice to indicate it as such.

[HUNT3R]

This is good know, assuming it is consistently true and not an imagined phenomenon. But I don't find it particularly realistic, and I also think it's absurd to assume people should just figure this stuff out for themselves without any decent documentation or assman advice to indicate it as such.

Why on earth do you think it isn't realistic?

I've seen plenty of my own games IRL, where the other team just brimmed with confidence because they see our team is older than them. I can't tell you how many times we've taken advantage of that over-confidence to take a lead and hold on to it, even though they are the better team.

To me it's obvious. To feed the ego of an already "very confident" player, will cause over-confidence.

[juventinu]

1) Well of course "much" of it isn't down to luck. But much of it is. I think there is a lot of "fooled by randomness" going on when people play FM. I've done it myself countless times. Changed a bit of a tactic and thought it made the difference, only to find that it didn't do much of anything and that we just had a few good games.

2) It's possible we simply will not agree on this. I do not think man management is well implemented, and I certainly do not think it adds to the realism or enjoyment of the game in any way. It essentially amounts to choosing one of 2 or 3 primary option

s and watching a bunch of arrows go up and down, which apparently may or may not be completely misleading.

I totally agree with you m8. There is more randomness about this game than people would want to admit. Success was never a problem for me and that's why I wanted more from my teams. Right now I'm at a point I feel I'm abusing the ME with the amount of chances/shots/corners/etc.

[themadsheep2001]

1) Well of course "much" of it isn't down to luck. But much of it is. I think there is a lot of "fooled by randomness" going on when people play FM. I've done it myself countless times. Changed a bit of a tactic and thought it made the difference, only to find that it didn't do much of anything and that we just had a few good games.

2) It's possible we simply will not agree on this. I do not think man management is well implemented, and I certainly do not think it adds to the realism or enjoyment of the game in any way. It essentially amounts to choosing one of 2 or 3 primary options and watching a bunch of arrows go up and down, which apparently may or may not be completely misleading.

1) There really isnt a lot of fooled by randomness. There is masses of evidence for that in the many tactical threads going back years. Unless of you're attempting to argue the likes of wwfan and even PaulC are being "fooled by randomess"? If you want to out of hand dismiss large masses of the game somewhat arbitrarily that's your perogative, but I fail to see how you can dismiss everything pointing to the contrary (such as the aforementioned threads and I throw in the career games), and then state it as general fact (such as saying you cant rely on consistency, which is patently false) because you have your own issues.

[Sussex Hammer]

3RD V 4TH, 2-1 up away at Chelsea with minutes to go. This is when you think the games against you!! Wipes away tear!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8QDf62gN7w

[themadsheep2001]

3RD V 4TH, 2-1 up away at Chelsea with minutes to go. This is when you think the games against you!! Wipes away tear!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8QDf62gN7w

Havent you learned? You're not beating Jose at Stamford bridge! Seriously that looks awful. Upload that as PKM. Did either defender or goalkeeper have that registered as a mistake?