FM09 going back on the shelf

[Bigwig]

The premise of team talks is a good one, it’s their implementation and results that are skewed.

Firstly, they’re far too effective towards player performances and the ‘right’ talk can turn you in to world-beaters while the ‘wrong’ talk can turn you in to a pub side.

I played a game recently where I was Newcastle away to Chelsea so played a defensive, slow, short, narrow, time wasting, deep d-line game, with the intention of containing their threat and if lucky I would score myself from a set piece or counter attack.

By half time I’m trailing 3-0 and haven’t had a single shot on goal (either on or off target). My assistant advice is to sympathise with the team but I’m peeved so rip in to them. Despite not changing my defensive tactics or making any substitutions, I dominate the second half and end up pulling the game back 3-3. That’s just not realistic. Team talks should have an effect, but not too much of one that they override tactics or player abilities.

Secondly, they’re far too random making it difficult to get a feel for what talks work for what players. Ideally you should get an understanding of what type of players you have and who to tear into, who to mollycoddle and who to mix things up a bit, but because of the randomness it makes it impossible to get an understanding of your players.

I’ve read the guidance and it sounds really good in theory, but I get the feeling the people who write it are explaining how it should work rather than how it does work. Fro example, when I’m losing away from home and my striker with low determination and poor morale is having a stinker then I really shouldn’t tell him I’m disappointed or angry, but I do that and he’s fired-up and goes on to win me the game. Likewise in my Chelsea example above I shouldn’t be ripping into my side away to the likes of Chelsea, but I do so anyway and get the result which flies in the face of and guidance produced.

[SFraser]

The problem as I see it is not that team talks and media relationships are important aspects of rl football management and that SI have tried to reflect this in the game but that the way in which they have done so is extremely poor. The end result is a repetitive chore which very frequently does not relate to the situation in which the manager finds himself/herself.

The difficulty which people have, for example, in finding an appropriate comment to make when they are leading 2-0 at half time has been mentioned in a number of posts in various threads. Saying that you are 'pleased' or 'delighted' appear to be recipes for disaster in the second half and saying that you are 'disappointed' seems to be utterly inappropriate. Your assman's suggestion is normally no team talk at all in this situation which appears to me to be totally unrealistic. What I would like to be able to say is something like 'Carry on like you have been doing, lads, just don't get sloppy.' or something to that effect and I don't have that choice.

Simply put, these talks (and media relationships, too) have considerable influence on what the end result of the match will be whilst amounting to little more than a lottery. It's been said that you should never give the same team talk more than twice in a row, which seems entirely arbitrary as the question of what you say before any individual match surely ought to depend on the circumstances appertaining to that match not on what you said last time. Press conference questions are frequently crass and the response choices unrelated to the actual questions themselves.

You raise some very understandable points. There is no doubt that again both the mechanics of the system and the means of communication between player and system are highly non obvious and as you say counter-intuitive. This is common throughout the features of FM where figuring out how to play the game is a major task in itself. There could be many purposeful reasons for this or it may just be a habitual oversight. Either way it does seem to hinder a widespread understanding of the game mechanics, and therefore a widespread appreciation of what has been achieved.

Whilst the whole idea of this is very realistic and should add much depth, sadly the implementation of it based on the ME is tragically weak, unreliable and altogether confusing?

An Example

You have just played a match in which you completely dominated, you had 30 shots 18 on target with 6 CCC's. The opposition had just a single shot and scored from 30 yards and you lose the game 1-0.

You then come onto the Forum and you are told by the same Guru's and such that this was completely tactical and basically your own fault?

Another Example

You are watching your match and your obviously massively better quality players than the opposition are doing the following?

1. Defenders are missing interceptions and not making the simplest of tackles

2. Midfielders are losing the majority of 50-50 challenges and misplacing the simplest of passes

3. Strikers first touch is abysmal and missing the simplest of opportunities in front of goal

If the above was to happen in real life as a Manager or a fan it would be pretty obvious that the problem was player/team specific and that individuals or the team as a whole were not playing well?

Well that's just it. These problems are symptomatic of fundamental Motivation issues that may or may not be exacerbated by tactical issues. I get the impression from these forums that even the so called "Tactical Gurus" have yet failed to fully come to terms with the importance of Motivation in FM09 and when faced with a question regress to their comfortable paradigm of attributes, tempo and mentality.

[PaulC]

The premise of team talks is a good one, it’s their implementation and results that are skewed.

Firstly, they’re far too effective towards player performances and the ‘right’ talk can turn you in to world-beaters while the ‘wrong’ talk can turn you in to a pub side.

I played a game recently where I was Newcastle away to Chelsea so played a defensive, slow, short, narrow, time wasting, deep d-line game, with the intention of containing their threat and if lucky I would score myself from a set piece or counter attack.

By half time I’m trailing 3-0 and haven’t had a single shot on goal (either on or off target). My assistant advice is to sympathise with the team but I’m peeved so rip in to them. Despite not changing my defensive tactics or making any substitutions, I dominate the second half and end up pulling the game back 3-3. That’s just not realistic. Team talks should have an effect, but not too much of one that they override tactics or player abilities.

Secondly, they’re far too random making it difficult to get a feel for what talks work for what players. Ideally you should get an understanding of what type of players you have and who to tear into, who to mollycoddle and who to mix things up a bit, but because of the randomness it makes it impossible to get an understanding of your players.

I’ve read the guidance and it sounds really good in theory, but I get the feeling the people who write it are explaining how it should work rather than how it does work. Fro example, when I’m losing away from home and my striker with low determination and poor morale is having a stinker then I really shouldn’t tell him I’m disappointed or angry, but I do that and he’s fired-up and goes on to win me the game. Likewise in my Chelsea example above I shouldn’t be ripping into my side away to the likes of Chelsea, but I do so anyway and get the result which flies in the face of and guidance produced.

If you want to send me the pkm of that I would be interested to assess how accurate your own assessment is of the reasons behind the comeback!

[Bigwig]

Sorry I don’t have it any more. I posted it as part of a long list in the beta forum but never uploaded it (the servers were playing up at the time so I asked if anyone wanted examples but never got a reply).

I posted about it in 9.2 then continued posting through to 9.3 but the thread never got so much as a response from anyone at SI so I never bothered storing and uploading examples.

I’ll be looking at it for the next version as it’s still not right so I should be able to find plenty of examples soon enough and I’ll pass them on.

[Hammer1000]

Well that's just it. These problems are symptomatic of fundamental Motivation issues that may or may not be exacerbated by tactical issues. I get the impression from these forums that even the so called "Tactical Gurus" have yet failed to fully come to terms with the importance of Motivation in FM09 and when faced with a question regress to their comfortable paradigm of attributes, tempo and mentality.

So are you agreeing with me then?

[wacman1389]

This is where i disagree entirely and i'll tell you why.

We are all well aware now that the Guru's and anyone else who thinks they know how to play FM09 will tell you that it is now vital that you make tactical tweaks during games?

Whilst the whole idea of this is very realistic and should add much depth, sadly the implementation of it based on the ME is tragically weak, unreliable and altogether confusing?

An Example

You have just played a match in which you completely dominated, you had 30 shots 18 on target with 6 CCC's. The opposition had just a single shot and scored from 30 yards and you lose the game 1-0.

You then come onto the Forum and you are told by the same Guru's and such that this was completely tactical and basically your own fault?

Another Example

You are watching your match and your obviously massively better quality players than the opposition are doing the following?

1. Defenders are missing interceptions and not making the simplest of tackles

2. Midfielders are losing the majority of 50-50 challenges and misplacing the simplest of passes

3. Strikers first touch is abysmal and missing the simplest of opportunities in front of goal

If the above was to happen in real life as a Manager or a fan it would be pretty obvious that the problem was player/team specific and that individuals or the team as a whole were not playing well? but suddenly in FM09 this too is deemed as tactic related and somehow you are supposed to interpret just what is wrong with your tactic set up by being shown a series of scenarios that in the real World are not related to tactical issues?

Now, i have NO issue with this whole "tweak tactics to suit situation", the overall idea is a realistic one that can only add depth and realism to the game, but for this to be implemented succesfully you HAVE to ensure that the in-game feedback available via the ME/Ass Man etc, is such that you can actually understand the cause of the problem to try to succesfully tweak your tactic in an effort to combat it? The game in its present state is woefully short of the mark in its ability to do so.

This example caused me to put the game on the shelf for a few months....as I didn't understand what I was supposed to do in this situation......take it as my team not being good enough (which I knew wasn't the case), or save before every match. But then it becomes a problem where I have to start policing whether the game is being fair or not.....where does it end, and why do I feel like I have to do this in the first place?

[Bigwig]

Team talks might not be so bad if you could get your assistant to do them and be confident enough he won’t make a complete pig’s ear of it.

I initially thought that the assistant’s talk would depend on his attributes so a good assistant will give good talks and a bad assistant give bad ones, but there doesn’t seem to be any variation and they all say the same stuff.

Assistant talks should be a sort of tutoring tool where you read what they say to get a grasp on the right or wrong things to say, but when you’re told not to use the same talk too often and the assistant uses ‘for the fans’ for every single game it’s no wonder people get confused.

[Hammer1000]

This example caused me to put the game on the shelf for a few months....as I didn't understand what I was supposed to do in this situation......take it as my team not being good enough (which I knew wasn't the case), or save before every match. But then it becomes a problem where I have to start policing whether the game is being fair or not.....where does it end, and why do I feel like I have to do this in the first place?

Exactly......and whilst i'm an early fan of the Tactical Wizard, i still do not see how it will help solve ANY of these problems?

Your still going to be left wondering how to interpret what you are witnessing via the ME into actual tactic tweaks and changes?

[SFraser]

So are you agreeing with me then?

Not really no. The motivation system is pretty obvious and hardly warrants any kind of "it's impossible to understand the feedback" claim.

Nor do I agree that the implementation of tactics or motivation through the ME is "tragically weak, unreliable and altogether confusing". The only possible way to understand the effects of motivation and tactical decisions is through the ME and there is absolutely nowhere else that anyone that has a grasp of these systems could gain such information.

I would be more inclined to think that the reason why you think these features are tragically weak, unreliable and confusing is because you don't watch the Match Engine, as that is easilly the common denominator amongst those critical of either system.

There is a fundamental difference between a difficult to interperate User Interface with absolutely no relevant documentation or guide as to its function, and fundamentally broken game mechanics.

[Hammer1000]

Not really no. The motivation system is pretty obvious and hardly warrants any kind of "it's impossible to understand the feedback" claim.

Nor do I agree that the implementation of tactics or motivation through the ME is "tragically weak, unreliable and altogether confusing". The only possible way to understand the effects of motivation and tactical decisions is through the ME and there is absolutely nowhere else that anyone that has a grasp of these systems could gain such information.

I would be more inclined to think that the reason why you think these features are tragically weak, unreliable and confusing is because you don't watch the Match Engine, as that is easilly the common denominator amongst those critical of either system.

There is a fundamental difference between a difficult to interperate User Interface with absolutely no relevant documentation or guide as to its function, and fundamentally broken game mechanics.

Well in that case i must digress and bring to your attention the "Who understands the ME?" Poll thread which was started some time ago.

At the time between 60-65% of FM'ers had no understanding of how to interpret what they were witnessing via the matches and scenario's the ME produces?

I'd be interested to know how you yourself interpret what you see via the ME as to what tactical changes you then tend to make?

[Rupal]

Not really no. The motivation system is pretty obvious and hardly warrants any kind of "it's impossible to understand the feedback" claim.

Nor do I agree that the implementation of tactics or motivation through the ME is "tragically weak, unreliable and altogether confusing". The only possible way to understand the effects of motivation and tactical decisions is through the ME and there is absolutely nowhere else that anyone that has a grasp of these systems could gain such information.

I would be more inclined to think that the reason why you think these features are tragically weak, unreliable and confusing is because you don't watch the Match Engine, as that is easilly the common denominator amongst those critical of either system.

There is a fundamental difference between a difficult to interperate User Interface with absolutely no relevant documentation or guide as to its function, and fundamentally broken game mechanics.

Now hang on a minute. If I understand you correctly, you appear to be suggesting that if Hammer watched the whole match carefully he would somehow gain insight into what team talk to choose. If that is, indeed, your point it seems a highly dubious assertion to me.

What exactly you mean by 'the motivation system is pretty obvious' is unclear to me. If you mean that it is obvious what effect on motivation a particular team talk has had in a particular situation then I agree with you that this information is easily obtained. Unfortunately, this is basically useless, because it doesn't help the human manager to work out what his choice is going to achieve before he makes it in a different situation, which is what he needs to be able to do if the outcome isn't going to be virtually a matter of blind guesswork.

The fact is that the wretched things don't work in a sensible way and this needs to be sorted out!

[SFraser]

Now hang on a minute. If I understand you correctly, you appear to be suggesting that if Hammer watched the whole match carefully he would somehow gain insight into what team talk to choose. If that is, indeed, your point it seems a highly dubious assertion to me.

What exactly you mean by 'the motivation system is pretty obvious' is unclear to me. If you mean that it is obvious what effect on motivation a particular team talk has had in a particular situation then I agree with you that this information is easily obtained. Unfortunately, this is basically useless, because it doesn't help the human manager to work out what his choice is going to achieve before he makes it in a different situation, which is what he needs to be able to do if the outcome isn't going to be virtually a matter of blind guesswork.

The fact is that the wretched things don't work in a sensible way and this needs to be sorted out!

You cannot honestly be expected to be armed with the fine details of all mechanical interaction at minute 1 of installing a new game, but this is exactly what you are demanding. You are infact stating no less than that trial and error should not be a part of learning how to play FM09.

However once you go through this, apparently unique to FM, period of Trial and Error you can be reasonably sure, considering the trully vast quantity of variables, what to say to players to get them to react appropriately.

The entire system works in a very sensible way, but it deals directly with Motivation and Morale. These are the variables you must observe and if you pay them no attention you will understand nothing.

[Rupal]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation SFraser.

Once more you adopt an attitude of denigration to those who are not of your opinion. I have pointed out to you before that this does your cause no service but you seem unwilling to alter your tone.

I am not demanding that I am 'armed with the fine details of all mechanical interaction'. The crude multiple choice mechanism employed by SI for media interaction and team talks doesn't have any fine details.

If you want a system which takes motivation and morale into account then let it be a properly developed one, not the pathetic apology which we now have which just pays lip service to the idea. Either let it be done properly or not at all. Making a mind numbingly inapposite, arbitrary and repetitive procedure a vital element in the outcome of matches is not clever. It's just rank bad gameplay.

[SFraser]

My "cause" and "tone" are irrelevant to this discussion. You have stated that the Teamtalk, Player Interaction and Motivation system is vague and counter-intuitive, or someone else has said such, and I have agreed.

You personally have stated it does not operate in a "sensible" way and I have disagreed. You have stated that the feature needs to be entireally revamped from the ground up, and I have disagreed. The sole basis for your arguement seems to be that A: you don't like the system and B: you can't seem to get it to work. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, and finding 5 different ways to say "it sucks" is not an arguement.

I on the other hand accept it's superficial limitations, just like I accept that the training system is superficially bland, superficially unrealistic. And like the training system I accept that it is vague and does not offer much in the way of first hand information as to how it actually functions. These are valid criticisms and as much as I enjoy "tinkering and finding out" others do not, and I accept this. Claims however that is is "broken" "arbitrary" "not properly developed" or is "rank bad gameplay" are both non-specific and claims I do not agree with, and I am more than happy to discuss the actual function of the system as I understand and argue the support for my claims if outright vehemence and knee jerk reactionary criticism can be cooled a little. If however you cannot seperate vague presentation from broken mechanism and deal with them on their own merits then not only is it impossible for us to have a discussion but you don't have any valid points.

[George Graham returns]

Teamtalks and press conferences are all about motivating your players. It is hardly unnecesary and is a fundamental aspect of football management that is being developed into the game, albeit not implimented in an obvious, easy to understand and generally engaging way.

You can criticise the form of the system but I think it is rediculous to criticise the existence of the system. Motivation is the common key attribute in many of histories greatest managers.

You can't "beat" the motivation system. Finding the right phrases to say at the right times to encourage performances from your side that you wouldn't achieve through tactics alone is entire point... You have not "cracked" the system because you inspired a better second half performance through teamtalks, you have just risen from the equivelant of 0 Motivation to 5 Motivation on your own profile.

So why don't you praise the team while ripping into whoever it was that made the mistakes that cost you 3 goals?

The context already exists for teamtalks. Pre-match is about sending your players out without making them complacent or nervous while attempting to maintain or increase Motivation from the previous match. Half Time is about improving their motivation across the board and taking extreme measures if necessary to deal with particularly bad performances. Full Time is all about maintaining Morale through the right level of praise/criticism without reducing Motivation and encouraging Complacency for the next Match.

It is quite a clever system in its simplicity but unfortunately it is not very obvious if you don't pay attention, for whatever reasons, and it remains incredibly powerful and highly relevant to a Football Management game.

Tell me again what exactly is wrong with this system?

You misunderstand totally either my use of the word context or its meaning fullstop.

Context means the manager saying "Im unhappy because of X or Y", therefore putting your criticism into the context of what has happened on pitch. Not the current system where we have to assume that players understand WHY we are unhappy in a bid to actually (heaven forbid) manage our players by showing them where they have gone wrong.

Real managers can do this- we cant, and thats whats blatently wrong with the system.

Its a bit like Spurs of old- we couldnt hold onto leads, and a manager would be able to tell his players that this is an area where he is unhappy. Whereas in FM if my team does it and still gets a good result I CANNOT criticise for fear of damaging morale, so rather than react in a realistic real life manner I dont complain- as I KNOW that I must keep morale up. So all it does is expose how unrealistic and mechanical FM is.

SO yes you actually talk sense about the system- one that I find VERY easy to manipulate as I clearly state that success is down to keeping morale up. But is it realistic? Not one iota- as its all about understanding the mechanism undernearth FM, rather than FM trying to ape the real world.

So forget for a second that the system is probably working as intended- and look at why people dont like it, take your blinkers off for a second please.

[Rupal]

My "cause" and "tone" are irrelevant to this discussion. You have stated that the Teamtalk, Player Interaction and Motivation system is vague and counter-intuitive, or someone else has said such, and I have agreed.

You personally have stated it does not operate in a "sensible" way and I have disagreed. You have stated that the feature needs to be entireally revamped from the ground up, and I have disagreed. The sole basis for your arguement seems to be that A: you don't like the system and B: you can't seem to get it to work. That doesn't mean it doesn't work, and finding 5 different ways to say "it sucks" is not an arguement.

I on the other hand accept it's superficial limitations, just like I accept that the training system is superficially bland, superficially unrealistic. And like the training system I accept that it is vague and does not offer much in the way of first hand information as to how it actually functions. These are valid criticisms and as much as I enjoy "tinkering and finding out" others do not, and I accept this. Claims however that is is "broken" "arbitrary" "not properly developed" or is "rank bad gameplay" are both non-specific and claims I do not agree with, and I am more than happy to discuss the actual function of the system as I understand and argue the support for my claims if outright vehemence and knee jerk reactionary criticism can be cooled a little. If however you cannot seperate vague presentation from broken mechanism and deal with them on their own merits then not only is it impossible for us to have a discussion but you don't have any valid points.

The entirely valid point which I am making is this.

The mechanism which SI uses in order to provide a motivation dimension is a system of multiple choice. The number of alternatives is limited and frequently inadequate to cover the specific situation in which the human manager is involved (in the case of team talks). In other words, the situation is one where a logical comment is not possible because one does not exist amongst the choices provided.

In other situations, the response to comments is arbitrary or downright contrary. The example of answering the media enquiry about who will win the particular league in which you find yourself when you have already won it (a particularly silly question) by naming your own team and finding that this upsets your players is a particularly glaring one. Now whether this obvious bug has been sorted now, I know not. I do, however, find it extraordinary that the game was allowed to be released with such an obvious piece of nonsense in it. Other people in this thread have pointed out various difficulties with responses which bear no real relationship to likely reactions in the real world.

A crude mechanism of this sort simply can't do the job properly. It doesn't work effectively and doesn't relate in any meaningful way to the motivational dimension of a manager's job. The choice which one makes is determined by what one thinks will beat the system rather than what actually might be appropriate in reality or you tend to say nothing at all 'no comment' (media) or 'none' (for the team talk) simply to avoid damage.

At the same time, both media interaction and team talks have a considerable effect on the outcomes of matches. This seems totally unsatisfactory to me and (judging by the comments in various threads) to a fair number of other people as well.

I repeat, if SI want to provide an element in the game which reflects motivation then that is absolutely fine providing that it is 1) proportionate and 2) properly developed. What we have now is neither and it should either be put right or scrapped until the AI capability for proper interaction is developed.

I stand by my comment that it is rank bad gameplay.

[Bigwig]

However once you go through this, apparently unique to FM, period of Trial and Error you can be reasonably sure, considering the trully vast quantity of variables, what to say to players to get them to react appropriately.

I agree with what you say there in principle as that’s how it should work but I don’t agree that’s how it does work.

I would have thought it pretty simple to get a feel for your players depending on their attributes / attitudes. Determined, professional players who react well under pressure should be able to take a kick up the backside and get fired-up, whereas players with low determination who don’t handle pressure well won’t take criticism quite as well and require more of a softly-softly approach to get anything out of them. It would also link in to morale, form and the quality of opposition, so ripping in to your star striker at home to relegation fodder might provoke a positive reaction, but doing the same away from home to title contenders probably isn’t the best idea.

However, putting that in to practice doesn’t seem to work. I’ve told low determined players with poor morale away to Liverpool that I’m disappointed and see them put in great second half performance while I’ve been losing at home to Stoke and telling my determined striker I’m disappointed and seeing no reaction whatsoever.

I’m losing 1-0 away to West Brom and tell a 6.3 rated Michael Owen I’m disappointed and he gets fired-up and wins us the game. A few games later I go to Hull and am again losing 1-0 with Michael Owen on 6.3 so follow the same talk as last time but this time there’s no effect. Now I don’t expect the exact same reaction each and every time, but I need to have some sort of help to let me know what caused the reaction first time round but didn’t second time round.

I’d love to know the coding behind team talks, but I’d imagine it’s something like a random number generator with the number range varying depending on circumstances. So something like Stoke at home and losing 1-0 with Owen on superb morale = 1 in 3 chance of disappointing team talk = fired-up whereas Man Utd away losing 1-0 with Viduka on poor morale = 1 in 20 chance of disappointing team talk = fired-up.

[PaulC]

Seems to me you want the team talks to to a formula, rather than be guided by one. Players are human beings, not a set of numbers.

As I said, I would love to get a bona fide example of a team talk having an unrealistically extreme effect, because that would allow us to improve the system for next release. In beta testing I cant say I recall the posts ( Bigwig ) you refer to but then it was impossible to read every single thread personally, and I cant speak for my colleagues

[nymanr]

The team talks are one of the most unrealistic aspects of the game.

It is true that doing team talks and media interaction is a part life for a manager, but the effect they have on players in game is just ridiculous.

Humans are very dependant of routines and most of the time you work on your own game and what is happening around you, trying to make things as close as possible to your usual routine.

The fact that a manager holds a team talk is a routine, but most people take it in one ear and out the other.

A young player coming up who is playing some of his first games with the first squad will listen but you can’t seriously believe that players who have played for a couple of years and are professionals would take notice.

The fact that in game SAF can hold a team talk before a match and tell Paul Scholes that “I have faith in you Paul” and Scholes suddenly decides that “Hey! The Boss is right. I will go out there now and give it my best and work till I drop” makes it laughable.

Now if the manager gives that same talk to a young Welbeck and he calms down before his first game as a sub/starter for the firsteam you have a point.

A team talk is a sum of different things. It’s a reminder of the tactics you have gone through in an earlier occasion and remind players of the gameplan in general. You also go through the “opposition instructions”. In that mix the manager can throw in a motivational speech but people don’t react to them like in the movies and if they do it is largely superficial.

Teams that come back in the second half do so mainly because of the managers tactical changes and the fact that the players have had the opportunity to “reboot” and start over after having a couple of minutes of the pitch to think about their performance.

At the same time a feeling of complacency can sink in to the other team reducing their work ethic and that helps the other team turn things around.

You don’t turn games around because a manager tells you that he expects more from you.

These are of course just my opinions and I base them on my over 22 years of experience in team sports (not football though). I have some domestic titles and international games under my belt and I have also played in the European CL and the UEFA Cup. Through the years I have seen a lot of different managers and styles but I can honestly say not one of them has ever motivated me to perform better or inspired me to aim higher. The only one who I “listend” to in terms of motivational speeches was my first senior manager who gave me my first game. When he told me not to be nervous and that he had faith in me it I calmed me down.

But it didn’t take more than a half a season before I was 100% used to the crowd and had worked up my own routine in the squad that I exercised before all games.

I’m not saying a manager “team talk” will never work, but they rarely do and for them to work all the stars need to be aligned perfectly.

[phnompenhandy]

Paul, I'm gradually becoming a big fan of SFraser because he takes the trouble and has the analytical skills to suss out how systems work in FM09. He's done a great job on training and now he's discovering and revealing hidden depths in team-talks and other motivatory aspects.

He is right, and of course you are right in insisting that there is and should be no 'diablo' formula to team-talks or press conferences. The criticim being leveled however, as SFraser concedes, is that the wording of the options is frequently counter-intuitive and seems [not IS] arbitary to the great majority of us who don't have SFraser's time or skills to interpret them. The plea, therefore, is for sufficient thought to be put into rewording the phrases and including greater variety of responses to make the systems more transparent and rational to the average player. You must have noticed that not only the OP Crouchaldinho, but many many posters list the wording of team-talks and press conferences as one of their greatest gripes for FM09. I hope you will put this on your list of priorities to improve for FM10.

[Rupal]

If it isn't possible to provide a set of team talk responses which will be appropriate for any probable situation on a straightforward, logical basis then there seems little point in having the feature at all. You really shouldn't need some form of guru interpretation for them. We have enough of that already with TT&F because of the obscure nature of the tactical interface.

If you don't have some sort of recognisable logic to the situation, then one enters the realms of guesswork or luck in hitting the correct choice. There's already quite enough randomness in the game anyway without adding a further lottery in this area.

Unlike phompenhandy, I am not at all certain that SFraser is revealing hidden depths in team talks, etc. I still remain to be convinced that they have any!

[Hammer1000]

If it isn't possible to provide a set of team talk responses which will be appropriate for any probable situation on a straightforward, logical basis then there seems little point in having the feature at all. You really shouldn't need some form of guru interpretation for them. We have enough of that already with TT&F because of the obscure nature of the tactical interface.

If you don't have some sort of recognisable logic to the situation, then one enters the realms of guesswork or luck in hitting the correct choice. There's already quite enough randomness in the game anyway without adding a further lottery in this area.

Unlike phompenhandy, I am not at all certain that SFraser is revealing hidden depths in team talks, etc. I still remain to be convinced that they have any!

Great post Rupal, as was nymanr's!

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

Context means the manager saying "Im unhappy because of X or Y", therefore putting your criticism into the context of what has happened on pitch. Not the current system where we have to assume that players understand WHY we are unhappy in a bid to actually (heaven forbid) manage our players by showing them where they have gone wrong.

Real managers can do this- we cant, and thats whats blatently wrong with the system.

This is a very good point, and something that has put me off interacting with my players since it's conception. If I think a player has generally played well throughout the match, but made a terrible critical error resulting in us dropping points, then what do I say to him? (That's a rhetorical question by the way - I'm not asking for help here!)

On a side note, if you are the original long-time poster "George Graham", then welcome back. I enjoyed reading many of your posts in the past...

... However, more recently I think I have a clear favorite poster ...

The choice which one makes is determined by what one thinks will beat the system rather than what actually might be appropriate in reality or you tend to say nothing at all 'no comment' (media) or 'none' (for the team talk) simply to avoid damage.

And no, it's not because you are a lady.

Rupal, I feel your posts are always an excellent combination of intelligent, articulate points, and yet being in touch with the average "man on the street". Your views on both the realism and user-friendliness normally hit the nail on the head as far as I'm concerned.

Some people may be satisfied that a system is perfectly acceptable because you can make it do what you want as soon as you are told how exactly the mechanical interaction works, or you painstakingly discover it yourself via trial and error. But these sort of things should be clear as day to the average punter, straight out of the box. As long as they know the mentality of their players, and have a good real-world understanding of how to motivate/discipline people in certain situations, then they should be reasonably adept at giving appropriate team-talks and player interaction. They shouldn't have to come onto forums like this and read through formulaic guides telling them what option to select.

The difficulty, "challenge", and fun, should come from making the right interactions with your team given the circumstances. Not figuring out what "For the fans!" or "Sympathise" actually mean, and what scoreline/player-rating it should be applied to.

Unfortunately, as you said, I myself usually end up just picking the option that I know supposedly "beats the system", or whichever I think will do the least damage.

The criticim being leveled however, as SFraser concedes, is that the wording of the options is frequently counter-intuitive and seems [not IS] arbitary to the great majority of us who don't have SFraser's time or skills to interpret them. The plea, therefore, is for sufficient thought to be put into rewording the phrases and including greater variety of responses to make the systems more transparent and rational to the average player.

Big, big thumbs up. And this is something that could so easily be improved, and yet hasn't really changed since the features appeared.

Even something as simple as just putting an "emoticon" next to each option would be a huge leap forward. At least then we might know if "Why can't you play like that every week?" (Sorry, I can't remember the exact phrase) is being said in an angry tone, or an encouraging one. Or if the "None" option means neutral/nothing specific, or if it means you are so furious with your players that you can't even bring yourself to enter the dressing-room, as was once suggested.

[Rupal]

Our little mutual admiration society is really something Squirmy Rooter! As usual, your post is extremely to the point!

The 'none' option may mean 'don't change what you're doing' as well, I think. That's why it works some of the time when you are ahead by a couple of goals at half time. But it's all so vague and ambiguous!

[SFraser]

They shouldn't have to come onto forums like this and read through formulaic guides telling them what option to select.

The difficulty, "challenge", and fun, should come from making the right interactions with your team given the circumstances. Not figuring out what "For the fans!" or "Sympathise" actually mean, and what scoreline/player-rating it should be applied to.

Unfortunately, as you said, I myself usually end up just picking the option that I know supposedly "beats the system", or whichever I think will do the least damage.

These points sum up the disagreement I have with the criticism of the system.

The first point regarding formulaic guides is identical to every other system ingame. Reading a formulaic guide regarding tactics will not equip you with the knowledge of how your team works, what it is capable of, how it responds. Reading a formulaic guide on training will not equip you with the precise training regimes for X player to achieve Y attributes. Reading a formulaic guide on teamtalks will not equip you with the knowledge of which response will increase or decrease the motivation of a specific player in your specific side under his specific pressure and within those specific match conditions. The outcomes of every single input in FM09 are entireally dependant upon the specific context produced by a massive set of variables, and the entire premise of management in this game is learning the behaviours of your players, observing the trends inherant in your football club, understanding the contexts your players operate within on a game by game basis, and responding to those precise scenarios. No guide can ever solve your precise problem.

The difficulty, "challenge", and fun, should come from making the right interactions with your team given the circumstances. Not figuring out what "For the fans!" or "Sympathise" actually mean, and what scoreline/player-rating it should be applied to.

This second point is both an oxymoron in principle, and inaccurate in specifics. How can you possibly choose the right interaction if you do not understand their consequences, and precisely what circumstances can be produced that do not derive from player behaviour? You seem to agree with the system in principle, and then go on to completely reject the function of the system produced by the nature of the game itself.

The third point is false perception. Improving your teams Morale or Motivation is not "breaking" the system, it is the point and purpose of the system. The question is not whether you should be able to motivate players and improve morale, but whether the long term impact of motivation techniques upon morale is balanced enough to provide a managerial challenge.

Within the limitations provided by the very nature of the FM game engine, the system for motivation and morale in premise is not only sound but hard to imagine how it could feasibly be improved at a fundamental mechanical level. Precise alteration of Motivation and Morale balanced better? Perhaps. The titles of the options altered to provide a better idea as to their actual mechanical function? Perhaps. Find a better, more logical, easier system at a basic mechanical level? I don't see how that is possible.

Clearly some people don't like it, but if FM is going to ever include managerial motivation as a fundamental gameplay feature then exactly how does anyone here propose improving upon a system where the manager chooses a series of options that have varying degrees of impact upon the motivation and morale of players, and whose precise influence varies according to a players current motivation and morale?

I would be most interested to read ideas that improve not ease of use, that improve not ease of comprehension, that improve not communication between player and game, but that actually improve the fundamental system. Because clearly a great number of critics in this thread maintain that it is the system itself that is flawed.

[Rupal]

Clearly some people don't like it, but if FM is going to ever include managerial motivation as a fundamental gameplay feature then exactly how does anyone here propose improving upon a system where the manager chooses a series of options that have varying degrees of impact upon the motivation and morale of players, and whose precise influence varies according to a players current motivation and morale?

But given that this system is thoroughly unsatisfactory in its current form, it surely isn't up to 'Joe Public' to tell the game designers what to do? That's their job.

If it's decided that 'managerial motivation is to be included as a fundamental gameplay feature' then it is up to SI to do this properly. Currently, they aren't doing so. It's up to them to come up with something better - they are, after all, the game developers.

If it isn't possible to do this properly at the moment, then, very simply, they should wait until it is.

[Bigwig]

The first problem with team talks is the ambiguity over what you’re actually saying. While the players’ interpretation shouldn’t be known, you should always know with 100% certainty what you’re saying because they’re supposed to be your words so there should be no confusion over what you’re saying.

Unfortunately it’s far form being acceptable atm because you’re selecting options to tell players something without knowing what you’re telling them. When I say I’m pleased at half time am I saying ‘well done, keep it up’ or am I saying ‘well done, this one is over, take it easy’? Similarly when I tell players not to let their performance drop is it in an encouraging manner as in ‘well done lads, just keep playing like that in the second half’ or is it in a harsh tone such as ‘don’t screw this one up’?

I’m not after an explanation for these because as I said they’re ambiguous and I’m sure different people have different theories. The problem is you shouldn’t need theories for a system that is supposedly word coming from your own mouth. There needs to be no margin for error but that’s simply not the case in the game’s current state.

The second problem is the effect of the talks. I agree they should raise morale but they shouldn’t transform teams to superhuman levels. I’ve seen occasions where I’m losing at half time and without a shot on goal have told my team I’m disappointed and dominated the second half, while at the other end of the spectrum I’ve been dominating sides and winning yet they suddenly turn into Brazil.

As I said, I expect team to be motivated (or demoralised) by team talks, but the effect has to be within the limitations of those players. A bad player who is fired up shouldn’t become a great player simply, he should play to his maximum ability but shouldn’t be able to perform outside the realms of his limitations.

[Rupal]

The first problem with team talks is the ambiguity over what you’re actually saying. While the players’ interpretation shouldn’t be known, you should always know with 100% certainty what you’re saying because they’re supposed to be your words so there should be no confusion over what you’re saying.

Unfortunately it’s far form being acceptable atm because you’re selecting options to tell players something without knowing what you’re telling them. When I say I’m pleased at half time am I saying ‘well done, keep it up’ or am I saying ‘well done, this one is over, take it easy’? Similarly when I tell players not to let their performance drop is it in an encouraging manner as in ‘well done lads, just keep playing like that in the second half’ or is it in a harsh tone such as ‘don’t screw this one up’?

I’m not after an explanation for these because as I said they’re ambiguous and I’m sure different people have different theories. The problem is you shouldn’t need theories for a system that is supposedly word coming from your own mouth. There needs to be no margin for error but that’s simply not the case in the game’s current state.

The second problem is the effect of the talks. I agree they should raise morale but they shouldn’t transform teams to superhuman levels. I’ve seen occasions where I’m losing at half time and without a shot on goal have told my team I’m disappointed and dominated the second half, while at the other end of the spectrum I’ve been dominating sides and winning yet they suddenly turn into Brazil.

As I said, I expect team to be motivated (or demoralised) by team talks, but the effect has to be within the limitations of those players. A bad player who is fired up shouldn’t become a great player simply, he should play to his maximum ability but shouldn’t be able to perform outside the realms of his limitations.

Absolutely spot on! This sums up the difficulties a lot of us seem to have with the current system very well!

[SFraser]

But given that this system is thoroughly unsatisfactory in its current form, it surely isn't up to 'Joe Public' to tell the game designers what to do? That's their job.

If it's decided that 'managerial motivation is to be included as a fundamental gameplay feature' then it is up to SI to do this properly. Currently, they aren't doing so. It's up to them to come up with something better - they are, after all, the game developers.

If it isn't possible to do this properly at the moment, then, very simply, they should wait until it is.

Another generic, non-specific complaint that reinforces your dislike while adding nothing of substance to any debate or discussion on the actual problems.

The first problem with team talks is the ambiguity over what you’re actually saying. While the players’ interpretation shouldn’t be known, you should always know with 100% certainty what you’re saying because they’re supposed to be your words so there should be no confusion over what you’re saying.

This require trial and error. It is the only way to understand the mechanics.

Unfortunately it’s far form being acceptable atm because you’re selecting options to tell players something without knowing what you’re telling them. When I say I’m pleased at half time am I saying ‘well done, keep it up’ or am I saying ‘well done, this one is over, take it easy’? Similarly when I tell players not to let their performance drop is it in an encouraging manner as in ‘well done lads, just keep playing like that in the second half’ or is it in a harsh tone such as ‘don’t screw this one up’?

This is the problem. You are not saying "keep it up" or "take it easy" you are either increasing or decreasing motivation and increasing or decreasing morale. That is it, that is the system, that is the function, that is the language.

I’m not after an explanation for these because as I said they’re ambiguous and I’m sure different people have different theories. The problem is you shouldn’t need theories for a system that is supposedly word coming from your own mouth.

You are not speaking to your players in English, you are speaking to your players in FM09. It is a computer game composed of variables and values at a mechanical level that does not work in the English language, but provides options that are described in the English language for the human player to utilise.

There are no words coming from your own mouth. Programmes do not understand your language. Computers do not understand your language. They are programmed to respond in a logical manner to key inputs. It does not matter what computer game you play, it is up to you to understand the output that is processed from your input. Obviously the development team at SI could improve the recognition of this system by the human player, obviously they could reveal the precise mechanics should they deem it warranted, obviously the fundamental issue is that the teamtalk phrases have somehow conned people into imagining that these are actual words and phrases that should have the same influence on a computer programme as on real human beings. It is an ironic error "the phrases make me think too much of reality and dont work like real life."

There needs to be no margin for error but that’s simply not the case in the game’s current state.

Eh? No margin for error in a game attempting to replicate human beings psychological influence on other human beings? Are you Freud?

he second problem is the effect of the talks. I agree they should raise morale but they shouldn’t transform teams to superhuman levels. I’ve seen occasions

Occasions?

Manchester United 5-3 Tottenham Hotspur.

Manchester United 2-1 Bayern Munchen.

Manchester United 3-2 Juventus.

In each game Manchester United scored after their opponent had scored all their goals, and all 3 results occured in the same season.

Show me your examples of unrealistic behaviour.

As I said, I expect team to be motivated (or demoralised) by team talks, but the effect has to be within the limitations of those players. A bad player who is fired up shouldn’t become a great player simply, he should play to his maximum ability but shouldn’t be able to perform outside the realms of his limitations.

"It was the most emphatic display of selflessness I have seen on a football field. Pounding over every blade of grass, competing if he would rather die of exhaustion than lose, he inspired all around him. I felt it was an honour to be associated with such a player."

Sir Alex Ferguson on Roy Keane's performance against Juventus.

Wayne Rooney comes a close second in FM09, with the right motivation.

[Bigwig]

The game is supposed to be a realistic interpretation putting coding and variables into understandable visual aids, which is why we get players like Wayne Rooney rather than as Player ID#64789.

Team talks should be no different in that you should understand what you’re asking. I said there should be no margin for error in understanding what you’re saying in team talks, not the effect it has on players. Perhaps you could also adopt a less aggressive tone in your replies.

As for your examples, you’ve all shown perfectly acceptable and believable circumstances of comebacks, but they’re not the ones I’m on about. I have no problems with Man Utd coming back to win games or the likes of Rooney and Keane putting in world-class performances because that’s what they are, world class. However, when I’m see poor – average players suddenly turning from Sunday league players to Brazilian-esque simply because they’re fired-up I think the system is slightly flawed.

[Hammer1000]

Another generic, non-specific complaint that reinforces your dislike while adding nothing of substance to any debate or discussion on the actual problems.

This require trial and error. It is the only way to understand the mechanics.

This is the problem. You are not saying "keep it up" or "take it easy" you are either increasing or decreasing motivation and increasing or decreasing morale. That is it, that is the system, that is the function, that is the language.

You are not speaking to your players in English, you are speaking to your players in FM09. It is a computer game composed of variables and values at a mechanical level that does not work in the English language, but provides options that are described in the English language for the human player to utilise.

There are no words coming from your own mouth. Programmes do not understand your language. Computers do not understand your language. They are programmed to respond in a logical manner to key inputs. It does not matter what computer game you play, it is up to you to understand the output that is processed from your input. Obviously the development team at SI could improve the recognition of this system by the human player, obviously they could reveal the precise mechanics should they deem it warranted, obviously the fundamental issue is that the teamtalk phrases have somehow conned people into imagining that these are actual words and phrases that should have the same influence on a computer programme as on real human beings. It is an ironic error "the phrases make me think too much of reality and dont work like real life."

Eh? No margin for error in a game attempting to replicate human beings psychological influence on other human beings? Are you Freud?

Occasions?

Manchester United 5-3 Tottenham Hotspur.

Manchester United 2-1 Bayern Munchen.

Manchester United 3-2 Juventus.

In each game Manchester United scored after their opponent had scored all their goals, and all 3 results occured in the same season.

Show me your examples of unrealistic behaviour.

Sir Alex Ferguson on Roy Keane's performance against Juventus.

Wayne Rooney comes a close second in FM09, with the right motivation.

Oh dear

You pick out three occasions where this has happened, back in 1999 and it just happens to be one of the best teams in the World.

Your argument is poor and despite your obvious intelligence you fail to grasp what others are saying.

[SFraser]

Oh dear

You pick out three occasions where this has happened, back in 1999 and it just happens to be one of the best teams in the World.

Your argument is poor and despite your obvious intelligence you fail to grasp what others are saying.

I must say that the penchant for avoiding arguementation is rather strong, but not unexpected, within this thread.

Clearly the case both for and against this current system has been laid firmly within the preceding posts, and it will remain up to those that read to determine who has the stronger arguement, in comparison to whom exhibits the stronger reaction.

As an aside, what happened in 1999 had very little to do with technical and physical attributes, and like the European Cup competition of 2008 was certainly not premised upon whoever had the strongest team on paper. Your rhetorical skill is not negligable, but this forum is not populated by fools, comparatively speaking. I understand the premise of your concerns, but you can be assured you will get no change from me whenever you are motivated towards hyperbole.

[PaulC]

As for your examples, you’ve all shown perfectly acceptable and believable circumstances of comebacks, but they’re not the ones I’m on about. I have no problems with Man Utd coming back to win games or the likes of Rooney and Keane putting in world-class performances because that’s what they are, world class. However, when I’m see poor – average players suddenly turning from Sunday league players to Brazilian-esque simply because they’re fired-up I think the system is slightly flawed.

You mentioned this was raised in beta testing and not followed up, and I really want to look into this if its an issue - I wonder, can you possibly PM me with a link to where it was raised? I understand if its impractical but it would be useful if its possible

[SFraser]

Players are human beings, not a set of numbers.

You wish, but you are doing a brilliant job none the less.

Paul, I'm gradually becoming a big fan of SFraser because he takes the trouble and has the analytical skills to suss out how systems work in FM09. He's done a great job on training and now he's discovering and revealing hidden depths in team-talks and other motivatory aspects.

He is right, and of course you are right in insisting that there is and should be no 'diablo' formula to team-talks or press conferences. The criticim being leveled however, as SFraser concedes, is that the wording of the options is frequently counter-intuitive and seems [not IS] arbitary to the great majority of us who don't have SFraser's time or skills to interpret them. The plea, therefore, is for sufficient thought to be put into rewording the phrases and including greater variety of responses to make the systems more transparent and rational to the average player. You must have noticed that not only the OP Crouchaldinho, but many many posters list the wording of team-talks and press conferences as one of their greatest gripes for FM09. I hope you will put this on your list of priorities to improve for FM10.

Thank you.

[Hammer1000]

Clearly the case both for and against this current system has been laid firmly within the preceding posts, and it will remain up to those that read to determine who has the stronger arguement, in comparison to whom exhibits the stronger reaction.

Why not start a poll and see just how many FM'ers agree with you?

Of course you'll have to stop posting as if you swallowed a dictionary, just to give people a chance to understand just what it is that you are saying?

I read your threads in the T&T Forum and although again obviously intelligent, i dont think that you have come out with a single brand new idea, or anything that was'nt already obvious?

[SFraser]

Why not start a poll and see just how many FM'ers agree with you?

This forum has 138,220 members. The last poll you produced as some form of evidence did not have anywhere near 500 voters. There are multiple issue regarding your interpretation of statistics but as I do not feel this current thread is an adequate forum for debate I did not think it reasonable to raise the issues first time around. Ontop of that I am also a nice guy and try to limit my involvement in the reasonable inaccuracy of General Discussion while sometimes, unfortunately, allowing myself to be dragged into arguements regarding the wholly inaccurate.

Of course you'll have to stop posting as if you swallowed a dictionary, just to give people a chance to understand just what it is that you are saying?

I have already highlighted the issue of complete lack of regard for fair argumentation, and because I wish this game to improve on reasonable terms, and because I am somewhat selfish like all individuals frequenting these forums I would ask you to stop digging yourself a grave of complete disrespect.

I read your threads in the T&T Forum and although again obviously intelligent, i dont think that you have come out with a single brand new idea, or anything that was'nt already obvious?

Perhaps I have nothing new to add, but considering those threads I have authored I have yet to see you compose anything that I would call a valid arguement. Nor do I understand your critcism. Perhaps you could enlighten me without insulting me. It would certainly be something of a novelty in General Discussion.

[TigerJoe]

Please stop arguing. Hammer1000 please only post constructive critism because arguing doesn't get you anywhere.

[Hammer1000]

This forum has 138,220 members. The last poll you produced as some form of evidence did not have anywhere near 500 voters. There are multiple issue regarding your interpretation of statistics but as I do not feel this current thread is an adequate forum for debate I did not think it reasonable to raise the issues first time around. Ontop of that I am also a nice guy and try to limit my involvement in the reasonable inaccuracy of General Discussion while sometimes, unfortunately, allowing myself to be dragged into arguements regarding the wholly inaccurate.

I have already highlighted the issue of complete lack of regard for fair argumentation, and because I wish this game to improve on reasonable terms, and because I am somewhat selfish like all individuals frequenting these forums I would ask you to stop digging yourself a grave of complete disrespect.

Perhaps I have nothing new to add, but considering those threads I have authored I have yet to see you compose anything that I would call a valid arguement. Nor do I understand your critcism. Perhaps you could enlighten me without insulting me. It would certainly be something of a novelty in General Discussion.

I'm not insulting you, i'm merely stating that whilst you appear to have a lot to say, you dont really say much of anything at all?

It is well known that a majority of FM'ers dislike the Team Talks for the very reasons Rupal and Co state and if you think i'm wrong, start the Poll i suggested and find out?

[TigerJoe]

Ok sorry I miss interpreted what you meant, thought you were being offensive . SFraser is a good and intelligent poster who it seems posts are very detailed, which is a good thing.

Yes and I agree, many FM'ers dislike team talks because they either don't seem to have a great affect, are totally random and you can't work out how to make them work in your favour. Hopefully if there was a poll we'd be able to find out what the overall reaction to team talks is.

[Squirmy Rooter 2.0]

These points sum up the disagreement I have with the criticism of the system.

The first point regarding formulaic guides is identical to every other system ingame. (snip) The outcomes of every single input in FM09 are entireally dependant upon the specific context produced by a massive set of variables, and the entire premise of management in this game is learning the behaviours of your players, observing the trends inherant in your football club, understanding the contexts your players operate within on a game by game basis, and responding to those precise scenarios. No guide can ever solve your precise problem.

Programmes do not understand your language. Computers do not understand your language. They are programmed to respond in a logical manner to key inputs. It does not matter what computer game you play, it is up to you to understand the output that is processed from your input. Obviously the development team at SI could improve the recognition of this system by the human player, obviously they could reveal the precise mechanics should they deem it warranted, obviously the fundamental issue is that the teamtalk phrases have somehow conned people into imagining that these are actual words and phrases that should have the same influence on a computer programme as on real human beings. It is an ironic error "the phrases make me think too much of reality and dont work like real life."

And these sum up why I think we are destined to forever disagree.

The impression I get from you is that you approach the game with full knowledge that it is a computer program. A number-cruncher that takes inputs and spits out outputs. Which of course it is, no-one would argue that. Your posts also seem to have the continuing theme of "This is how it is. It's a computer program. Deal with it."

Now if you're happy in how you view the game, and the entertainment that you get out of it, then fine. Good for you.

I am a professional computer programmer myself. As a programmer, I am well aware of the limitations of computers. I know that FM internally boils down to a collection of arithmetic and logic operations. I know that my "interaction" with the game is nothing more than a series of inputs to variables. And as a programmer, I have the utmost respect for the boys (and girls?) at SI and what they have achieved.

However, as a games player, I couldn't give a monkey's about any of that. I don't care about variables and databases and finite-flaming-state-machines. I want to be immersed in the game. I want suspension of disbelief. I want to feel like I am the manager of my favorite team. I want to feel like I am there in the dressing room, talking face to face with my players.

Now you, and other people I'm sure, may like the scientific and mechanical nature of the beast. But I want escapism, and something more "organic". But there are too many things in the game that destroy this immersion for me right now. We have been discussing team-talks and player interaction, and this is one of those.

This second point is both an oxymoron in principle, and inaccurate in specifics. How can you possibly choose the right interaction if you do not understand their consequences, and precisely what circumstances can be produced that do not derive from player behaviour? You seem to agree with the system in principle, and then go on to completely reject the function of the system produced by the nature of the game itself.

No, unfortunately you either missed the point, or I didn't explain myself very well.

My point was actually described much, much better by Bigwig:

The first problem with team talks is the ambiguity over what you’re actually saying. While the players’ interpretation shouldn’t be known, you should always know with 100% certainty what you’re saying because they’re supposed to be your words so there should be no confusion over what you’re saying.

Unfortunately it’s far form being acceptable atm because you’re selecting options to tell players something without knowing what you’re telling them. When I say I’m pleased at half time am I saying ‘well done, keep it up’ or am I saying ‘well done, this one is over, take it easy’? Similarly when I tell players not to let their performance drop is it in an encouraging manner as in ‘well done lads, just keep playing like that in the second half’ or is it in a harsh tone such as ‘don’t screw this one up’?

I’m not after an explanation for these because as I said they’re ambiguous and I’m sure different people have different theories. The problem is you shouldn’t need theories for a system that is supposedly word coming from your own mouth. There needs to be no margin for error but that’s simply not the case in the game’s current state.

That was wonderfully written, and precisely what I wanted to say.

FM contains this additional level of ambiguity and indirection that simply does not exist in real life, and should not exist in the game. Not only do you have to figure out what effect your words may have on the team/individual, but in FM you also have to figure out "by trial and error" (or reading these forums) what it is that you are actually saying and in what tone of voice you are supposedly saying it. The only way this could possibly be deemed realistic, is if real life managers gave their half time team-talks via text-messages to the player's mobiles.

And like I mentioned, something as simple as putting a smiley-face next to the option could potentially be a massive improvement in user-friendliness.

Oh, and as a personal aside to SFraser - there is really no need for this constant attempt at belittling people. It does your arguments no good whatsoever and is totally unnecessary. If you don't agree with people, fine, but there is really no need for some of the condescending remarks you make to people.

[peter-evo]

Why not start a poll and see just how many FM'ers agree with you?

Of course you'll have to stop posting as if you swallowed a dictionary, just to give people a chance to understand just what it is that you are saying?

I read your threads in the T&T Forum and although again obviously intelligent, i dont think that you have come out with a single brand new idea, or anything that was'nt already obvious?

Stop dragging this thread down dude.

SFraser, Rupal and Bigwig are posting fantastically so stop the petty arguments.

[Ceching You Out]

Ignoring the genitalia measurement that at times seems inevitable around here, I think you can create a cohesive picture of FM09 by combining the information contained in Squirmy's last post and a significant part of SFraser's analysis. Forgive me if this isn't as eloquent as it could be, I managed to close my much more thought-out post before hitting "Post".

After reading numerous "treatises" by SFraser and more than a handful of other intelligent collaborators, I've become enamored with FM09 for what it is: a beautifully, complex game formed by the synthesis of a dozen different systems. As is the case with tactics, training, team talks, or any other module within FM09, the effort has been put in to create a functional, deep system based on inputs and outputs. It is frustrating to listen to people consistently rant about systems they reallyare not interested in understanding; I'm sure this is the source of SFraser's pedantic frustration. For example, when you get to the soul tactical module, that system is capable of everything it promises to do. The features work.

That said, there is a legitimate grip and Squirmy does the best job of explaining it I've seen in a while. FM09 disappoints with it's user interfaces. I'll let his explanation stand mostly on it's own, except for a further point of two.

The heart of FM should be immersion in the complex footballing world it attempts to simulate. No system, training, team talks, tactics, or otherwise, should feel like it has been reduced to "If A, then I push button B; if C, then I push button D". Yes, this is the way FM works at a nuts-and-bolts level but the gameplay should feel immersive enough that you don't notice the wizard behind the curtain. At times the game experience is similar to being on a plane with the pilot unconscious, the autopilot disabled, and then being asked by ground control to take over.

"What's this lever do?"

"Oh that tilts the plane downward..."

"Roger, I won't touch it until we're ready to land!"

"...unless you push the square yellow button and flip the green switch. Then it causes the plane to spin uncontrollably. Unless you also hold the circle yellow button in, which will cause you to maintain your altitude."

Granted, there is a certain amount of that feeling which will inevitably occur with something as rich as FM. And after a while, you can learn to navigate by combining the advice with trial-and-error; personally, I enjoy the experience of reading advice, tinkering, and evaluating repeated ad nauseaum. But if SI wants to really show the monstrous but precise engine they've put under the hood, they have to remember to tune the suspension and calibrate the brakes. Most people don't expect to be able to step into a Porsche the first time and be able to nimbly slide it around tight corners; but they do expect to be able to cruise it through at 20 MPH until they're able to learn the expert maneuvers (if they so choose) by analyzing the car's feedback.

I think the sheer complexity of the different systems (ME, Transfers, Training, etc) and their interplay is much more impressive than the common player realizes. But at the same time, I see half a dozen small interfaces changes which would allow the user to truly enjoy the power of the underlying engine. I think of it this way -- it takes a true car enthusiast to enjoy a Porsche engine tucked into a 1980s station wagon; but if you take that same engine, put it in the proper body and give it intuitive controls, even a bum off the street can take a whirl and enjoy it while the enthusiast will still be able to enjoy the intricacies.

[Matt ex SEGA]

I'd like to see no further criticism of the way people post - stick to the topic or leave it well alone, please.

Thanks - good discussion.

[Hammer1000]

Stop dragging this thread down dude.

SFraser, Rupal and Bigwig are posting fantastically so stop the petty arguments.

All i am saying is that it appears to me that Fraser is posting for the sake of it rather than having any reasonable argument?

He's telling us what we already know when it comes to what is supposed to be achieved with the implementation of team talks rather than trying to understand why it is not regarded as a well coded feature by many FM'ers

This was why i suggested the Poll, then he could see for himself what the majority make of it? then and only then can we come to any reasonable conclusions.

[heathxxx]

Ceching You Out - Clearly you've hit the nail on the head with your post, which basically amounts to - it's a shame that the interface doesn't reflect the beauty of what's underneath.

This is perhaps the most obvious frustration for many FM'ers. The wording of certain options doesn't perhaps reflect the true nature of their resultant meaning, leading to understandable confusion as to what is right or wrong, effective or not. There's maybe not enough options for FM'ers to choose from within some of these areas of the game, such as team-talks, player and media interaction.

Certainly the concept of these areas of the game are superb addittions, but clearly the consensus of opinion is that they need refinement.

Oh, one last thing. I think it's safe for me to assume that in taking the time to post in such detail, as many have in this thread, that we can all agree on one at least two things... we like (or want to like) playing FM and we want to see it grow and improve.

Instead of the bickering, why not just get back to the aim of working together constructively as to how we can help the developers make the improvements we want to see.

At this point I will then draw your attention to

... if you did follow that link, feel free to pass around the sick-bags now

[Tristan_Nieve]

I wholeheartdly agree about away matches, they're just too difficult. I can win almost always home, but it's just frustrating to play away because you can have all the posession and chances, you can play one thousand times better, but at the end it doesn't matter, they'll have a superb keeper (yes, that one with 12 in reflexes), an amazing defence (yes, the ones with 11 in tackling) or your strikers will miserably fail all or most of the chances (yes, your world class striker). Summarizing, no matter what you do, most of the time you'll end up drawing or loosing.

Aways matches are just the most frustrating and unrealistic part of the game.

[Ceching You Out]

Ceching You Out - Clearly you've hit the nail on the head with your post, which basically amounts to - it's a shame that the interface doesn't reflect the beauty of what's underneath.

This is perhaps the most obvious frustration for many FM'ers. The wording of certain options doesn't perhaps reflect the true nature of their resultant meaning, leading to understandable confusion as to what is right or wrong, effective or not. There's maybe not enough options for FM'ers to choose from within some of these areas of the game, such as team-talks, player and media interaction.

Certainly the concept of these areas of the game are superb addittions, but clearly the consensus of opinion is that they need refinement.

I think we're on the same page heathxxx. I know your name shows up next to posts quite frequently in some of the more interesting threads, which is always impressive.

It's a shame that so many people struggle to appreciate the depth of complexity in FM. Then again, it's understandable because at times it takes deriving enjoyment from taking the cover off the game and watching the moving parts. Luckily my curiosity led me to discussions where both my appreciation and knowledge of all the whirring pieces could grow.

I think SI have somewhat broadly arrived at this conclusion on their own with their proposal for the new tactic system based on TT&F and soon-to-be tested in FML. The vast amounts of complaints seem to be that FM is too vague or confusing about tactics or that FM just doesn't draw them in like it used; these faults seem to stem from the same lack of clarity and immersion that could be addressed by redesigning the way the game interfaces with the player. Hopefully SI takes this spirit of player interaction redefinition and applies it to other modules!

[heathxxx]

Ceching You Out - SI clearly do pay a lot of attention to the comments they receive, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the industry. They don't always reach these conclusions on their own and are more than prepared to listen to their audience, as we generally tend to delve more deeply than can ever be possible during their own in-house beta testing, no matter how many people they recruited.

I, amongst a great many people and including those who have been very critical of the game, have been invited to participate in beta testing the tactical wizard concept, amongst other things, via dedicated and free portals to those participating, with FM Live. They clearly wish to involve their community as much as possible and make every effort to encourage people to get involved. I'm still very happy that in a sense, they're still keeping to those words I remember on the back CM93 box "Made by fans, for fans". With the Collyer's still involved, I'm sure that will remain the same.

Unfortunately I'm unable to participate hands-on because of my poor internet connection at home, which is a shame, but I'm keeping informed about progress via these forums and the FML beta testing forums.

[wwfan]

In reality, there are three theories of motivation regarding humans placed in organizational situations, which FM reasonably simulates. Given that a football club is an organization of individuals, the motivational issues need to be divided into three:

1: Economic

2: Social

3: Complex

The economic perspective assumes that the player will be motivated to perform via monetary award alone. Thus, the manager must ensure his salary is in line with his expectations and his bonus payment recognizes above average performance. In FM, this is achieved via wage/bonus/signing fee negotiations and players becoming unhappy with their salary. Arguably, it could be more sophisticated, but the base is there.

The social perspective assumes that the player will be motivated to perform if he is in a setting that generates a good interpersonal environment and his peers are equally focused on performance as he is. The manger must ensure his team's personalities don't conflict and divisions do not occur in order to maintain focus. Again, FM reasonably simulates this via tutoring and favourite personnel indicators.

The complex perspective assumes that motivational needs are not constant and that players require different managerial directives depending on their immediate goals/feelings. The manager's job is to understand exactly how the player is feeling and provide the right motivational response given the circumstances. In real life, as in FM, this requires the manger to spend time on understanding how his individual players react to specific situations so he can tailor his responses accordingly. As these situations are very context dependent, the same feedback input will be expected to produce different player outputs in different situations (although the difference in situation may only seem slight), and it is the manger's job to work out why. From the complex perspective, only a poor manger will assume that a standard pep-talk will consistently produce the same results, whereas a good one will try to take on board multiple contexts that might be affecting the player's current performance. Team talks fulfill this function in FM. If it was a simple cause and effect function button, it would not be working as it should do.

There's also an emerging perspective, the ironic man, but I won't go into that.

Whilst I can accept the argument that the individual phrases in team talks might be too ambiguous and need further thought for FM2010, I cannot accept the argument that the way it works is rank bad game play. All three theoretically and empirically supported motivational perspectives are in the game, albeit simplistically, and all work roughly as they would do in real life. Rank bad game play would be simplifying team talks to formula (say this and player A always does that). That is not how things work in real life, and is thus not how they should work in a management simulation. The only thing I believe to be fundamentally missing is the sports psychology perspective, which would be used to smooth out inconsistencies in performance and help individual players deal with big match pressure through long-term exposure to performance visualization and self-efficacy techniques.

[wwfan]

To extend upon the above:

Michael Owen is playing to a 6.3 and the team goes in at half-time. The manager needs to contextualise the situation.

1: Is Owen playing badly but the rest of the team playing well?

2: Does he have a bad rating simply because the rest of the team are being outplayed by good opposition and not getting the ball to him?

3: Is he getting in good situations but missing chances and is thus frustrated?

4: Is he symptomatic of general under performance from the whole team?

5: Is he doing the job you wanted but has just not quite been in the right place at the right time?

6: Has he just come back from injury (hey, it's Michael Owen) and is thus short of high-level match practice which is affecting his performance?

You could argue that each situation has a different response:

1: Angry

2: Sympathise

3: Have faith

4: Disappointed

5: Go out and prove a point

6: No pressure

That parallels how motivational theories of complex man work and I can see no major weakness (other than the possible extra level of ambiguity posited by Bigwig) in how they are currently conceptualised in FM. It may not be as deep or complex as it would be in real life, but it certainly simulates the thought processes a good manager would have to go through in order to know how to motivate a specific individual at any given time.