FM2011: The worst CM/FM ever.

[BiggusD]

complete nonsense. I use "for the fans" for EVERY home game, except for lower league teams when i use "expect a win", works fine for me, because i know my players can handle the pressure, again ill say it, there is not 1 single option that will work for every situation, learn about your own players and how they react and work from there, trying to find this perfect solution to all situations will hinder your ability to learn about the mechanics of the team talks.

I know perfectly well how my players react, thank you - it is the mechanic and the meaning of those 5-6 phrases I struggle with, not motivating my players. It shouldn't be necessary to go through half a season in order to figure out what to tell my players in the changing room in the same game as I am told right away exactly how good a player is at playing football! I want a ****ing 500 page treatise on every ****ing player in the whole ****ing game by 2012 or I am not buying!

[Lazaru5]

I wish it was that simple. If you are huge favourites for a home game, telling them that you "expect a win" or "for the fans" would make your whole team either ****ing their pants out of sheer terror, or firing up so much that they completely lose their heads and go ballistic - or most likely both. "Wish luck" is likely to make them complacent or not giving a ****, and the same goes for "No pressure". "You can win this" reduces the chance of all of the above, but does a lesser job of motivating your players.

So there goes your logic...

I know perfectly well how my players react, thank you - it is the mechanic and the meaning of those 5-6 phrases I struggle with, not motivating my players. It shouldn't be necessary to go through half a season in order to figure out what to tell my players in the changing room in the same game as I am told right away exactly how good a player is at playing football! I want a ****ing 500 page treatise on every ****ing player in the whole ****ing game by 2012 or I am not buying!

My 'logic' is sound, based on my own experience within the game. Your approach seems to be 'guesswork' where mine isn't... I KNOW what my team-talk is going to be, for the most part, long before we ever get anywhere near the match itself so when the PC starts - I'm ready... I tailor my responses/interactions to the team-talk I plan to use... if for some reason I then choose the "wrong" team-talk (it has been known on occasion) it comes as no surprise when my team subsequently play like girls - i.e. I know where I went wrong...

however, if I have planned and executed my interactions so that a particular team-talk should "work" and it doesn't... then the players will likely get the hair-dryer at half-time... (most times) or I will re-think my team-talk based on what I see happening on the pitch, the morale/motivation of the players, and so on...

Most times my team-talks work... because I've planned for them to do so

[Guest]

Surely this feature is fundamental to been a football manager

1, I dont think its as important as this game makes out.

and 2, this game does not simulate it very well. If you think team talks in this game is anything like what happens in a real dressing room then your mistaken.

I dont think saying 'good luck' to your players in real life would cause morale to drop anyway. Or 'we can win' would make you put 5 past them, or real managers would have it easy.

Its a crap feature, that doesnt work very well, its unrealistic, it breaks imersion, for me anyway. And its the single most important thing now. If they can ever simulate it properly keep them, but until that day keep them out. Its ruined the last 3.

[milnerpoint]

its only the single most important thing if its all you ever change, again ill point to the fact wwfan who knows more about the mechanics of the game than all of us put together has made some very good posts recently regarding team talks and their effects, you guys should read them.

[Kevin_M]

I absolutely loved FM10. I thought the ME was great, although big results (i.e. putting 5, 6 or 7+ goals past teams) was a bit too easy. Still, that's just a minor niggle, and plenty fun when it's your team doing all the scoring!

FM11 is pretty good, but I haven't gotten into it the way I did with '10. I can't put my finger on exactly why. It's not the worst version, but it's not the best. I'd give it a 7 out of 10.

[x42bn6]

I disagree with x42, Ackter and BiggusD - the game isn't hard to get into, it's difficult to master... if it was hard to get into then why are we ALL so bloody addicted to it? Exactly!

The game is quite easy to get into as a whole, especially now with the tactics creator. But some parts - like team talks - are not.

Just like with anything, you get out of it exactly what you put into it... if you want to reload every match so you win 100% of your matches you will NEVER understand the game... even if you play it for a million years! Why? Because that ISN'T how the game is designed to be played! Sure you might enjoy "cheating" your way to several titles, trophies, legendary status, etc but you haven't learnt how to play the game!

You are talking about mastering the game. I never said the game had to be so easy you didn't need to reload the game, or "cheating" or whatever. Success is largely immaterial of how easy it is to get into game (not master the game).

If a game is really easy to master, like Tetris with all long blocks, then it could still be difficult to get into if Tetris's controls were terribly-designed, the language was shockingly-poor English or the game was so slow it froze every few seconds. This version of Tetris is difficult to get into, but easy to master. Conversely, Tetris on ultra-hard mode (or whatever it's called now), but with the slick design of the original Tetris, would be easy to get into (well-designed menus and controls), but difficult to master (the pace of the blocks could be very quick).

As it stands, team talks are not intuitive as it requires a huge thread in the tactics forum to understand tactics properly. You get people complaining about team talks being confusing or a lack of feedback from staff and players because of it. For all we know, team talks could be really easy to master - but it is difficult to get into. There is a big, big difference between the two.

On the flip-side, if you want to play the game straight through only saving once a season then you had bloody better learn how the game works properly or you will have limited (if any) success...

Basically, you need to decide what you want to get out of the game and how you are going to do that. If you want to be a bloody genius at the game like milner then you are going to have to put the time and effort in! If you want to reload, then just keep on reloading... (but don't say that the game is broken just because you don't play it as it is meant to be played..)

I really don't get the "time and effort" part because getting into a game isn't about effort - it's about fun.

In addition, there is no such thing as playing a game "as it is meant to be played". There is no "right" way of playing the game.

[x42bn6]

you cant expect everything to be laid out on a plate in game, otherwise where is the challenge? Yes we need more guidance, but to a point. Everyone can read, surely if your struggling finding a manual is the best start?

The game should present enough information (up to a point) so that the user knows what each option will do. It should not present absolutely everything, but should present a good amount of information nevertheless. Instead of showing you what the actual outcome will be, it should show you what team talk A does, and there is a big difference.

Take my example above and simplify it a little - say "For the fans" motivates loyal players but risks rash challenges, and has no effect on disloyal players. Therefore the feature should show some tip like "Motivates loyal players but risks rash challenges, and has no effect on disloyal players." It should not show "Balotelli will ignore this team-talk," for example.

The challenge then becomes picking out the appropriate team-talk based on this nice snippet of information.

It doesn't necessarily make the game easier - it could be difficult to choose the appropriate team-talk anyway. But what it does do is allow the user to make better choices.

This is like a newbie learning to play Chess with the rulebook, rather than without the rulebook. Chess is still going to be difficult to "get right" whether or not you know the rules, but knowing the rules takes the frustration away and arguably makes it more fun.

I personally am not a fan of suspension of belief as an excuse for a difficulty factor. The more information SI gives us, the more we can move away from stupidly-long threads describing features in the forum, and the more we can move to "this is how I did my team talks, and look at how Bébé now outplays Messi 9 times out of 10".

[crouchaldinho]

Regarding team talks, the best and most popular thread in the tactics & training forum does seem to make decent sense out of the options. However, some of the recommendations (which seem to work extremely well) are just plain odd.

I'm talking about WoIfsong's team talk guide. His guide at least seems sensible and seems to make good sense in the majority of cases. Yet some of it still really does strike you as being very strange though!

For example, WoIfsong's guide advises that you never use 'We can win this!' and "Wish luck!' because they randomly yield the negative effect of 'seemed DEMOTIVATED, looked delighted'. From my experience, this is absolutely true. What's the point in having these two options if they are going to randomly give a negative effect without any real feedback as to why?

His guide goes on to recommend the use of 'for the fans' in a majority of cases as a good team talk. 'For the fans' doesn't seem to mean anything like what the words actually signify. It's one of FM's many mysteries!

Another such mystery is the recommended usage of 'you have faith'. WoIlfsong notes that 'some readers think that "you have faith" works on players with low morale and low ratings, it may, but the chance of achieving any positive effect other than "looked delighted" (which does not improve performance) is very very low. Certainly much much lower than the chance of achieving positive effect on overperformers and players who have scored'. Once again, the words are 'you have faith' but the option does not seem to match with what the words actually signify. What's it all about? :confused:

One thing I absolutely used to hate was when I selected 'we can win this' for a match, having applied what I thought was good logic to the selection of this team talk, only to come across the 'seemed demotivated, looked delighted' reaction. This was totally inexplicable and very frustrating. It felt like pressing a button before the match with a high percentage chance of getting 'you are going to lose' as the response. So absolutely random, all my match preparation out of the window because I clicked the wrong option from a list of phrases that often give a reaction quite different to that which they signify. At its worst, this is what team talks are, and I can understand why some people find it all a bit of a 'shot in the dark'.

Of course, I've learnt to live with team talks. I've had to because there has been no overhaul, despite often repeated requests on this forum. The last changes were for FM08 (where suddenly, we were introduced to the random 'seemed demotivated' effect). We're stuck with the system. Luckily, I have managed to learn some patterns and meanings for the talks due to people like WoIfsong and WWFan attempting to translate what may as well be in another language sometimes!

[Guest]

I wouldnt get rid completly of team talks but I would change them..

Pre match, effect how you start the first 5 minutes.

Half time same.

Full time praise/unpraise. Have an effect on morale for the next few days depending, what kind of player.

Slight effectrs, not game changing massiive effects for games on end like it is now.

Basically thats all I think would happen irl. The managers words would be forgotton pretty much as soon as the match starts, not linger on for months on end like the game. The players on FM have memorys like computers, holding grudges for nothing for seasons on end.

[Lazaru5]

The game should present enough information (up to a point) so that the user knows what each option will do. It should not present absolutely everything, but should present a good amount of information nevertheless. Instead of showing you what the actual outcome will be, it should show you what team talk A does, and there is a big difference.

Take my example above and simplify it a little - say "For the fans" motivates loyal players but risks rash challenges, and has no effect on disloyal players. Therefore the feature should show some tip like "Motivates loyal players but risks rash challenges, and has no effect on disloyal players." It should not show "Balotelli will ignore this team-talk," for example.

The challenge then becomes picking out the appropriate team-talk based on this nice snippet of information.

It doesn't necessarily make the game easier - it could be difficult to choose the appropriate team-talk anyway. But what it does do is allow the user to make better choices.

This is like a newbie learning to play Chess with the rulebook, rather than without the rulebook. Chess is still going to be difficult to "get right" whether or not you know the rules, but knowing the rules takes the frustration away and arguably makes it more fun.

I personally am not a fan of suspension of belief as an excuse for a difficulty factor. The more information SI gives us, the more we can move away from stupidly-long threads describing features in the forum, and the more we can move to "this is how I did my team talks, and look at how Bébé now outplays Messi 9 times out of 10".

and there you have it... that's the problem many people have, they don't see the effect their team-talk has... they don't see what effect saying X,Y or Z in the press conference has on their players... they don't see what the various interactions with players, managers and press have on their players...

BUT

the information is there if they were to LOOK for it!

Just because your ass-man says "nothing specific noted" it doesn't mean that they ignored your team-talk... similarly, even if they "didn't seem to be listening" it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't! Just because a player doesn't have PR by his name doesn't mean he hasn't been affected by something you have said or done publicly...

Subtle changes in morale, the way a player performs in the match, the way a player trains, their interactions with you and others... (the signs are there...)

I am a massive advocate of playing the whole 90 in 3D even if *sometimes* it is horrid to watch because the animations don't appear to match the situation (resulting in players being hit in the back, turning their back, running in the wrong direction, etc...). The key is to watch what your players are doing, and relate it to the team-talk you gave...

Example:

Team-talk: "Expect a win!"

Effect: Strikers missing easy chances, midfielders seemingly losing the ability to pass the ball, defenders that forget how to defend and a keeper that is more use as a goalpost than a goalkeeper..

Translation: too much pressure

Solution: varies depending on many factors, team, player, match, locale, opposition, etc. Ideally you do whatever is needed to relax your players and get them playing well...

If you don't watch the full 90, you don't see the effects...

[BiggusD]

and there you have it... that's the problem many people have, they don't see the effect their team-talk has... they don't see what effect saying X,Y or Z in the press conference has on their players... they don't see what the various interactions with players, managers and press have on their players...

BUT

the information is there if they were to LOOK for it!

Just because your ass-man says "nothing specific noted" it doesn't mean that they ignored your team-talk... similarly, even if they "didn't seem to be listening" it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't! Just because a player doesn't have PR by his name doesn't mean he hasn't been affected by something you have said or done publicly...

Subtle changes in morale, the way a player performs in the match, the way a player trains, their interactions with you and others... (the signs are there...)

I am a massive advocate of playing the whole 90 in 3D even if *sometimes* it is horrid to watch because the animations don't appear to match the situation (resulting in players being hit in the back, turning their back, running in the wrong direction, etc...). The key is to watch what your players are doing, and relate it to the team-talk you gave...

Example:

Team-talk: "Expect a win!"

Effect: Strikers missing easy chances, midfielders seemingly losing the ability to pass the ball, defenders that forget how to defend and a keeper that is more use as a goalpost than a goalkeeper..

Translation: too much pressure

Solution: varies depending on many factors, team, player, match, locale, opposition, etc. Ideally you do whatever is needed to relax your players and get them playing well...

If you don't watch the full 90, you don't see the effects...

The problem isn't that people don't SEE the effects - I believe that is exactly what they are doing actually! They see their players playing impossibly bad, and they know instantly that they have chosen the wrong team talk. There is no need to actually look at the motivation widget during the match for me at all anymore - I can see it both during Key and Extended highlights so spending 40 minutes watching the players spending ages taking each free-kick and corner is not necessary (for me at least).

Basically, if the first Key highlight starts on your own half and doesn't end with you counter-attacking, you have failed at your team talk. It is that black/white...

Rather, to continue my point here, the problem is that the link between the information you get prior to your choice of team talk, the wording/meaning of the actual 5-6 choices of team talks, and the effect that choice have on your players is entirely arbitrary.

You said it yourself - it is by experience you know which team talk to take in a certain situation, not because information you have leads to those cryptic one-liners to make some sort of sense. For all you and I care, the five team talk options could be:

none

xarrmjdadasdlkadlliii

dsad dasdsavvvzzzzzz zss

prprmrpcmø

vopvpvvkvpwq

And by experience you would pick the right one yes? I think I would too by now.

[kingjericho]

The point is, trawling through forums in order to find the answers is unacceptable.

The answers should be readily available on the actual screen where they're being used.

I kind of agree with this.

Would it be a bad idea to have a discription appear of an item when you put the mouse over it? Something a bit more elaborate than "tick this box to use tight marking" - wow, I didn't figure that out by myself!

[Lazaru5]

The problem isn't that people don't SEE the effects - I believe that is exactly what they are doing actually! They see their players playing impossibly bad, and they know instantly that they have chosen the wrong team talk. There is no need to actually look at the motivation widget during the match for me at all anymore - I can see it both during Key and Extended highlights so spending 40 minutes watching the players spending ages taking each free-kick and corner is not necessary (for me at least).

Basically, if the first Key highlight starts on your own half and doesn't end with you counter-attacking, you have failed at your team talk. It is that black/white...

Rather, to continue my point here, the problem is that the link between the information you get prior to your choice of team talk, the wording/meaning of the actual 5-6 choices of team talks, and the effect that choice have on your players is entirely arbitrary.

You said it yourself - it is by experience you know which team talk to take in a certain situation, not because information you have leads to those cryptic one-liners to make some sort of sense. For all you and I care, the five team talk options could be:

none

xarrmjdadasdlkadlliii

dsad dasdsavvvzzzzzz zss

prprmrpcmø

vopvpvvkvpwq

And by experience you would pick the right one yes? I think I would too by now.

Was I that unclear? :/

My personal match preparation goes something like this:

Final Whistle - (the post-match team-talk depends on the next match to a certain extent)

Opposition

(players)

(tactics)

Competition

(league position)

(media prediction)

Odds

Reasonable expectations

Form

Fitness

Morale

Can we win?

(how?)

Pre-match team-talk? <<-- Note when I decide my team-talk (this is usually several days before the match)

(individual team-talks)

Player Interaction

Media Interaction

Match Preparation focus

Match Day

Form

Fitness

Morale

PR effects

Pick team

Rehearse team-talk(s) (in my head/out loud.. yeah sad innit? )

Match Preview

Weather

Tactics

Team Selection (yes, I occasionally change my mind...)

Team-talk

(individual team-talks)

Rehearse team-talk(s)

Go To Match

Pre-Match

Ass-man feedback

Opposition Instructions

Team-talk(s)

Check everything twice

Worry/Imagine the effect of team-talks, remember previous effects, adjust as necessary

Kick-Off

From the moment I decide what my next team-talk will be, everything I do is geared towards ensuring that the players "expect" that team-talk and thus are motivated properly... If I have decided that I am going to tell a player to "Pick up where you left off!" or that I "Expect a performance!" then I shall ensure my interaction with him leading up to the game is such that he "expects" to be "expected to perform". Similarly, if I think a player might be feeling the pressure I'd be more gentle with them...

I monitor when a particular team-talk has a positive effect and when it has a negative one... I then remember to use the positive times but avoid the negative ones... (sometimes I forget) What I do not do is select some 'random' team-talk and expect it to have the desired effect.

[milnerpoint]

Basically, if the first Key highlight starts on your own half and doesn't end with you counter-attacking, you have failed at your team talk. It is that black/white...

Why is that the case? Even if you get the team talk right there is no guarantee your going to win or even do well.

[wally13]

1, I dont think its as important as this game makes out.

and 2, this game does not simulate it very well. If you think team talks in this game is anything like what happens in a real dressing room then your mistaken.

I dont think saying 'good luck' to your players in real life would cause morale to drop anyway. Or 'we can win' would make you put 5 past them, or real managers would have it easy.

Its a crap feature, that doesnt work very well, its unrealistic, it breaks immersion, for me anyway. And its the single most important thing now. If they can ever simulate it properly keep them, but until that day keep them out. Its ruined the last 3.

I didn't say it was perfect and of course it doesn't mimic real life team talks but to say it shouldn't be a feature is a bit daft to me as like i say its part of what managers do

[x42bn6]

and there you have it... that's the problem many people have, they don't see the effect their team-talk has... they don't see what effect saying X,Y or Z in the press conference has on their players... they don't see what the various interactions with players, managers and press have on their players...

BUT

the information is there if they were to LOOK for it!

You can't "look" for it - you have to experience it. Two different things, especially since things can go bad within a match for reasons other than your team talks.

Just because your ass-man says "nothing specific noted" it doesn't mean that they ignored your team-talk... similarly, even if they "didn't seem to be listening" it doesn't necessarily mean that they weren't! Just because a player doesn't have PR by his name doesn't mean he hasn't been affected by something you have said or done publicly...

Subtle changes in morale, the way a player performs in the match, the way a player trains, their interactions with you and others... (the signs are there...)

I am a massive advocate of playing the whole 90 in 3D even if *sometimes* it is horrid to watch because the animations don't appear to match the situation (resulting in players being hit in the back, turning their back, running in the wrong direction, etc...). The key is to watch what your players are doing, and relate it to the team-talk you gave...

Nobody is saying you can't deduce some things by watching the match. The issue is that what goes on on the pitch is more than just team talks, and that the correct choice is not apparent to begin with.

Example:

Team-talk: "Expect a win!"

Effect: Strikers missing easy chances, midfielders seemingly losing the ability to pass the ball, defenders that forget how to defend and a keeper that is more use as a goalpost than a goalkeeper..

Translation: too much pressure

Solution: varies depending on many factors, team, player, match, locale, opposition, etc. Ideally you do whatever is needed to relax your players and get them playing well...

If you don't watch the full 90, you don't see the effects...

Not the point. If we saw the "Expect a win!" talk, I need to know right now whether they appear to be under a lot of pressure, their level of complacency and their morale. I would expect my assistant to advise me on the previous effects of this team talk on the team, not just the previous match (where I could have used something different).

It is clear that "Expect a win!" will put more pressure on the team which benefits some but hurts others - what is not clear is how it would affect the players before you continue the match. It doesn't have to be crystal-clear but you need to have a rough picture, which the game doesn't provide now (pressure is a hidden attribute and you only have the last match's team talks as guidance unless you record things down, which is a big no-no in software design).

In a lot of ways, I think the team-talks feature is really not great in this sense. Imagine if a real-life manager said "I expect a win" to his team at half-time and he saw that the whole team slumped their shoulders or looked terrified - he would quickly say something else to boost their morale back. Likewise if he said "No pressure!" and saw it had positive effects, he would continue on this train of thought. This way, a user can learn from this.

[Ackter]

I kind of agree with this.

Would it be a bad idea to have a discription appear of an item when you put the mouse over it? Something a bit more elaborate than "tick this box to use tight marking" - wow, I didn't figure that out by myself!

Actually yeah, that would be a great way of doing it.

[Lazaru5]

You can't "look" for it - you have to experience it. Two different things, especially since things can go bad within a match for reasons other than your team talks.

Nobody is saying you can't deduce some things by watching the match. The issue is that what goes on on the pitch is more than just team talks, and that the correct choice is not apparent to begin with.

Not the point. If we saw the "Expect a win!" talk, I need to know right now whether they appear to be under a lot of pressure, their level of complacency and their morale. I would expect my assistant to advise me on the previous effects of this team talk on the team, not just the previous match (where I could have used something different).

It is clear that "Expect a win!" will put more pressure on the team which benefits some but hurts others - what is not clear is how it would affect the players before you continue the match. It doesn't have to be crystal-clear but you need to have a rough picture, which the game doesn't provide now (pressure is a hidden attribute and you only have the last match's team talks as guidance unless you record things down, which is a big no-no in software design).

In a lot of ways, I think the team-talks feature is really not great in this sense. Imagine if a real-life manager said "I expect a win" to his team at half-time and he saw that the whole team slumped their shoulders or looked terrified - he would quickly say something else to boost their morale back. Likewise if he said "No pressure!" and saw it had positive effects, he would continue on this train of thought. This way, a user can learn from this.

So you don't notice subtle variations in morale during the match? You don't take note of what your players are doing/how they are playing relative to your team-talk? If you have singled a player out for expectations do you even monitor to see if he has responded? (I don't mean the widgets although they can help, I mean actually watching what the player does in response to your expectations). No we don't have the immediate insight, but we do have the effects... and yes we might lose the game in question because we put too much pressure on a particular player (or whatever), but we can SEE the effect. We KNOW from his match performance/morale what effect our team-talk has had and if it is a positive one then it is something we should do more often and if it is a negative then we should avoid a repeat...

It's about getting to know your players through trial and error.. when a new manager joins a club in RL it would be unlikely that he would know any of the players or their motivations. However he would, over time, get to know them and how to motivate them and results would improve... FM is exactly the same!

[BaYa]

FM11 is a 100% miss

[x42bn6]

So you don't notice subtle variations in morale during the match? You don't take note of what your players are doing/how they are playing relative to your team-talk? If you have singled a player out for expectations do you even monitor to see if he has responded? (I don't mean the widgets although they can help, I mean actually watching what the player does in response to your expectations). No we don't have the immediate insight, but we do have the effects... and yes we might lose the game in question because we put too much pressure on a particular player (or whatever), but we can SEE the effect. We KNOW from his match performance/morale what effect our team-talk has had and if it is a positive one then it is something we should do more often and if it is a negative then we should avoid a repeat...

We can see the symptoms, but then again, symptoms can occur for many reasons, for example, the opposition tactics change drastically, or the opposition perform a solid team talk that is better than yours, or your players are just tired. We just do not know which treatment is appropriate.

If you shot one of your players, you wouldn't need to see him stagger out onto the pitch to know something is wrong.

It's about getting to know your players through trial and error.. when a new manager joins a club in RL it would be unlikely that he would know any of the players or their motivations. However he would, over time, get to know them and how to motivate them and results would improve... FM is exactly the same!

Arguably not because we, as fans, roughly know something about the players of various clubs. For example, Gomes is terrible under pressure. In addition, new managers would be getting lots and lots of information from their assistants and coaches, and would know roughly what to say and what not to say.

Take the "I expect a win" team talk - you do not know which players are under a lot of pressure and it is difficult to know which players take pressure well, and which players do not (if anything, it is tedious to go through all the coach reports for every player, if any information on pressure is available now). How the player performs afterwards is clearly not fully dependent on the team talk too. Yet a real-life manager will know the implications of an "I expect a win" team talk and will immediately be able to see if something in that speech was a bad idea - and will have time to correct it before they go out again. None of this matches the game.

Trial-and-error to understand the options is a terrible way to design a game. Trial-and-error to master the feature is not necessarily one, of course.

[Lazaru5]

We can see the symptoms, but then again, symptoms can occur for many reasons, for example, the opposition tactics change drastically, or the opposition perform a solid team talk that is better than yours, or your players are just tired. We just do not know which treatment is appropriate.

If you shot one of your players, you wouldn't need to see him stagger out onto the pitch to know something is wrong.

Arguably not because we, as fans, roughly know something about the players of various clubs. For example, Gomes is terrible under pressure. In addition, new managers would be getting lots and lots of information from their assistants and coaches, and would know roughly what to say and what not to say.

Take the "I expect a win" team talk - you do not know which players are under a lot of pressure and it is difficult to know which players take pressure well, and which players do not (if anything, it is tedious to go through all the coach reports for every player, if any information on pressure is available now). How the player performs afterwards is clearly not fully dependent on the team talk too. Yet a real-life manager will know the implications of an "I expect a win" team talk and will immediately be able to see if something in that speech was a bad idea - and will have time to correct it before they go out again. None of this matches the game.

Trial-and-error to understand the options is a terrible way to design a game. Trial-and-error to master the feature is not necessarily one, of course.

The highlighted is all part of the job, including the information you get from your assistants/coaches.. You can't expect everything to fall directly into your inbox, some information you have to find. If all SI did was make the game a continuous stream of information that tells you what to do and what not to do it wouldn't be worth playing as we wouldn't lose or get anything wrong... where's the fun in that?

[BiggusD]

Why is that the case? Even if you get the team talk right there is no guarantee your going to win or even do well.

9/10 times it is a guarantee yes. Maybe it is my tactic that is designed to overperform when the players are motivated (or not unmotivated at least). I didn't design it that way from the start, but since good performances meant that I kept a change to the tactic and bad performances caused me to undo the thing, it is only logical that my tactic became tuned to overperform while the players were motivated.

While it is true that doing tactical changes and paying attention to the nature of the match will enable you to win regardless of team talks, the fact is that (and this I can verify with 100% certainty) motivating your players are far more rewarding when it comes to dominating and winning matches than anything you could do with your tactic. It is also true that if the only thing you ever change is the team talk, that is the only thing that matters as well. But that is all you ever need to do! I would love to make subtle tactical adjustment to change the course of a match, but there are no incentives to do this when I know that all I need to do to win is to make sure that my players are not nervous or complacent. Another point is that those subtle tactical adjustments are only really designed to be efficient in default TC mode, because it takes too much time to make those role-changes every match in Classic mode!

Hence, team talks are overpowered. I have no interest in knowing more than THAT the players are prone to become nervous under pressure (as a challenge in a computer game only), since it is ridiculous that professional footballers in top leagues becomes mind-numbingly afraid or stupidly uninterested during a football match - at all... It just doesn't happen - not the way it happens in the game at least. Players have good days and bad days but this has to do with their consistency and big match stats only - not their other mental stats, which means the pressure, loyalty and professionality hidden stats are too sensitive as it is now. They should only count in certain matches (i.e rivals, cup finals, deciding matches at end of season etc), not every match you go into - and the balance between the pressure you apply with team talks is too delicate; while it makes sense that Expect a Win and Expect a Performance/Expect Better puts a fair amount of pressure on your players, and You Can Win, None and No Pressure puts little pressure on your players so they could take the win for granted (complacency), it doesn't make sense that doing either necessarily puts one or more players off that match when their confidence and morale is already Superb or Very Good. The players need to be more robust than that: there needs to be a RISK of throwing your players off the game when talking them up or down in the changing room, but not a CERTAINTY.

[x42bn6]

The highlighted is all part of the job, including the information you get from your assistants/coaches.. You can't expect everything to fall directly into your inbox, some information you have to find. If all SI did was make the game a continuous stream of information that tells you what to do and what not to do it wouldn't be worth playing as we wouldn't lose or get anything wrong... where's the fun in that?

The information doesn't tell you what to do - it tells you what you need to know.

It is still possible to get things wrong if you know how good they react under pressure.

If something is tedious but important, then the game is badly-designed, for the reasons I have stated above (difficult to get into). A game should be easily-accessible and tediousness should not be an excuse for a challenge.

[Capo]

The problem is always the same, SI dont want to make the game too good in way to give a reason to purchase the next edition.

The market is getting worse every year, the game is getting easier every year, the new addition are just some superficial rubbish.

No good at all.

[Lazaru5]

The information doesn't tell you what to do - it tells you what you need to know.

It is still possible to get things wrong if you know how good they react under pressure.

If something is tedious but important, then the game is badly-designed, for the reasons I have stated above (difficult to get into). A game should be easily-accessible and tediousness should not be an excuse for a challenge.

In real-life you would need to find out the information yourself, even if it is only asking your assistant (we do this all the time in game anyway, or I do at least..). Your assistant wouldn't come in your office and give you the information unbidden, he would wait until you asked him for it... just like he does in FM.

[Cougar2010]

9/10 times it is a guarantee yes. Maybe it is my tactic that is designed to overperform when the players are motivated (or not unmotivated at least). I didn't design it that way from the start, but since good performances meant that I kept a change to the tactic and bad performances caused me to undo the thing, it is only logical that my tactic became tuned to overperform while the players were motivated.

While it is true that doing tactical changes and paying attention to the nature of the match will enable you to win regardless of team talks, the fact is that (and this I can verify with 100% certainty) motivating your players are far more rewarding when it comes to dominating and winning matches than anything you could do with your tactic. It is also true that if the only thing you ever change is the team talk, that is the only thing that matters as well. But that is all you ever need to do! I would love to make subtle tactical adjustment to change the course of a match, but there are no incentives to do this when I know that all I need to do to win is to make sure that my players are not nervous or complacent. Another point is that those subtle tactical adjustments are only really designed to be efficient in default TC mode, because it takes too much time to make those role-changes every match in Classic mode!

Hence, team talks are overpowered. I have no interest in knowing more than THAT the players are prone to become nervous under pressure (as a challenge in a computer game only), since it is ridiculous that professional footballers in top leagues becomes mind-numbingly afraid or stupidly uninterested during a football match - at all... It just doesn't happen - not the way it happens in the game at least. Players have good days and bad days but this has to do with their consistency and big match stats only - not their other mental stats, which means the pressure, loyalty and professionality hidden stats are too sensitive as it is now. They should only count in certain matches (i.e rivals, cup finals, deciding matches at end of season etc), not every match you go into - and the balance between the pressure you apply with team talks is too delicate; while it makes sense that Expect a Win and Expect a Performance/Expect Better puts a fair amount of pressure on your players, and You Can Win, None and No Pressure puts little pressure on your players so they could take the win for granted (complacency), it doesn't make sense that doing either necessarily puts one or more players off that match when their confidence and morale is already Superb or Very Good. The players need to be more robust than that: there needs to be a RISK of throwing your players off the game when talking them up or down in the changing room, but not a CERTAINTY.

WWFan covered this the other day didn't he?

The only thing you change from game to game is team talks therefore they are the only thing that you think makes a difference.

[Avelives]

Personally I only ever play ever other years version of FM. So for me FM11 is waaaayyyy better than FM09, hands down, and probably my favourite since 3D was introduced.

As for the whole team talks/media discussion, I have to admit when this came to prominence in older versions I loathed it with a passion, and im no expert by any means. Im sure some of you experts are right and they are perhaps to important, but for players like me (who sit somewhere between hardcore and casual) its easy enough to figure out what to say to have ZERO impact if you so desire.

I think currently although the wording of some responses is odd compared to their meaning, I think its kind of like a mini-game where if you gamble you can sometimes produce great results from a team of inferior players OR make a team of inferior players totally crumble. My rule of thumb is if I feel we will beat the next opposition then I give neutral/mildy positive interviews and 'for the fans' style talks. That way you tend to get consistent decent performances. Where as if I know the next game is a tough one or a potential banana skin I select some more incendiary responses and usually get the desired result. And frankly thats a good thing, you shouldnt always get the same result or the whole feature would be pointless.

Its trying to simulate the unsimulateable (is that even a word?) of course it cannot repesent the complexities of human interaction and mindset or real footballers. But it does add another dynamic layer which you can play with if you so desire, if you dont its easy enough to ignore.

As for the in game shouts, personally I love those and do see them regularly affect my games (at least thats my perception) Some are rubbish but around 75% of them are pretty useful in their own ways. Even a simple like being able to switch passing focus, D-Line, tempo with quick shouts rather than immersion breaking slider tweaking is a massive leap forward imho.

In fact the whole hidden slider route is much welcome in this version, they are still there to fiddle with, but for the most part you dont have to deal with them to much and the game is so much better and more intuitive for it.

Having just masterminded a 4-1 aggregate win with a bunch of kids at Ajax VS Roma in the Europa cup maybe im biased, but then ive also drawn my fair share of stinkers this season to in the league.

As a final aside whoever said players performing well and being paid well should/will never become unmotivated irl, thats rubbish, thats precisely what happens without strong managers. Thats why teams like Arsenal always fall at the last hurdle and Manure always seem to scrape through, cause the Manure players are terrified of and respect Ferguson in equal measure. On paper Arsenal should have won tons of trophies of the last 5 years, they are paid well, play wonderful attacking football, well supported, but yet that X-factor always seems to evade them. Thats what the sometimes odd seeming morale system trys (with varying success) to replicate.

(yeah basically for all his tactical nouse, Wenger is crap at media/team talks)

[Guest]

I buy every year. The first time I ever got dissapointed was 2009 and why I decided to make an account on the forums. Just thought I would give my opinion. Didnt make a difference it seems to get worse. 08 was great, 09, 10,11 get gradually worse with 11 being an all time low.

Never been a version I hated so much.

[Preveza]

I thought FM was supposed to be a management sim, and scouting, savvy signings, tactics and training were the key to building a successful team. That's what the game USED to be about and that's what made it such a success. What's this FM about? Rolling the dice and picking the right team talks, press conference answers and player interactions. It's absolutely ridiculous how much of the game hinges upon making your players happy and motivated by choosing the right coded phrases that really seem to mean virtually nothing, and the feedback the game gives you about the way the team responds to what you say is wholly inadequate. It's all a guessing game and it really takes the control out of your hands. You'd think winning games would improve morale, I was just on an 8 match winning streak with Milan and my assistant manager reported that morale was only slightly above average, and I finally lost 2-1 to Parma and, what do you know, morale sunk to "rock bottom." In real life, generally, players seem to be happy if they're playing regularly, playing well, on a winning team, and making a lot of money, and their manager isn't going out of his way to be a dick towards them. All my friends who also have the game never even touch the tactics and training, they let the assistant manager handle them and just select their players, pick the team talks and press conference answers, and have been extremely successful, which is absolutely insane. When was the last time you heard about a bad team talk crushing a team's morale in real life?

Until SI develops a more sophisticated and less opaque way of managing players' happiness and motivation it really shouldn't be such a massive part of the game. In the older games, you were able to praise players for their performances and make positive comments about them in the media, and warn them or fine them when you weren't happy with them. That was understandable and didn't require interpreting code phrases like "sympathize with the team" and "For the fans!" This isn't why I play the game; I'm interested in tactics and building teams, not playing a guessing game. I understand that what you see happen in the match engine isn't actually a representation of the game's calculations, and at the root it's still the same text-based engine it was 15 years ago, but the tactics really don't seem to have any bearing on whether you win or lose, and the on-the-fly tactics are less than useless and don't make any difference as to what happens on the pitch. In my Milan team Alexandre Pato has been on red-hot form for about three years now and when the ball comes to him, good things happen. At first when I was down in matches and needed a goal I would instruct the team to 'get the ball forward'; one would think that would mean more balls over the top for a striker to run onto. Just like other tactics towards the same end, like 'exploit the middle', 'push forward', etc. it didn't change anything about my play. Maybe there is some code to unlocking these tactical commands, but shouldn't they just mean what they say? Opposition instructions, and useless assistant manager feedback relating to them during the match, are very frustrating as well. Every team has certain key players you should play a certain way against, but for one thing, they don't really seem to make a difference, and your assistant manager, if you follow his advice during the match, will eventually tell you that it'd be a good idea to tightly mark, close down, firmly tackle and show every single opposition player onto his weak foot. That's what setting individual instructions about marking used to be for, and usually, telling a defender who had good marking abilities to mark an opposition player accomplished the same thing. The most frustrating thing about it is that even if you do tell your players to do all that to a key player... they don't. In the older games, an instruction for one of your defenders to mark an opposition player resulted in him sticking tightly to his target. Now it doesn't make a discernible difference. Ironic how more and more tactical options are added every year, but they mean less with every new edition of the game.

I'd really just like to see the game simplified, there's too much guesswork, and not enough control.

Anyway, rant over. I'd go back to CM 03/04, but don't have a functioning Windows PC at the moment, sadly.

SI NEED TO READ THIS...Well said. Not saying that team talks and press conferences shouldnt be a part of the game, BUT they have TOO much emphasis on the result, and this is what ruins the game for me.

Go back to simplicity.

[BiggusD]

WWFan covered this the other day didn't he?

The only thing you change from game to game is team talks therefore they are the only thing that you think makes a difference.

Neh the fact is that if you made a few of your players nervous in the team talk (i.e phail), they will play badly no matter what you tell them to do. If your striker is nervous he will miss all his chances, if your defender is nervous he will not pay attention to his surroundings, and if your midfielder is nervous he will miss his tackles and headers and his passing will go back to safety rather than up front to create chances (i.e bad decisions all the way). If you tell your striker to hold up ball more, or run with ball more, or be more defensive or attacking, or shoot from more distance... he will STILL miss all his chances and play badly, just like your defender and midfielder. The best thing you can do to those players is to substitute them as soon as possible because very rarely do they play any better even with tactical changes.

Of course, if you change your tactic to accomodate this, your team may play better as a whole - so I have seen nervous players start playing ok after a while, and I have seen nervous players actually do what they are supposed to so that there wasn't too harsh consequences. I have also seen players become nervous after a while and be a bit on/off during the match. But all these points are really a waste of time because they are all revolving around the Centre of the Universe; team talks and their effects. If you get them right, it doesn't really matter what tactic you play and which players you have - the advantage is so immense that everything else becomes secondary. I don't think I have ever lost a game where I had more motivated players than the opponent, and this includes starting with my 2nd 11 which includes 3-4 teenagers of Liga Adelante CA quality away against mid-table sides in BBVA.

It shouldn't be like that.

[milnerpoint]

team talks are not overpowered at all, again ill say it, if all you ever do is change team talks then its the only thing that will affect your teams performace, for a test last night i messed around with team talks. I have easily the top scottish team at the moment, playing at home to rangers and i used, "you can win today", never use that at home, at half time i'm 2-0 up, then tell the players i am unhappy at half time, win the game 4-1, BUT i made damm sure i was combating anything they were throwing at me, played my first game on full highlights. 5 players started the game as nervous including my captain, but with the right tactical tweaks i was able to combat it.

Wwfan knows what he is talking about, BiggusD, without sounding like im having a dig, but you dont by the looks of your posts on this. Team talks play a tiny part in the outcome of a game if your tactically aware enough to combat any issues. To be honest i would not have been able to keep on top of it if i watched key highlights only, because then you only ever see the real chances and not the game, might switch to watching more important games in full, the difference is astounding!

[Lazaru5]

team talks are not overpowered at all, again ill say it, if all you ever do is change team talks then its the only thing that will affect your teams performace, for a test last night i messed around with team talks. I have easily the top scottish team at the moment, playing at home to rangers and i used, "you can win today", never use that at home, at half time i'm 2-0 up, then tell the players i am unhappy at half time, win the game 4-1, BUT i made damm sure i was combating anything they were throwing at me, played my first game on full highlights. 5 players started the game as nervous including my captain, but with the right tactical tweaks i was able to combat it.

Wwfan knows what he is talking about, BiggusD, without sounding like im having a dig, but you dont by the looks of your posts on this. Team talks play a tiny part in the outcome of a game if your tactically aware enough to combat any issues. To be honest i would not have been able to keep on top of it if i watched key highlights only, because then you only ever see the real chances and not the game, might switch to watching more important games in full, the difference is astounding!

I can't watch it matches in anything other than full, simply because in Key or Extended highlights you miss so many things that *might* need tweaking to prevent conceding a goal or to help you to score one...

It's interesting that at 2-0 against Rangers you were "unhappy" at half-time...

[milnerpoint]

i was only unhappy to see the reaction from the team, after reading the forums you would think the team would have capitulated and refused to come out the dressing room, but all it did was upset a few, one of who went on to score the 4th, i had to sub one player who was playing badly from the start but the rest were fine, to me that shows that with the right tweaks the team talks are irrelevant compared to the tactics.

[Lazaru5]

i was only unhappy to see the reaction from the team, after reading the forums you would think the team would have capitulated and refused to come out the dressing room, but all it did was upset a few, one of who went on to score the 4th, i had to sub one player who was playing badly from the start but the rest were fine, to me that shows that with the right tweaks the team talks are irrelevant compared to the tactics.

not necessarily... I assume that you have been their manager for some time and they have, generally, been successful under your guidance... in that scenario your players are likely to want to do better for you if you ask them to...

[milnerpoint]

not necessarily... I assume that you have been their manager for some time and they have, generally, been successful under your guidance... in that scenario your players are likely to want to do better for you if you ask them to...

Yeah i see what your saying, i just really wanted to see if i could win a game when choosing what i believe are the wrong team talks, i would never use "you can win" for a home game against my biggest rival in a game that could be a title decider, normally i would choose for the fans and watch my pumped up team pummel them. To be fair even with the "wrong" team talk i still pummeled them, but i did have to manually adjust a few things that i normally would not have. I also thought choosing "disappointed" at half time when winning a rival game would lower heads to the point that they would not want to come back out and play, if anything it just really fired them up for the second half. Again my only point really was that you can win games when picking teams talks you normally would not, its just a bit more work tactically.

[BiggusD]

Yeah i see what your saying, i just really wanted to see if i could win a game when choosing what i believe are the wrong team talks, i would never use "you can win" for a home game against my biggest rival in a game that could be a title decider, normally i would choose for the fans and watch my pumped up team pummel them. To be fair even with the "wrong" team talk i still pummeled them, but i did have to manually adjust a few things that i normally would not have. I also thought choosing "disappointed" at half time when winning a rival game would lower heads to the point that they would not want to come back out and play, if anything it just really fired them up for the second half. Again my only point really was that you can win games when picking teams talks you normally would not, its just a bit more work tactically.

As I said above, I have also won matches where I have picked the wrong team talk. Even gone down to 0-1 and still won with nervous players from the start (who stopped being nervous after a while). Of course, all my players have strong determination, ambition and professionality precicely because of this. It is a primary requirement to play for me.

I never adjust my tactics, I just switch between three pre-made ones, the normal one being the most attacking and risky of them. This works sometimes, but if the team talk is too awful (which happens from time to time especially when I play my 2nd 11), it normally doesn't make a difference. That is okay, though. What is not okay is how awesome -they- become regardless of actual ability and morale. If you fail your team talk and/or tactical setup (in that order), and you play with a L2 side against another L2 side, it looks like you play against Barcelona. When that is said, when you succeed more than they do it looks like you are Barcelona too so I guess it goes both ways. Maybe this is really a 3d representation issue rather than a ME one.

[x42bn6]

In real-life you would need to find out the information yourself, even if it is only asking your assistant (we do this all the time in game anyway, or I do at least..). Your assistant wouldn't come in your office and give you the information unbidden, he would wait until you asked him for it... just like he does in FM.

Not really... Good assistants (and managers, in fact) are proactive, rather than reactive - assistants should be providing information they expect the manager to need, before he even asks. Then, the manager, assuming that his assistant will be helping him and may have even thought ahead, can himself think ahead knowing that the assistant will cover most of the bases, and then some.

[Lazaru5]

Not really... Good assistants (and managers, in fact) are proactive, rather than reactive - assistants should be providing information they expect the manager to need, before he even asks. Then, the manager, assuming that his assistant will be helping him and may have even thought ahead, can himself think ahead knowing that the assistant will cover most of the bases, and then some.

I think you give the AI far too much credit... even in RL I doubt an assistant would just offer advice without being asked, especially relative to the next match... A manager would do his own homework AND ask his assistants/coaches for their input - he wouldn't just sit behind his desk and expect all the answers to fall on it... All of the information you want your assistant/coaches to give you is already there, you just have to find it (ask them)...

[milnerpoint]

Not really... Good assistants (and managers, in fact) are proactive, rather than reactive - assistants should be providing information they expect the manager to need, before he even asks. Then, the manager, assuming that his assistant will be helping him and may have even thought ahead, can himself think ahead knowing that the assistant will cover most of the bases, and then some.

The assistant is proactive in a way, there are bi-weekly meetings he arranges for you where your backroom staff will come to you with advice, you dont need to ask for that to happen, he also has answers ready for you when you do ask questions, so in a way he has the info ready for you if you require it.

[x42bn6]

I think you give the AI far too much credit... even in RL I doubt an assistant would just offer advice without being asked, especially relative to the next match... A manager would do his own homework AND ask his assistants/coaches for their input - he wouldn't just sit behind his desk and expect all the answers to fall on it... All of the information you want your assistant/coaches to give you is already there, you just have to find it (ask them)...

Not good enough to be honest... Remember that the game simulates a "day" in minutes. The game is not meant to be tedious.

For pressure - it is incredibly tedious to go through every single player's coaching reports (and there potentially are a lot of coaching reports). You also need to check the coach's ability to judge ability. This is incredibly tedious to get a good picture on how your squad handles pressure - if you have n players and m coaches, it's potentially nm reports you have to go through.

In addition, how they handle pressure and the level of pressure they are under are two entirely different things. When Fergie speaks in the dressing room, he can see who is afraid and who is not - but we cannot see this barring many mouse clicks to bring up the pressure labels - and combine it with the number of clicks to check the pressure of all your players.

This is where I think the game should give us more information right now - it makes the game easier to get into. One could argue it makes the game easier - no it doesn't, since the information is already there. It just makes the game accessible and then the challenge shifts to thinking about team talks, rather than lots and lots of coaching reports and hundreds of mouse-clicks.

The assistant is proactive in a way, there are bi-weekly meetings he arranges for you where your backroom staff will come to you with advice, you dont need to ask for that to happen, he also has answers ready for you when you do ask questions, so in a way he has the info ready for you if you require it.

The assistant and coaches do not report on pressure, which was bolded in a previous post. Nor do they give sufficient information during matches.

Considering things like pressure and important matches are hidden, yet a manager can realistically innately know about these things, I would expect the assistant to expose more of these attributes.

Not exposing things to make them tedious is a terrible way of introducing "difficulty" within the game.

[Lazaru5]

Not good enough to be honest... Remember that the game simulates a "day" in minutes. The game is not meant to be tedious.

For pressure - it is incredibly tedious to go through every single player's coaching reports (and there potentially are a lot of coaching reports). You also need to check the coach's ability to judge ability. This is incredibly tedious to get a good picture on how your squad handles pressure - if you have n players and m coaches, it's potentially nm reports you have to go through.

In addition, how they handle pressure and the level of pressure they are under are two entirely different things. When Fergie speaks in the dressing room, he can see who is afraid and who is not - but we cannot see this barring many mouse clicks to bring up the pressure labels - and combine it with the number of clicks to check the pressure of all your players.

This is where I think the game should give us more information right now - it makes the game easier to get into. One could argue it makes the game easier - no it doesn't, since the information is already there. It just makes the game accessible and then the challenge shifts to thinking about team talks, rather than lots and lots of coaching reports and hundreds of mouse-clicks.

The assistant and coaches do not report on pressure, which was bolded in a previous post. Nor do they give sufficient information during matches.

Considering things like pressure and important matches are hidden, yet a manager can realistically innately know about these things, I would expect the assistant to expose more of these attributes.

Not exposing things to make them tedious is a terrible way of introducing "difficulty" within the game.

Every manager has trusted staff, people who they rely on more than others... I have a select few coaches/scouts that I trust their judgement regarding my players and potential signings over the rest of my staff. If I need to know anything about a player, they are the people I would ask.. not exactly nm reports but a select few trusted reports. Most times once I have learnt something about a particular player I also remember it, so I don't need to check his reports every match, every other match or even every season...

We can see which players are 'afraid' in the dressing room... sure it's not an ideal indicator but morale is the best thing we have and can tell you a lot about your players even during the match as player's morale changes during the match depending on how well they are playing, how well the team are playing, and probably other factors too. You can see when a player's morale is low, or high, or intermediate, you can then adjust your team-talk based on your knowledge of the players personality, pressure, important matches and whatever other attributes you feel need to be taken into consideration..

Basically, once you get to know a player you can tell from his morale (i.e. "at a glance") how he is doing and what you need to say to him (if anything)

[Cougar2010]

The assistant and coaches do not report on pressure, which was bolded in a previous post. Nor do they give sufficient information during matches.

Considering things like pressure and important matches are hidden, yet a manager can realistically innately know about these things, I would expect the assistant to expose more of these attributes.

Not exposing things to make them tedious is a terrible way of introducing "difficulty" within the game.

Coach & scout reports all include strengths & weaknesses as well as hints from the player's personality, media handling style & how he would fit into your squad. All these can and do give hints as towards hidden attributes including pressure & important matches.

[BiggusD]

Coach & scout reports all include strengths & weaknesses as well as hints from the player's personality, media handling style & how he would fit into your squad. All these can and do give hints as towards hidden attributes including pressure & important matches.

Still not good enough. They are hinting at all the hidden attributes: consistency, big matches, professionalism, ambition... but they leave out the Pressure stat - the most important of them all. Another thing is that the "blending into the squad" thing clearly affects all of those, but the actual wording in the report screen doesn't really inform you about what this means, it is left to the imagination.

[Cougar2010]

Still not good enough. They are hinting at all the hidden attributes: consistency, big matches, professionalism, ambition... but they leave out the Pressure stat - the most important of them all. Another thing is that the "blending into the squad" thing clearly affects all of those, but the actual wording in the report screen doesn't really inform you about what this means, it is left to the imagination.

What do you think "Big Matches" mean?

You get under strengths & weaknesses "Doesn't cope well with big occasions" or "Enjoys big matches"

I don't mean "Blending into squad" off the assistant advice either I mean on the coach/scout reports - "You have a professional bunch of players and xxx fits in well" or "You have a determined squad and xxx is having to adapt"

[x42bn6]

Every manager has trusted staff, people who they rely on more than others... I have a select few coaches/scouts that I trust their judgement regarding my players and potential signings over the rest of my staff. If I need to know anything about a player, they are the people I would ask.. not exactly nm reports but a select few trusted reports. Most times once I have learnt something about a particular player I also remember it, so I don't need to check his reports every match, every other match or even every season...

Coaches ratings change, as do players with tutoring and age. It's more difficult with regens, too.

We can see which players are 'afraid' in the dressing room... sure it's not an ideal indicator but morale is the best thing we have and can tell you a lot about your players even during the match as player's morale changes during the match depending on how well they are playing, how well the team are playing, and probably other factors too. You can see when a player's morale is low, or high, or intermediate, you can then adjust your team-talk based on your knowledge of the players personality, pressure, important matches and whatever other attributes you feel need to be taken into consideration..

Nail on the head. A manager can see fear - we should be able to see fear, indistinguishable from pure sadness. Low morale does not necessarily imply low confidence, nor vice-versa.

Basically, once you get to know a player you can tell from his morale (i.e. "at a glance") how he is doing and what you need to say to him (if anything)

Yes, but then again, you don't need to get to know a player to see fear.

This is basically "if you do X, then you get Y". But we don't need to do X in reality - we just know Y...

Coach & scout reports all include strengths & weaknesses as well as hints from the player's personality, media handling style & how he would fit into your squad. All these can and do give hints as towards hidden attributes including pressure & important matches.

Hints only if the attributes are extreme (i.e. close to 1 or 20), and not always. Yet it does not take a rocket scientist to know that half the Arsenal squad crumble under pressure - without Pat Rice whispering in our ears.

[Lazaru5]

Coaches ratings change, as do players with tutoring and age. It's more difficult with regens, too.

Nail on the head. A manager can see fear - we should be able to see fear, indistinguishable from pure sadness. Low morale does not necessarily imply low confidence, nor vice-versa.

Yes, but then again, you don't need to get to know a player to see fear.

This is basically "if you do X, then you get Y". But we don't need to do X in reality - we just know Y...

But you are missing the obvious... you have all the info you need, all you need to do now is see how it is affecting your player! if a player is frightened, or nervous, or complacent or confident or whatever - even if it doesn't say it in the widget it doesn't mean that they aren't - it is apparent in the 3D View (it is to me at least). I say again, there is no substitute for watching the full 90 because you can see everything that is going on, the tiny mistakes that "key" or "extended" just don't show you, the clever touches that your flamboyant winger makes that lead to nothing and so don't get shown... all the little indicators of confidence and fear and nerves are there in front of you... combine it with your knowledge of the players personality and attributes and reports and you have everything you need...

everything!

[vlobben]

But you are missing the obvious... you have all the info you need, all you need to do now is see how it is affecting your player! if a player is frightened, or nervous, or complacent or confident or whatever - even if it doesn't say it in the widget it doesn't mean that they aren't - it is apparent in the 3D View (it is to me at least).

The fact that you need to read psychological variables out of an extremely limited 3d view is an indication that something isn't working properly in my eyes.

[Lazaru5]

The fact that you need to read psychological variables out of an extremely limited 3d view is an indication that something isn't working properly in my eyes.

I'm not reading "psychological variables" I'm combining the knowledge I have of my players with the knowledge of my tactics, the match odds, what I've said to them directly or through the media and the information my assistant, the stats and the widgets are giving me and seeing how that is translated into the match engine/3D view. I then judge from what I see "on the pitch" how my players are doing... complacency in the match engine manifests itself the same whether it says it in the widget or not, as does nervousness, confidence, etc... Once I know the "signs" I only have to look for them and adjust as necessary...

[wwfan]

It needs to be noted that motivational effects on player performance have been significantly tuned down over the last few FMs. As such, team talks are nowhere near as important as they used to be and have far less of an impact.

What is happening is this:

1: Historically, it was relatively easy to design a super tactic that enabled the user to win without really focusing on any other aspect of the game. Diablo was the most famous, but each version had a plug n play tactic that enabled user teams to win even when they were playing badly. This worked by the tactic exploiting holes in the ME that the AI couldn't defend, so chances were guaranteed no matter how badly the user players were playing. It didn't matter how motivated they were or how badly they were playing as they would still create chances in and around these holes.

2: In FM09, the arrows were removed, which stopped one form of exploit. Although motivation actually had less effect, it appeared it was more important, as user teams couldn't bamboozle the AI through player runs.

3: In FM10, the tactic logic for AI teams changed, which was the first step in making them more robust. Consequently, a second level of exploit was closed, which again knocked on to players needing to play well in order for the team to win.

4: As a result of building on this new logic in FM11, all the remaining holes in the ME have been pretty much closed off. It is now impossible to dominate through any specific style and each formation / strategy has stengths and weaknesses. You cannot dominate through the centre and rely on through balls splittign the DCs. You can't use flying wingers to skin the FB all the time. A knock on is that your team needs to be playing well to win as it can't create 'by default' chances through any hole or exploit.

The key for enjoying FM is to work out how to take the best advantage of your team playing well (extend a steak) and how to win / get a result when they are playing badly (prevent / arrest a slump). No matter what you do in team talks and player interaction, at some point in the season your team will have an off day. The important thing is workign out how to deal with that.

And here's the thing. The answer is not team talks. The answer is tactics and team talks. You need to have the tacticaly savvy to prevent your team going in at half time with the match already lost, or to get other players in goalscoring positions when your FC isn't firing to take advantage of the chances you are creating and avoid player frustration (which 'one shot, one goal' loss). You can then use the half time team talk to ensure your players play better in the second half or the full time team talk to let them know that type of performance isn't acceptable. If you make all the right decisions, you will exit the game with a tight win and a team fired up for the next match. If, however, you just assume a good team talk in itself is causing all the issues, you will suffer as you have no tactical method of helping a team playigng badly get a result.

For what it is worth, I agree with Ackter that team talk meanings in the game are too abstract. There's also a feeling that the team talk is simply the few words mentioned, rather than a tone supporting your strategic approach to the game. This second element (how team talks and strategy interact in match preparation) is fundamentally missing from FM and is a major weakness that prevents users from quickly getting to grips with how things work.

[looknohands]

A few thoughts:

1. Considering that MLS -the only league I play- was a total bust until the third patch came out, I'd agree that this is the "worst" version of FM that I've played. However, if I'm going strictly by the 11.3 patch I'm actually having quite a bit of fun as I'm now in my 4th season.

2. I agree 100% that the press conferences have got to go. Do they happen in real life? Yes. Do the journalists have more than a dozen or so questions that they can ask? Yes. Do managers have more than 5 possible answers to each one? Yes. Are they an utter waste of time in the game? YES. Would I dare let my assman take over one himself and risk upsetting my players/team? HELL NO!

3. I also agree with Canadian that too much of the game seems to be decided upon "off the field" stuff and not the actual players and tactics on the pitch. The morale system is far too harsh- lose a game or two and your morale drops...which makes it even harder to win the next game! In effect, you're being rewarded for winning (in turn making it easier to win) while being punished for losing (in turn making it harder to win.) This often results in entire seasons being dictated in the opening weeks; a team that loses a couple of games at the start rarely makes a significant impact in the league, regardless of the talent level of the players. Again, I play exclusively in MLS, where the teams are all on relatively even footing...yet each season has resulted in teams that struggle early on and then completely tank the rest of the season. It's not as though there's a huge talent gap, either, that seperates the good from the bad (excluding my team, of course!)

4. Player chats are a joke. Every time I've tried to tell a player that I've been disappointed in his performance I get the "That's not fair," reply. A 6.5 average over 5 games is not okay, but I'll be darned if I can convince any of my players- even the ones that are averaging well over a 7.0 for the season. Or the always great "Look, you're a sweeper...stop trying to lob the keeper." "No, thanks...I'm not changing the way I play." Who is the coach here?

5. Contracts:

A. 2 days before a player's contract expires- "I want $500,000 per year."

B. 1 day after the player's contract expires- "Sure, I'll take $45,000 per year."

6. Favored personnel. Me: "Player X is wonderful, I can't say enough good things about him. I've offered my wife and oldest daughter to him as a reward for his fine play." Result: nothing. Opposing coach: "Player X is showing potential. I should know because I'm coaching a smaller team in a lower league." Result: Player's X has a new Best Friend Forever.

7. Mind games: My team wins a game 7-0. Immediately after I receive a news item about the other coach questioning my tactics. What?