FM2011: The worst CM/FM ever.

[Jack Rudd]

Wow the OP has 4 words in his post. Most replies on here are like full articles. I can usually read threads over but this is just too much!

It's great, isn't it? A standard-issue unhelpful OP has led to a genuinely high-quality discussion with some excellent points being made.

[BiggusD]

I want to keep them, thanks all the same. "you can win" is fairly obviously meant to be an encouraging team-talk, use it especially when you are not favourites and are away from home (other situations too..). "for the fans" is essentially a neutral team-talk but I almost never use it exclusively, I usually give some individual team-talks too such as "expect a performance" "pick up where you left off" "no pressure" "you have faith" and so on depending on various factors like the match, morale, form, fitness, etc.

never ever seen a "balanced midfielder" o.O a flamboyant winger is one who has a lot of flair... go figure, is it really that easy? A flamboyant winger, with a lot of creative freedom, can be the difference sometimes as they are more likely to try the unexpected... sorry but I want to keep the descriptions too..

as I've said several times in this thread, the information IS there... *shrugs*

No the information is -not- there, not in the player report and not in the assistant's match reports, not in the statistics... You can see it with your own eyes when he becomes nervous but by then it is too late.

As for your other comments, the fact that you (and I - for the record) have mastered team talks does not mean that the meagre one-liners are not in need of improvement. You seem to confuse knowing what the result of a team talk will be with having sensible wordings to choose from.

A "balanced midfielder" is a player with a "balanced" personality with the description being "midfielder". Before you go on again - yes I know what the consequence of those descriptions are, but that is irrelevant for this discussion. A "balanced midfielder" is a completely and utterly useless description for both the human and AI managers.

Edit: And yes I know what a flamboyant player is. That is not the point. If the player report say that a player is "balanced" and that he is a "flamboyant winger", and nothing else, how is that contributing to the picture of what kind of player this is - other than his high Flair and 10-14ish Determination of course? Those we can see with our own eyes... The whole point of a player report is to give the managers an insight into the personality and tactical suitability of a player before he is signed, and before he runs out on the field with ten others.

[x42bn6]

Yes. If it's warranted to ignore your players then sure, I can see SAF doing just that. The "none" team-talk can work both ways too, whether your team are playing poorly or playing well sometimes "none" is the only 'sensible' team-talk.

It's sometimes good to let them "stew over their performances" as a hint suggests, but using no team talk at all when none of the options doesn't work doesn't make sense. In reality, you will need to say something. Everyone - not just footballers - appreciates feedback.

I keep saying this, but if you are the manager of a group of players then you should know this anyway as it's a part of the job. Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look... I don't find this tedious, mainly because I rarely have to "do it twice" - i.e. once I know how a player reacts in a given situation I don't usually forget. I just accept it as a necessary 'evil' to have to look for the information that would normally be in front of me as this is an aspect of real-life that cannot be simulated.

You should know, but then not everyone is able to keep track of so many details, especially for regens where we have no way of reconciling our knowledge with reality.

I don't agree with "Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look..." We cannot physically see nor interact with the players on the pitch in the game - does this mean we need to do other things in order to see dots on the screen moving around? The reasoning is the wrong way round - because we can't physically see nor interact with the players, we need some virtual information to help us.

I suppose you would want your assistant to tell you how every player looked in the warm-up? I can see pro's and con's for something like this, such as the ass-man saying a player looks over-confident and you putting undue pressure on him as a result...

I would prefer to see how each player looked in the warm-up by myself, possibly aided by the assistant.

and we have different opinions on how easy it is to see and understand various aspects. I find that the game follows logical sequences so therefore one only has to understand the logic behind a particular feature to understand how it works. As I said above, I'll give a little and say that, maybe, the player/media interaction modules could be explained a little more clearly in the manual/the game but I don't think it really needs that much "extra" information to be shared to achieve this.

The game certainly follows some sort of logical sequence but we need the information to derive this logical sequence.

It's a game! There are going to be things that can never be accurately simulated and I suppose seeing how the players react to team-talks before they go onto the pitch is one of those things. To introduce any sort of dynamic to the way team-talks are given or received would add to the complexity of the game thus making it harder to understand, not easier.. We'd have thread after thread of people saying "why did this team-talk make that players morale go up/down but not the rest of the teams?" and it would be harder to both understand and to explain why simply because the dynamics would be different for each person/player/team/save...

Complexity is the wrong word - depth is the correct word. By adding structured press conferences, SI didn't make press conferences necessarily harder - it gave it more depth.

In addition, for the bold bit, it should plausibly match a conclusion given by the tooltip of the team-talk. For example, "For the fans" may increase pressure, so if a player's morale plummets it suggests their pressure levels are too high for this team-talk. You would not necessarily get a lot of threads asking why this happened as a result.

It doesn't have to be unfathomly deep to the extent you need to deeply look at team-talks. It just needs to be deep enough to be fun and realistic without being tedious. And I prefer deep over shallow games.

However, right now, there is little immediate feedback on how team-talks go within the context of team-talks itself.

My tactic is irrelevant, it is my strategy that works... and everybody can have a good strategy!

Replace my quote with strategy then.

The point is that you have found one - brilliant - but Joe Newcomer isn't in that boat.

I disagree with this. The information is there but as the game is a simulation and not VR that information cannot be presented in a similar way as it would be IRL, it's just the way it is. SI haven't left that information out, you just have to find it out a different way to real-life. I'm also pretty sure that most managers IRL would know how their players react in certain situations - but they would have had to find that out first in order to be able to know it!

Yes, they would need to find it out, and they would implicitly know because it is in their real-life minds.

What we see in the game is reflective of what we know. We know that player X, with corners 18, is one of the best corner-takers in the world. We know that player Y, with finishing 3, is probably Emile Heskey on a good day. We can see these attributes.

If something is known, it should be seen.

A real-life manager knows somewhat pressure levels and how players react to pressure - a user should be able to see this in-game, or some abstraction reflecting its uncertain nature (I'd argue it's not really that uncertain).

Game design then dictates that if it should be seen and is required for something, it should be easily-viewable. We need to see player ratings in order to gauge what team-talk we use - therefore the team-talk has a ratings column. The exact same argument applies for pressure and reaction to pressure.

We need an overview of how our players are doing, in order to judge who to haul off. The Home/Away stats screen shows all the statistics for each side in one screen - simple and effective. Imagine if the screen only showed one column at a time and you had to click a button to scroll through each column - that's bad game design.

If it reduces the number of mouse-clicks and/or reduces the amount required to be remembered by the user, it is a good thing and should seriously be considered. It is basic game design.

Yeah... with FM certain aspects have to be unrealistic, simply because they have to be... I cannot see how it would be possible to introduce a dynamic team-talk effect before the team-talk is delivered and "tiered" team-talks would add to the newcomers confusion not lessen it.

Why would it? If a feature is well-designed, it will not be confusing. Imagine a counter at the top indicating the number of minutes remaining, and each button has a number indicating how many minutes it takes off - so you can plan accordingly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamic team-talk effect before the team-talk is delivered" - the whole point of the team-talk is that it needs to be dynamic.

IRL a manager gives his team-talk just before sending the player's out of the dressing room, yes? That's what we do in FM...

A manager brings his team into the dressing-room and gives his team-talk until he lets them go back out onto the pitch. Half-time is a good 10 minutes or so. You can say many things in 10 minutes, and have many different themes in your speech.

if anything we need more individual shouts in the match engine itself to counter bad team-talks as that is what a manager would do IRL. I'd like to be able to pull a player to the sidelines and give him a few sharp words or an encouraging smile or whatever... I watched the Bournemouth v Huddersfield play-off 1st leg on Sunday and noticed that Lee Clark had a long conversation with his captain when Town were under the cosh in the second-half - we can't do that and that is what is needed IMHO, not more dynamism with the actual team-talks.

We should have both.

The tool-tip suggestion is, yes... I don't personally think that it's needed but, like I said, if I can turn it off in preferences then fine, let's have a tool-tip for the team-talks (but it's still making the game too easy...)

It makes it more accessible. For newcomers it tells them what they need to know, and for oldies it tells them what they know already.

Uggh! No, thanks but this is definitely a thumbs down from me

Why?

As I said above, introducing more options will increase the level of confusion as there will be more 'wrong' options too. 5 options works OK for me, generally, but as I said earlier I would like to see the team-talks being more accurately reflective of what is happening on the pitch. If I can give the talks I want to at half-time then I'm happy, if not then I wonder why... for example I had 2 players on 6.1 at half-time in a recent match and one DC on 5.8 - I could tell only one of them to "prove a point!" (RCM - 6.1) so what was the reason for this? From what I was seeing on the pitch, "prove a point" was definitely the right thing to say to my Striker - the option wasn't available! This is where the game fails for me, the half-time team-talk options are not reflective of the teams performance. Similarly, if a player has had a poor game (by poor I mean 6.2 or less) then I damn well want to say to him that I "expect better!" in the next match - I've had players get low 5 ratings in the previous match and yet the option still isn't there..

It will not increase the level of confusion if each option has sensible tooltips and the user has all the information they need to make appropriate decisions.

Things don't become more confusing if a few more options are introduced. If anything, fewer options is more confusing as they need to need to shoehorn what they want to say into some options that may not be appropriate.

Having played the game for years and years you would think that I would know what causes the various individual talks to be available but I don't... It's not, for me, that I don't understand what each team-talk does, it's understanding why they aren't available when I want them that I find difficult to figure out... ("mastery" not "getting into" ).

No, that is "getting into", as you believe that sometimes team-talk X should be available when it is not - that has absolutely nothing to do with mastery, since you have no control over that. The game has basically dealt you a hand you do not understand - that is "getting into". One example might be your scouts coming back with lots of centre-backs when you asked for full-backs - why did the game do this? Is it a bug? Is it what I asked them to do? An unexpected and confusing outcome is a design flaw, and is an issue "getting into" the game.

[lancer1]

Teams signing the same players in each game makes the game sooo boring!!

Arturo Vidal might as well start at Man City. They sign him every time without fail... Jefferson Farfan too!

[Lazaru5]

It's sometimes good to let them "stew over their performances" as a hint suggests, but using no team talk at all when none of the options doesn't work doesn't make sense. In reality, you will need to say something. Everyone - not just footballers - appreciates feedback.

You should know, but then not everyone is able to keep track of so many details, especially for regens where we have no way of reconciling our knowledge with reality.

Reality? Do you really think that the players in FM accurately emulate real-life players? Once you click continue... those players are now computer generated just as much as any regen. If you "give life" to the players in your squad, i.e. imagine them as they would be IRL and treat them accordingly, you'd soon learn their traits and foibles just as you would if it were real-life. It wouldn't be a memory exercise as much as you think it is but would become more like meeting and getting to know new people IRL (as much as a simulation can be). The players have personalities and personality traits for a reason, i.e. to simulate real people, so why shouldn't we treat them as such?

I don't agree with "Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look..." We cannot physically see nor interact with the players on the pitch in the game - does this mean we need to do other things in order to see dots on the screen moving around? The reasoning is the wrong way round - because we can't physically see nor interact with the players, we need some virtual information to help us.

We have the 3D view and while it is not ideal it does give a good enough representation to be able to tell where problems are occurring with tactics, players, formations and the like. You can easily see a nervous/confident/complacent/whatever player in the 3D view, the ME does give enough clues even if the widget doesn't say how they are playing/looking.

I would prefer to see how each player looked in the warm-up by myself, possibly aided by the assistant.

Some would say more depth, some would say more fluff, personally I think I would use it if it were available but wouldn't be upset to not see it introduced.

The game certainly follows some sort of logical sequence but we need the information to derive this logical sequence.

You create the logic yourself, essentially, although the only real information you need is the match-odds. You then base your strategy on the expectations that face you... the sequence is logical from that point. If you are favourites.. etc (said many times already)

Complexity is the wrong word - depth is the correct word. By adding structured press conferences, SI didn't make press conferences necessarily harder - it gave it more depth.

In addition, for the bold bit, it should plausibly match a conclusion given by the tooltip of the team-talk. For example, "For the fans" may increase pressure, so if a player's morale plummets it suggests their pressure levels are too high for this team-talk. You would not necessarily get a lot of threads asking why this happened as a result.

It doesn't have to be unfathomly deep to the extent you need to deeply look at team-talks. It just needs to be deep enough to be fun and realistic without being tedious. And I prefer deep over shallow games.

However, right now, there is little immediate feedback on how team-talks go within the context of team-talks itself.

Replace my quote with strategy then.

The point is that you have found one - brilliant - but Joe Newcomer isn't in that boat.

Yes, they would need to find it out, and they would implicitly know because it is in their real-life minds.

What we see in the game is reflective of what we know. We know that player X, with corners 18, is one of the best corner-takers in the world. We know that player Y, with finishing 3, is probably Emile Heskey on a good day. We can see these attributes.

Harsh! Jason Lee I'd accept

If something is known, it should be seen.

A real-life manager knows somewhat pressure levels and how players react to pressure - a user should be able to see this in-game, or some abstraction reflecting its uncertain nature (I'd argue it's not really that uncertain).

Game design then dictates that if it should be seen and is required for something, it should be easily-viewable. We need to see player ratings in order to gauge what team-talk we use - therefore the team-talk has a ratings column. The exact same argument applies for pressure and reaction to pressure.

We need an overview of how our players are doing, in order to judge who to haul off. The Home/Away stats screen shows all the statistics for each side in one screen - simple and effective. Imagine if the screen only showed one column at a time and you had to click a button to scroll through each column - that's bad game design.

If it reduces the number of mouse-clicks and/or reduces the amount required to be remembered by the user, it is a good thing and should seriously be considered. It is basic game design.

You can see subtle changes in morale as match day approaches, if you do not see those changes then that is your fault not the game's. Even on the initial pre-match team-talk screen you can see which players need encouragement or are perhaps feeling the pressure just by looking at their morale indicator. The morale on match day isn't necessarily the same as the morale indicator on your squad screen, the indicators on match day appear to reflect the players 'immediate' confidence levels regardless of their 'overall' morale - this is as dynamic as the game should get IMHO, anything more than this is fluff.

Why would it? If a feature is well-designed, it will not be confusing. Imagine a counter at the top indicating the number of minutes remaining, and each button has a number indicating how many minutes it takes off - so you can plan accordingly.

I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamic team-talk effect before the team-talk is delivered" - the whole point of the team-talk is that it needs to be dynamic.

Almost everything in FM happens 'once you press continue' - what you are asking for is the chance to give all of the team-talks until you figure out which is the best one and THEN press continue... this is not how the game should work at all! You want to select a team-talk, see a dynamic change in player's morale levels up or down and then to decide whether to press continue or to select another team-talk and see another dynamic change in morale and so on and so on... too easy! (and not wanted)

A manager brings his team into the dressing-room and gives his team-talk until he lets them go back out onto the pitch. Half-time is a good 10 minutes or so. You can say many things in 10 minutes, and have many different themes in your speech.

I've given some thought to this, and reflected on personal experience, and decided that actually we're both wrong (as is FM).

What would happen is pre-match the atmosphere would be relaxed, players would be in and out getting warmed up, going to the toilet, etc general chit-chat would be the order of the day until the last few minutes between the end of the warm-up and coming out to kick-off. Then the manager/coaches/assistant would go around the various players giving specific instructions, personal pep-talks, etc before the manager delivers a final 'rousing' send-off for the players just before they go out to play the match. The majority of this we can recreate anyway so that's OK.

At half-time the manager would deliver a 'verdict' on the first-half performance (whether that's a well done or a bollocking or something in between) before, again, he and his staff went around the players giving instructions, gee-ups, pep-talks, etc then just before the players went out he would, again, deliver a final send-off before they went out for the second-half. We can't recreate all this, we only have one team-talk and the individual ones... we're a team-talk short in FM.

Full-Time is OK as it is for me

We should have both.

It makes it more accessible. For newcomers it tells them what they need to know, and for oldies it tells them what they know already.

Tool-tips I'll take with the proviso already said.

Why?

Because it's unnecessary fluff and will add to a new player's confusion, "all these meters and arrows in front of me what do they all mean?" etc... too much information can be just as bad as not enough (which I don't think we have either of)

It will not increase the level of confusion if each option has sensible tooltips and the user has all the information they need to make appropriate decisions.

Things don't become more confusing if a few more options are introduced. If anything, fewer options is more confusing as they need to need to shoehorn what they want to say into some options that may not be appropriate.

As I said, too much information can be a bad thing... too many options is a bad thing, we don't need more information.

No, that is "getting into", as you believe that sometimes team-talk X should be available when it is not - that has absolutely nothing to do with mastery, since you have no control over that. The game has basically dealt you a hand you do not understand - that is "getting into". One example might be your scouts coming back with lots of centre-backs when you asked for full-backs - why did the game do this? Is it a bug? Is it what I asked them to do? An unexpected and confusing outcome is a design flaw, and is an issue "getting into" the game.

Understanding the need for a particular team-talk and that said team-talk should be available demonstrates a level of competence that a new player would not have. Therefore it is part of mastering the game to know of the existence of the team-talk, the use of the team-talk and the effect of the team-talk all of which I understand/have knowledge of. The times that the team-talk I want to use not being available confuses me as usually the team-talk is there when required. This is a game flaw yes, but me not understanding a particular team-talk's omission at a particular time does not stop me 'getting into' or enjoying the game in any way nor does it suggest a level of incompetence on my part.

[Lazaru5]

No the information is -not- there, not in the player report and not in the assistant's match reports, not in the statistics... You can see it with your own eyes when he becomes nervous but by then it is too late.

As for your other comments, the fact that you (and I - for the record) have mastered team talks does not mean that the meagre one-liners are not in need of improvement. You seem to confuse knowing what the result of a team talk will be with having sensible wordings to choose from.

A "balanced midfielder" is a player with a "balanced" personality with the description being "midfielder". Before you go on again - yes I know what the consequence of those descriptions are, but that is irrelevant for this discussion. A "balanced midfielder" is a completely and utterly useless description for both the human and AI managers.

Edit: And yes I know what a flamboyant player is. That is not the point. If the player report say that a player is "balanced" and that he is a "flamboyant winger", and nothing else, how is that contributing to the picture of what kind of player this is - other than his high Flair and 10-14ish Determination of course? Those we can see with our own eyes... The whole point of a player report is to give the managers an insight into the personality and tactical suitability of a player before he is signed, and before he runs out on the field with ten others.

You need to get to know your players, you can't expect to know them the instant they turn up for their first training session.. you are asking for an advantage that real-life managers just do not have. Players join a club primarily based on their abilities, anything else is secondary... most of the time players will form friendships within your squad gradually regardless of their personalities (I concede that sometimes two players just do not get on, look at Lincoln City releasing all but 3 players because of the lack of squad harmony and claiming it to be a big factor in their relegation to the BSP).

The scout/coach reports give you the basic information, enough to make a decision at least "believes you have an X squad and Y would fit in well"/"would have to adapt" etc... to really get to know the player you would have to sign them... *shrugs*

[BiggusD]

You need to get to know your players, you can't expect to know them the instant they turn up for their first training session.. you are asking for an advantage that real-life managers just do not have. Players join a club primarily based on their abilities, anything else is secondary... most of the time players will form friendships within your squad gradually regardless of their personalities (I concede that sometimes two players just do not get on, look at Lincoln City releasing all but 3 players because of the lack of squad harmony and claiming it to be a big factor in their relegation to the BSP).

The scout/coach reports give you the basic information, enough to make a decision at least "believes you have an X squad and Y would fit in well"/"would have to adapt" etc... to really get to know the player you would have to sign them... *shrugs*

The point is that even while they are at my club, I don't get to know more about the players than when I first see them -within the game-. The conclusions I draw after having seen them play are irrelevant - those are conclusions I could draw without visible attributes or descriptions at all, given time. So why are there attributes and descriptions at all? The answer is obvious: to help me make correct decisions. Sadly, the most important information of them all is missing: how they handle pressure. The player descriptions, coach/ass.man reports... they are providing hints at all the other hidden attributes if you look closely in-game and search this forum to find an overview of the hierarchy of personality types (or do all that work yourself). But pressure? No, that is still hidden despite Team Talks being more important than ever.

So instead of giving me the "get to know your players" speech like I'm a sort of noob, why don't you explain the reasoning behind hidden attributes in the first place?

[x42bn6]

Reality? Do you really think that the players in FM accurately emulate real-life players? Once you click continue... those players are now computer generated just as much as any regen.

Once you hit continue, they still undergo a plausible career path. Real-life information is still in play - it just gets less and less relevant as time goes on in your virtual world.

However, even for regens, we still must judge it against reality - a regen player who looks and plays like Beckham should have a Beckham-like career that is plausible.

If you "give life" to the players in your squad, i.e. imagine them as they would be IRL and treat them accordingly, you'd soon learn their traits and foibles just as you would if it were real-life. It wouldn't be a memory exercise as much as you think it is but would become more like meeting and getting to know new people IRL (as much as a simulation can be).

But it is still a slight memory exercise (in your words). It shouldn't be.

We don't need to memorise how Cristiano Ronaldo plays, as he is pervasive in the footballing world - we are exposed to Ronaldo every day with news of his goalscoring antics and his skills.

We are also aware of things like how the real Arsenal team has a rubbish mentality under pressure - we have been immersed in their collapse in reality. We don't need to memorise this.

The same should apply for players in-game. What we see on our screens is a representation of our innate virtual knowledge and experience.

The players have personalities and personality traits for a reason, i.e. to simulate real people, so why shouldn't we treat them as such?

I have no issue with treating regens as real, but the actual memorisation of things.

We have the 3D view and while it is not ideal it does give a good enough representation to be able to tell where problems are occurring with tactics, players, formations and the like. You can easily see a nervous/confident/complacent/whatever player in the 3D view, the ME does give enough clues even if the widget doesn't say how they are playing/looking.

You don't understand the argument. You argued that: "Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look..."

Replace the red bit with "players on the pitch". The reasoning is fallicious.

Some would say more depth, some would say more fluff, personally I think I would use it if it were available but wouldn't be upset to not see it introduced.

More information is better.

You create the logic yourself, essentially, although the only real information you need is the match-odds. You then base your strategy on the expectations that face you... the sequence is logical from that point. If you are favourites.. etc (said many times already)

I'm not sure why you dived into odds here as I'm not referring to odds at all. I was talking about having the information required to make decisions.

You can see subtle changes in morale as match day approaches, if you do not see those changes then that is your fault not the game's. Even on the initial pre-match team-talk screen you can see which players need encouragement or are perhaps feeling the pressure just by looking at their morale indicator. The morale on match day isn't necessarily the same as the morale indicator on your squad screen, the indicators on match day appear to reflect the players 'immediate' confidence levels regardless of their 'overall' morale - this is as dynamic as the game should get IMHO, anything more than this is fluff.

It's not fluff - it's realism.

A manager (heck, fans) knows roughly the pressure levels on the team, and how they react to pressure. Since what we see in-game is a representation of virtual knowledge, we should be able to see pressure levels. Good game design says that if something needs to be used in order to make decisions, it should be easily-accessible (preferrably 0 mouse clicks) in order to make it easier for the user to use the system.

Morale is a function of many other things than just pressure - and a player can be happy yet under pressure, or sad and under no pressure at all. A real-life person can distinguish between the two - a game representing this should be able to as well.

Fluff implies it is unnecessary - why would it be unnecessary to see the level of pressure on your squad (what we, as fans, can see what Arsenal are under right now?) in order to dictate your team-talks?

If you like, you need to know the level of pressure your team is under and the level of pressure each player can take, in order to do your team-talks. Yes it is possible to somewhat derive what they are with a bit of thought and some mouse-clicks, but if we as fans can see it, we shouldn't need to use a bit of thought and some mouse-clicks - it should be there, immediately, in some sensible form.

Almost everything in FM happens 'once you press continue' - what you are asking for is the chance to give all of the team-talks until you figure out which is the best one and THEN press continue... this is not how the game should work at all! You want to select a team-talk, see a dynamic change in player's morale levels up or down and then to decide whether to press continue or to select another team-talk and see another dynamic change in morale and so on and so on... too easy! (and not wanted)

I never said that a manager should be able to pick-and-choose-and-undo-if-I-don't-like-it.

My idea is that you have a fixed number of minutes (i.e. 10) and you can say many things in these 10 minutes - for example, you could spend 5 minutes throwing things at your players, then spend 2 minutes motivating them, then spending 3 minutes singling-out your goalkeeper who has conceded 4 soft goals. Once you click a team-talk, however, the number of minutes goes down, and your squad reacts - you cannot "undo". It's done - next step. Made a mistake? Well, you have another 8 minutes or so to rectify it, bearing in mind you could still make things even worse too

I've given some thought to this, and reflected on personal experience, and decided that actually we're both wrong (as is FM).

What would happen is pre-match the atmosphere would be relaxed, players would be in and out getting warmed up, going to the toilet, etc general chit-chat would be the order of the day until the last few minutes between the end of the warm-up and coming out to kick-off. Then the manager/coaches/assistant would go around the various players giving specific instructions, personal pep-talks, etc before the manager delivers a final 'rousing' send-off for the players just before they go out to play the match. The majority of this we can recreate anyway so that's OK.

Not really, the atmosphere might be toxic (i.e. West Ham this season, Portsmouth last season). While the players get ready, the manager is talking to the players. Most teams arrive at least an hour before kickoff, implying easily at least 10 minutes for team-talks. General chit-chat wouldn't be the order of the day - you are here to play well, not a holiday. All the specific instructions would be delivered early-on so that they are not caught up in the pressure of the crowd (you have to get these things sunk in early to remember it).

At half-time the manager would deliver a 'verdict' on the first-half performance (whether that's a well done or a bollocking or something in between) before, again, he and his staff went around the players giving instructions, gee-ups, pep-talks, etc then just before the players went out he would, again, deliver a final send-off before they went out for the second-half. We can't recreate all this, we only have one team-talk and the individual ones... we're a team-talk short in FM.

A good manager would never judge his squad - it will be fairly obvious how the team has done, so there is no point in delivering a verdict. It is the job of the manager to here motivate the squad further. Here my idea comes in - a manager can say many things during a team-talk, and this is where the multiple buttons come into play. A manager does not spend the full 10 minutes saying "For the fans!" - that only needs a couple of minutes.

Have you played or seen Heavy Rain? Where during a conversation you can do many things by pressing various button combinations shown on-screen, and when one of these actions is executed, the character(s) say different things and different things happen. This is what I am talking about.

Full-Time is OK as it is for me

To me, it is largely the same as the half-time team-talk but with a different objective - it is a talk to calm things down and to keep players motivated for training and the next game.

Because it's unnecessary fluff and will add to a new player's confusion, "all these meters and arrows in front of me what do they all mean?" etc... too much information can be just as bad as not enough (which I don't think we have either of)

Not really, I don't see where a well-labelled "pressure" meter and a well-labelled "morale" meter will confuse players. I don't see where arrow come into play. It's not about the amount of information, which is a sensible amount, it's about showing information in a sensible way - and meters are not bad things to show.

As I said, too much information can be a bad thing... too many options is a bad thing, we don't need more information.

Yes we do. We know pressure is known and how they react to pressure is also known. If it is known and required to execute some action then it should be readily-available.

Yes it is possible to be found somewhere in the game, but if it is not readily-available for team-talks (where it is required), it is poorly-designed.

Understanding the need for a particular team-talk and that said team-talk should be available demonstrates a level of competence that a new player would not have.

It shouldn't. If a user reasonably expects to see something and doesn't see it, then the game has failed the user. You should never say to a user, "you don't understand the game" - this immediately implies a design that doesn't work.

Therefore it is part of mastering the game to know of the existence of the team-talk, the use of the team-talk and the effect of the team-talk all of which I understand/have knowledge of.

I would see mastery only implies the effects - the use of the team-talk should be getting-into, and existence should be getting-into. This is because we can learn what each team-talk actually does, but we should know what each team talk should theoretically-do.

but me not understanding a particular team-talk's omission at a particular time does not stop me 'getting into' or enjoying the game in any way nor does it suggest a level of incompetence on my part.

It does stop you getting-into the game because you don't know why it isn't available when you believe it should. It does affect you enjoying the game, although it is not really a major thing. But imagine what it is like for a newcomer.

[Robert the Spud]

I didn't read your whole post so forgive me, but these stood out

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.

No, this is how it works in real life. You just need to observe the world of football to see this. Good performances are the result of sometimes even the most minute details leading up to a game, but mentality of a squad is where it's at. Ask ANY player, manager etc. Even a Stoke player alluded to this before the FA cup, that it's all about what you do every day in every aspect of the game. Jose knows this, as does Fergie. Why would they waste anytime with mind games in press conferences if it had no effect? Tactics are very important of course, but this is reflected in the game very well imo.

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. hat?

This will likely depend on professionalism. How determined are they? For instance, my Napoli squad is bursting with determined, seasoned, ultra professionals. When they play badly i let the have it, and they respond. Morale never goes below good. Why? Because of their work/team ethic and determination. This MAY be an issue with your squad. Also, ratings are certainly not the be all end all. For example, a player on a 6.2 rating will go up to 7+ just for scoring a goal, disregardng his general play. More important is the minutae of his play, such as pass rate %, mistakes, and all that stuff.

The game is nowhere near perfect, but i think people are being unreasonable in their expectations. When was CM not opaque? We didn't complain when we were little kiddies though. We just played the game without question of it's non-realism. Now we are more critical of everything, forgetting that this is one of the most variable driven, complex games around. I say, use your imaginations to fill in the gaps. This is what i did in the days of CM, and i still do it now. Forget about the deficiencies, focus on what's good about the game.

My only true gripe is the transfer system, poor AI managament, especially in regard to transfer activity, which is nowhere near proactive enough. Needs more aggression simple as. I actually use fMRTE to get players to the top clubs. Takes time and effort, but worth it. Also agents can go F themselves

[milnerpoint]

But it is still a slight memory exercise (in your words). It shouldn't be.

Almost every game out there is a memory exercise of some sort, from remembering maps, to remembering where you find a switch, anything involving playing a game is as you have to remember how to play the game. You dont pick up COD and instantly know your way around all the maps and guns, you learn whats best, and you learn where is best to go, you then have to remember that if you want to get good at the game, there are no tips that say sniper guns are best kept for certain specific maps or that motion detectors are good for other maps, you learn and you remember. The same could be said for ANY game in the world, they all involve using your memory, are they all poorly coded?

[Robert the Spud]

As i said, people are having unreasonable expectations from this game. It is a game, and therefore is readable, learnable and yes, opaque at times.

[Lazaru5]

Once you hit continue, they still undergo a plausible career path. Real-life information is still in play - it just gets less and less relevant as time goes on in your virtual world.

However, even for regens, we still must judge it against reality - a regen player who looks and plays like Beckham should have a Beckham-like career that is plausible.

But it is still a slight memory exercise (in your words). It shouldn't be.

We don't need to memorise how Cristiano Ronaldo plays, as he is pervasive in the footballing world - we are exposed to Ronaldo every day with news of his goalscoring antics and his skills.

We are also aware of things like how the real Arsenal team has a rubbish mentality under pressure - we have been immersed in their collapse in reality. We don't need to memorise this.

The same should apply for players in-game. What we see on our screens is a representation of our innate virtual knowledge and experience.

I have no issue with treating regens as real, but the actual memorisation of things.

I think milnerpoint's answer to this point is sufficient

You don't understand the argument. You argued that: "Because we can't physically see or interact with the players we have to do other things to find out information that we'd normally be able to deduce from a look..."

Replace the red bit with "players on the pitch". The reasoning is fallicious.

I can SEE my players on the pitch in 3D view and I can see what they are doing right and what they are doing wrong. I can deduce from their 'performance' in the 3D view their current mindset and make any changes as appropriate based on what I SEE! How is that a fallacy? I can not physically see or interact with the players but I can see their representations and can glean information from them instead...

More information is better.

I'm not sure why you dived into odds here as I'm not referring to odds at all. I was talking about having the information required to make decisions.

The match-odds dictate how your players approach the match, they know if they are favourites to win or not and they expect you to know that too... if you don't and you say the wrong things in the Press Conference/Player interaction/Media interactions that do not reflect the match-odds and the relevant expectations then your players will react badly.

It's not fluff - it's realism.

A manager (heck, fans) knows roughly the pressure levels on the team, and how they react to pressure. Since what we see in-game is a representation of virtual knowledge, we should be able to see pressure levels. Good game design says that if something needs to be used in order to make decisions, it should be easily-accessible (preferrably 0 mouse clicks) in order to make it easier for the user to use the system.

Morale is a function of many other things than just pressure - and a player can be happy yet under pressure, or sad and under no pressure at all. A real-life person can distinguish between the two - a game representing this should be able to as well.

Fluff implies it is unnecessary - why would it be unnecessary to see the level of pressure on your squad (what we, as fans, can see what Arsenal are under right now?) in order to dictate your team-talks?

If you like, you need to know the level of pressure your team is under and the level of pressure each player can take, in order to do your team-talks. Yes it is possible to somewhat derive what they are with a bit of thought and some mouse-clicks, but if we as fans can see it, we shouldn't need to use a bit of thought and some mouse-clicks - it should be there, immediately, in some sensible form.

It is, you are told in the widgets, your ass-man will tell you in his feedback and you can SEE it for yourself 'in action' on the pitch. Pre-match you have the morale indicator and your ass-mans feedback, if you are unable to take notice of (and understand) the differences in morale from squad screen to match screen then that is your failure, not the game's...

I never said that a manager should be able to pick-and-choose-and-undo-if-I-don't-like-it.

My idea is that you have a fixed number of minutes (i.e. 10) and you can say many things in these 10 minutes - for example, you could spend 5 minutes throwing things at your players, then spend 2 minutes motivating them, then spending 3 minutes singling-out your goalkeeper who has conceded 4 soft goals. Once you click a team-talk, however, the number of minutes goes down, and your squad reacts - you cannot "undo". It's done - next step. Made a mistake? Well, you have another 8 minutes or so to rectify it, bearing in mind you could still make things even worse too

too many clicks...

fixed minutes in game or in real-time? 10 minutes pre-match and at half-time would mean it would take me over an hour to play a single match (currently takes ~45-50mins). It is too much fluff... it is unnecessary and will add to the human's confusion regarding team-talks..

Not really, the atmosphere might be toxic (i.e. West Ham this season, Portsmouth last season). While the players get ready, the manager is talking to the players. Most teams arrive at least an hour before kickoff, implying easily at least 10 minutes for team-talks. General chit-chat wouldn't be the order of the day - you are here to play well, not a holiday. All the specific instructions would be delivered early-on so that they are not caught up in the pressure of the crowd (you have to get these things sunk in early to remember it).

My coaches never gave me instructions early, they were given to me just before we went out to play the match... why? So it was fresh in my mind... (I was still bloody useless but that's another story). Most teams would be relaxed and chatting and almost every player has their own pre-match "routine" that he likes to do before he plays a match and they will usually drop into this routine as habit (footballers are superstitious buggers)... Most manager and coaches recognise this and will, generally, wait until they can have everybody's attention before giving team-talks/instructions...

A good manager would never judge his squad - it will be fairly obvious how the team has done, so there is no point in delivering a verdict. It is the job of the manager to here motivate the squad further. Here my idea comes in - a manager can say many things during a team-talk, and this is where the multiple buttons come into play. A manager does not spend the full 10 minutes saying "For the fans!" - that only needs a couple of minutes.

So 'verdict' was a poor choice of words... at the end of the day managers will bollock a poor performance at half-time but will then gee the players up for the second-half... they wouldn't "normally" be sent out with just the bollocking ringing in their ears (but it does happen).

Have you played or seen Heavy Rain? Where during a conversation you can do many things by pressing various button combinations shown on-screen, and when one of these actions is executed, the character(s) say different things and different things happen. This is what I am talking about.

I'm guessing "Heavy Rain" is some sort of game? Never heard of it, the only heavy rain I've ever seen has got me wet...

To me, it is largely the same as the half-time team-talk but with a different objective - it is a talk to calm things down and to keep players motivated for training and the next game.

Not really, I don't see where a well-labelled "pressure" meter and a well-labelled "morale" meter will confuse players. I don't see where arrow come into play. It's not about the amount of information, which is a sensible amount, it's about showing information in a sensible way - and meters are not bad things to show.

Yes we do. We know pressure is known and how they react to pressure is also known. If it is known and required to execute some action then it should be readily-available.

Yes it is possible to be found somewhere in the game, but if it is not readily-available for team-talks (where it is required), it is poorly-designed.

I used meter for your suggestion and arrow for the current morale indicator... *shrugs* I still think that we don't need a pressure meter as we learn about our players and their foibles over time just as we would do in real-life. This thread shows that others think the same way as I..

It shouldn't. If a user reasonably expects to see something and doesn't see it, then the game has failed the user. You should never say to a user, "you don't understand the game" - this immediately implies a design that doesn't work.

I would see mastery only implies the effects - the use of the team-talk should be getting-into, and existence should be getting-into. This is because we can learn what each team-talk actually does, but we should know what each team talk should theoretically-do.

It does stop you getting-into the game because you don't know why it isn't available when you believe it should. It does affect you enjoying the game, although it is not really a major thing. But imagine what it is like for a newcomer.

A new player wouldn't know what a particular team-talk's effect would be, nor when would be the correct time to use it.. an experienced player like us would know this and that demonstrates competence...

I disagree with your last paragraph as the absence of a particular team-talk when I want it doesn't then stop my enjoyment of the game - if anything it makes me curious to discover under what circumstances that team-talk would be available (thus motivating me to learn something new about the game which aids me in mastering the game). It is not a "getting into" the game issue as I'm already hooked!

[grade]

This is what I'm trying to say, the game isn't difficult to be successful at regardless of your past experience. It is difficult to master the game, but then all games are (or should be).

A newcomer can, as you said, be successful without doing very much at all... It is this success that should then encourage that newcomer to delve deeper into the mechanics of the game; and this is where the learning curve comes in as the player attempts to get to grips with the game in it's entirety.

You said it, this game is quite fairly easy, i would too say it is easy to win and to master, because you just dominate the motivation part of the game and your set. However that easiness makes me demotivated and uninterested in playing the game. Motivation in this game is so much important that you can with default tactics, the right players win fairly easy stuff. Sure I in Fm07 or any games previous FM09 had a lot less control of what i can do then in FM11, but this part I attributed to one thing call luck, because luck is very big thing in football, far more important then motivational or tactics, since unlucky team no matter how motivated and how good the players are, will loose the match. Anyway getting side track here.

If people here defend FM needs to be as realistic as possible no matter what, i think that motivation is big part of football, there is no denying that, but i feel that at this point motivational has far too importance that makes FM far too unrealistic.

But i need to say this that FM regardless being simulator or not it is still a computer game and when we play games is for fun and that part has been seriously overlooked in the last couple of years.

[hescumeth]

Don't know why I do then. It does it to me on both my own tactics and forum tactics. My latest season has been even worse for it. First season in the Championship with Crewe, won the first 8, scoring quite freely. Then won 3 out of my next 15 games or something, conceding between 3 and 6 regularly. Then tactical change that I stick with to let settle, lose 2 games in 14 scoring many goals, started to draw after, now just lost 6-2. 4-1, 5-2. Or gaining substantial leads and throwing them away. Has happened every season, just more prominent in this league as my players aren't as good as the were in lower leagues.

Yes, thats definitely happening. My guess its the influence of players 'motivation' that is slightly too high. When the motivation is perfect (very good/superb, but not yet making them careless) you can win 10 games in a row against equal opposition. If the motivation isnt within that perfect frame anymore (often first making them carless => you lose => motivation drops => you lose more) you can easily lose 8 out of 10.

The idea from a game design standpoint behind this is pretty good. Its not completely unbalanced either, it just needs to be toned down a small bit. Otherwise team talks and such are too much more important than tactics & co, and after all tactics are one of the real fun parts of the game.

[Svenc]

Motivation in this game is so much important that you can with default tactics, the right players win fairly easy stuff.

That is not because motivation is so important - never bothered with expansive team talk pondering, nor did the many newcomers that win championships in their first season of their first save. The reason is more likely, as I've argued above, the opposite. The details and parameters that are in the game - squad gelling, personality, pitch dimensions, and indeed morale - can be neglected to the point of not really bothering playing with a decent team, unless the player is doing the outright stupid: expecting away wins against superior opposition, continously gifting players a hair-dryer treatment when they and their team are getting beaten as is. In which case: his fault. Once a newcomer, I'm talking personal experience too.

There is a lot of leeway, in particular as the game is meant to be accessible for footie fans everywhere, not only those that tinker two hours on their tactical setup for each match day, who want to ponder about a comprehensive tactic regarding their approach to team motivation, who want to baby-sit a striker prospect who desperately wants to move to a bigger club and lets the manager that be felt rather than eventually forgetting about it at some point, as it can happen, and so on. Really buying (young) talent, giving them a trainee-size life-time contract of half a decade and fielding it out there is still arguably the main road to success in FM, much like in a footie management game from the 90s (CM, anyone?), regardless of how the old guard of SI players perceives this. And scouting and signing decent talent can be comparably easy itself, unless you're setting yourself rules. Doesn't deny the advantage by mastering the other aspects of the game, though.

What I'd agree with as I've experienced this myself is that it seems very likely to have a nice run of wins once the team's motivation is "maxed out", some of those apparently borderlining on the ridiculous (newcomers who are 30 matches unbeaten, anyone?). Whether that is just a feeling or fact is up for debate.

[mrdorf]

I personally read a post by someone on here which helped me out about team-talks (sorry to the person who posted it as I can't remember who it was, but thanks!) Anyway, basically what you say depends on match odds and what you said in press conference. If you're at home and fav to win or good odds to win then for fans works well (add individual talks for certain people such as "Pick up where you left off".) Away from home if odds are fav for you then say, "we can win this" if close odds then "wish luck" Will admit that I hadn't a clue what to say until reading that post. Always thought "For fans" wasn't worth saying unless you were in a derby or final. I find that encouraging my players works if we are 1-0 up at half time but I want them to go on further and win the match. If I'm 2 or 3 nil up then I tell them not to get complacent and think the game is already won. Will admit that still not sure what to say to players that are having a bad game. I've worked out that Jermaine Beckford. Needs to be told is been disappointing for him to start playing well.

Motivating players is important and I'm sure that the best managers know what to say to get the team going and to whom. I'm sure SAF would tell Giggs something different to Keane if either of them aren't playing well. Maybe Giggs would need the softly softly approach while Keane would need to be shouted out; it would just mean knowing each player's personalities, which I feel is realistic.

[BossAsianMafia]

As i said, people are having unreasonable expectations from this game. It is a game, and therefore is readable, learnable and yes, opaque at times.

I think the point is that if possible, we should make it more transparent. Shouldn't a game try to improve over time?

Surely it's GOOD that people DON'T all have reasonable expectations.

Otherwise there is no driver to improve...

[BossAsianMafia]

This thread is obviously going around in circles because some people refuses to admit that the game can be improved. Just because the whole motivation module is perfectly reasonable and credible to 0.01% of the player base doesn't mean that other people cannot find it difficult to get into thus making the playing experience frustrating as hell. Why would these so-called "experts" prevent more information being made available to the player base so that other people can get quicker up the learning curve is beyond me. It's not like their experience is affected either way since they already know all about how to judge a player is demoralized by looking at a 3D figurine.

[Robert the Spud]

I think the point is that if possible, we should make it more transparent. Shouldn't a game try to improve over time?

Surely it's GOOD that people DON'T all have reasonable expectations.

Otherwise there is no driver to improve...

The game can obviously be improved...massively. I would like it to be better, but what i have realised is that some people seem to want a complete immersion, VR type experience, with the logic of real life.. Which is not a reasonable expectation.

I say, manage your expectations and then use your imagination to overcome deficiencies. The game is very....representative. Meaning, you have to take some features with a pinch of salt and realise that it's only supposed to be a broad representation of the football world.

[Lazaru5]

This thread is obviously going around in circles because some people refuses to admit that the game can be improved. Just because the whole motivation module is perfectly reasonable and credible to 0.01% of the player base doesn't mean that other people cannot find it difficult to get into thus making the playing experience frustrating as hell. Why would these so-called "experts" prevent more information being made available to the player base so that other people can get quicker up the learning curve is beyond me. It's not like their experience is affected either way since they already know all about how to judge a player is demoralized by looking at a 3D figurine.

I don't deny that the game can be improved it's just that the suggested 'improvements' wouldn't improve the game for me at all, in fact they would spoil the game for me...

Most of the fun is derived from figuring out the foibles of my players, their motivators and de-motivators, their reactions to private chats, media praise, press conferences and the rest. If I suddenly know the instant that I sign a player that he will bottle big games, never respond to a "pick up where you left off" or similar and that the only way to motivate him is to sell him then there is no point at all in me playing the game...

you call it improvements.. I call it game-breakers... I'd likely not buy the game if it was that easy as the whole point of the game (for me) would have been removed...

[milnerpoint]

no one refuses that the game can be improved, no one at all is saying that in any thread or any posts on these forums, but do the "improvements" suggested in here work? Not for me.

[BossAsianMafia]

I don't deny that the game can be improved it's just that the suggested 'improvements' wouldn't improve the game for me at all, in fact they would spoil the game for me...

Most of the fun is derived from figuring out the foibles of my players, their motivators and de-motivators, their reactions to private chats, media praise, press conferences and the rest. If I suddenly know the instant that I sign a player that he will bottle big games, never respond to a "pick up where you left off" or similar and that the only way to motivate him is to sell him then there is no point at all in me playing the game...

you call it improvements.. I call it game-breakers... I'd likely not buy the game if it was that easy as the whole point of the game (for me) would have been removed...

More options for teamtalks is a game-breaker for you?

[BossAsianMafia]

no one refuses that the game can be improved, no one at all is saying that in any thread or any posts on these forums, but do the "improvements" suggested in here work? Not for me.

Then maybe you can suggest some improvements of your own then? Instead of saying no to all the suggestions so far.

[milnerpoint]

Then maybe you can suggest some improvements of your own then? Instead of saying no to all the suggestions so far.

Why do i have too? Can you only say "no thats not a good idea" if you have a better idea to replace it?

[BossAsianMafia]

Why do i have too? Can you only say "no thats not a good idea" if you have a better idea to replace it?

Because it is more constructive to the discussion?

[themadsheep2001]

Because it is more constructive to the discussion?

its his opinion and a perfectly valid and constructive one,especially if he can make good argument as why its not a good idea

[Lazaru5]

More options for teamtalks is a game-breaker for you?

The suggestions I was referring to were x42's in this post and my reply was in this one

you'll notice that more team-talk options is not one I disagree with, although I'd like them to be 'logical' when they appear.

[themadsheep2001]

I actually think some of the info can be quite limited when it comes to personality. they could do with a little more detail given

if my player has 14 determinatin, i already know hes fairly determined. dont then put that as his personality, what about the other parts?