Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
jujigatame

Absolutely ridiculous "promise"

Recommended Posts

You literally promised to give young players a chance in the squad in that conversation, it was quite clear. You also get news items about promises from time to time,and it is always worth checking what active promises you have (especially in a transfer window).

Is it sensible? Of course it is. You have to keep your squad happy, it is part of managing a side. Does it improve the game? Of course, you have to actually think about what you are saying in order to succeed.

There is a simple rule here. Do not say things that you do not mean or you are not going to follow through on. That would irritate you if your boss did it, and so irritates the players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jujigatame said:

It is not sensible in the slightest, for multiple reasons:

1) I had no idea I was making a promise.  The wording of the response did not make this clear at all.  I only discovered it about 1-2 months of gameplay later when I happened to see something in my promise list.

2) The promise is ambiguously worded and you have no idea what metric is being used to calculate its success.  Like I said, I gave a young player a significant number of apps at the position of the sold player.

3) The response to a "broken" promise is binary.  There's no nuance to it whatsoever.  The guy cannot say "you did an ok job with this, I'm not super happy or upset".  He can only say "promise kept, I'm happy" or "promise not kept, I'm furious and demanding a transfer".  Which is exceptionally stupid for an ambiguous promise like "develop youth".

It is a terribly, terribly implemented feature.

All valid points, but particularly in respect of 3) - I have commented previously on another thread:

1. Relationship: "Very close"; and

2. Opinion of you: "Holds you in the highest regard as head coach";

When a promise has been broken, it is my view that 1. & 2. should militate against a player's reaction being as strong as asking to leave, Instead resulting in a bit of a grumble and request for more assurance. On the other hand, had the relationship been already strained, indifferent or neutral then a transfer request would be more understandable. Is broken promise > automatic transfer request the intended outcome regardless of the manager-player dynamic? 

Also, if a promise was not being fulfilled, you'd expect the player to start making disgruntled noises during the period in question rather than being best buddies all season then having a total meltdown as soon as the deadline has passed?

Edited by The Enforcer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jujigatame said:

It is not sensible in the slightest, for multiple reasons:

1) I had no idea I was making a promise.  The wording of the response did not make this clear at all.  I only discovered it about 1-2 months of gameplay later when I happened to see something in my promise list.

2) The promise is ambiguously worded and you have no idea what metric is being used to calculate its success.  Like I said, I gave a young player a significant number of apps at the position of the sold player.

3) The response to a "broken" promise is binary.  There's no nuance to it whatsoever.  The guy cannot say "you did an ok job with this, I'm not super happy or upset".  He can only say "promise kept, I'm happy" or "promise not kept, I'm furious and demanding a transfer".  Which is exceptionally stupid for an ambiguous promise like "develop youth".

It is a terribly, terribly implemented feature.

Number 1 I don't really agree. You very clearly told the player you planned to develop youth. It shouldn't really have to be spelled out that he may be unhappy if you don't do so, I guess they could add [PROMISE] or something in front of the relevant conversation options, but it would be dumbing down and in a way I like that this is just intuitive instead. There is also a news item sent immediately once you make it that either misfired for some reason or you ignored.

2., I think it's deliberately ambiguous because different players will have different ideas of what "enough" is, depending on their personalities. Perhaps though in response to you making the promise he should negotiate, in the same way that players do when you say you'll accept a reasonable bid by asking what reasonable is. For instance, he could say that he expects you to use a young player as a first teamer in the position of whoever's being sold, or that he expects to see X more young players break into the first team squad, which you could then either negotiate or accept.

3. I agree with. Definitely not enough options here. It does link into 2 though and I think if it was clearer exactly what was expected, this would be more reasonable - not making a meaningful attempt to keep a promise should result in trust between not just you and the player but potentially others in the squad breaking down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also there was definitely no news item.  There were reminder news items much later, but nothing as of the time the "promise" was being made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that some promises might be weird at times and the results are too binary, as you said, this particular one isn't what I consider ridiculous at all. You sold a player, never mind how much he played, but what role did he have both playing and in the squad hierarchy? If his playing role was a key player or important first teamer, then you are telling Bonucci he will be replaced by a youngster. If Abate had an important role in the hierarchy and Bonucci thinks there's a void in leadership because of this sale, then you are telling him that you will play youngsters in general to help them become more influential in the dressing room.

At least this is how I understand this particular conversation option. Compare this to a more regular work place; Your college, a friend perhaps, is transferred to another department in another country (the closest way to mirror a sold player), and you feel there's too few employees in his role left and since you have worked there for a while and are a strong willed person, you confront your boss about this. He tells you he understand your position, but claims one of the new guys are getting promoted into his position so you'll not have to work overtime all the time to keep things running along. Then, after 6 months and nothing happening (in your eyes!), would you be happy? No, you would feel the promise your boss gave you was broken. Then you have the options of getting over it, or look for a new place to work. The same as Bonucci in this comparison. Now, there might be reasons as to why nothing has happened here. The youth didn't cut it, financial issues, etc, but in the end the promise was broken and the employee must either accept it or more on. Of course, the boss might feel he is doing all he can to introduce the new guy to the team, but things aren't going as planned, so the employee and the boss have different views of the status of the promise.

The plight of middle management right there. And a reminder to every leader out there, never give a promise you cannot guarantee you can keep to the recipient expectations. Now, in FM this nuance is hard to get, but still, I'm keeping my promises to a minimum, since if a player tried to get me to promise something, then I've done something wrong to get there, at least in the eyes of the player. I usually tell them to not question my leadership instead, since they have the audacity to question it in the first place. And make a mental note that this player might be one for the transfer list if he keeps this up. Yes, I might be a horrible boss, in this regard, but at least you know for certain if I want to keep you in my squad or not.

Edited by XaW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Enforcer said:

What was Abate's squad status?

I think "rotation" but I don't think that was the problem.  I think the problem was that he was still considered a "highly influential player" on the dynamics screen.  Which of course makes the whole thing a ridiculous catch-22.  When a highly influential player demands a transfer (because of lack of playing time) how are you supposed to handle it?  You either **** him off by refusing, or **** off the rest of the team by accepting.  You'd think the rest of the team would understand the situation, considering he had 2 starts in half a season, but apparently not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i find even more ridiuclous is that surely the main issue Bonucci had in the first place was that 1 of his "friends" or another senior member of the squad had been sold.

he probably couldnt care less if the reason meant it was so younger players could play.

so why would he then be so bothered later down the line whether the younger guy got a game or not as his buddy had still been shipped out anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar issue when I sold Ritchie (NUFC). Ritchie informed me that he was pleased that I allowed him to talk to Leicester City. He agreed and off he went.  

Lascelles came to me to complain and I had to make a choice, there was no option to say Ritchie wanted to go to further his career and would of been unhappy if I blocked the transfer offer. It may be that he, Ritchie, should have informed the squad but that is not coded into the game as far as I know.  There was one obscure option that appeased Lascelles but not an obvious one and neither did I have an option, as I said, to say Ritchie wanted to go. There were both highly influential.

Maybe these situations could be coded in but as I am not technical not sure how easy that would be!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot disagree that the whole promise system is too binary, lacks nuance, and can be a bit opaque at times. I've run into issues with it a few times, making promises I didn't really realize are promises until you see it listed on the Promises screen or get a warning. But while it can feel misleading because the conversation never used the word "promise".... if you change that word to something like "commitment", its not hard to see that you've made a commitment to the player on this topic and if you fail in that commitment, they are going to be upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone defending this implementation name a real life senior player who has demanded to leave a club because they weren't developing as many junior players as he thought the manager promised to do?

 

The "promise" gets made not because a gamer intends to commit to developing youth, but because they can't say "I think X is younger and better player, he was complaining about game time and we have adequate cover that's less likely to ask to leave" which is what an actual manager would say in the situation. Similarly the promise gets broken not because the manager doesn't want to keep it but because it's impossible to communicate with players to understand what they consider "young players" and "enough chances" to be.

That's understandable given it's not practical to write the sort of AI that can understand what you really want to say and have a full blown conversation. And arguably even with such limitations it's good and even necessary for a simulation to force managers to make the sorts of commitments real life managers do get forced into making, like letting players go if a big enough bid comes in, or at the end of the season, or if they don't win anything.

SI's choice to waste resources and heighten complexity coding situations in which players may react to a statement by demanding to leave the club for reasons real life players do not demand to leave clubs is just baffling though.

 

Edited by enigmatic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Can anyone defending this implementation name a real life senior player who has demanded to leave a club because they weren't developing as many junior players as he thought the manager promised to do?

I think you are missing a point here. The player isn't leaving because he failed to develop youngsters. He wants to leave because he feel the manager have lied to him. No matter the promise, if you make it you should keep it. As to the question you ask, I don't have any examples, but absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Not that I think that it happens a lot, we cannot say for certain since we don't know the reason behind each and every real life transfer.

However, I do believe the whole promise aspect needs some work and should not be as exact as it is now. As a manager, if a player comes with issues you are likely to have made an error (at least in the eyes of the player). Your job as a a manager is to resolve it, and I do think it's a needed addition if FM is supposed to be a realistic simulation. Motivating and handling the players is a very big part of the job, as any other position with management responsibility.

Once again, as in real life, don't promise anything if you are not 100% certain you can keep it to the extent of the recipient's expectations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jujigatame said:

I think "rotation" but I don't think that was the problem.  I think the problem was that he was still considered a "highly influential player" on the dynamics screen.  Which of course makes the whole thing a ridiculous catch-22.  When a highly influential player demands a transfer (because of lack of playing time) how are you supposed to handle it?  You either **** him off by refusing, or **** off the rest of the team by accepting.  You'd think the rest of the team would understand the situation, considering he had 2 starts in half a season, but apparently not.

I strongly recommend you report as a bug in the dynamics section of the bugs forum. Ideally upload saves from before and after the Bonnuci transfer request, if you have them.

 

3 hours ago, Kazza said:

I had a similar issue when I sold Ritchie (NUFC). Ritchie informed me that he was pleased that I allowed him to talk to Leicester City. He agreed and off he went.  

Lascelles came to me to complain and I had to make a choice, there was no option to say Ritchie wanted to go to further his career and would of been unhappy if I blocked the transfer offer. It may be that he, Ritchie, should have informed the squad but that is not coded into the game as far as I know.  There was one obscure option that appeased Lascelles but not an obvious one and neither did I have an option, as I said, to say Ritchie wanted to go. There were both highly influential.

Maybe these situations could be coded in but as I am not technical not sure how easy that would be!

I also strongly recommend that this is also logged as a bug, ideally if you have a save just before Ritchie asks to leave and then another after Lascelles complains.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly I have no relevant saves so I don't think logging it as a bug would be super useful.

I'm just hoping Bonucci gets it out of his system after a few months and settles down.  Because I'm not selling him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, XaW said:

I think you are missing a point here. The player isn't leaving because he failed to develop youngsters. He wants to leave because he feel the manager have lied to him. No matter the promise, if you make it you should keep it. As to the question you ask, I don't have any examples, but absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. Not that I think that it happens a lot, we cannot say for certain since we don't know the reason behind each and every real life transfer.

However, I do believe the whole promise aspect needs some work and should not be as exact as it is now. As a manager, if a player comes with issues you are likely to have made an error (at least in the eyes of the player). Your job as a a manager is to resolve it, and I do think it's a needed addition if FM is supposed to be a realistic simulation. Motivating and handling the players is a very big part of the job, as any other position with management responsibility.

Once again, as in real life, don't promise anything if you are not 100% certain you can keep it to the extent of the recipient's expectations.

Sure, but the only reason the player "believes the manager lied to him" is because the player was programmed to irrationally interpret a statement to the effect that a player had been replaced by a younger, better player as a binding commitment to play a specific number of youngsters in a specific number of games, without any further interaction to clarify being possible, and then programmed to massively overreact rather than seek clarification.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that the number of players who have ever demanded to leave a club because they the manager lied to them by not dropping more senior players for youngsters is zero. Which is why this "feature" would be best improved by removing it and focusing on improving the sort of manager promises that actually do have consequences, like those concerning transfers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, XaW said:

Once again, as in real life, don't promise anything if you are not 100% certain you can keep it to the extent of the recipient's expectations.

Except we have absolutely no way of knowing the "recipient's expectations" in this case.  By any reasonable human interpretation of the exchanged words, I did exactly what I said I was going to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the original post we believe we've found an issue related to this specific promise which we're investigating. Thanks for taking the time to raise it here, but for future reference these types of issues are best raised on our bugs forums so there's more chance they're found. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DazRTaylor said:

I signed a player in the summer, he wasn’t overly keen so I threw in a promise stating we would make the playoffs this season. So he agreed to negotiate a deal, which we subsequently agreed, with no further promises.

Fast forward TWO months and he comes whinging I am not keeping my promise and threatens to have a meltdown and he then throws his rather expensive toys out of the pram, followed by spitting his jewel encrusted dummy out.  I dumped him in th4 reserves and never picked him again.  I even chose a raw, untried sixteen year old from our academy above him when we had an injury & suspension crisis at the same time.

Two things:

1).  It is September.  We have thirty five league games to go.

2).  Whilst it is true we are not in a playoff spot, it is only because we are top of the league.

The whole promise feature is broken.

That's a bug and ideally we'd need a save game prior to the promise being made. When exactly did you open negotiations with him? What exact date?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Neil Brock said:

That's a bug and ideally we'd need a save game prior to the promise being made. When exactly did you open negotiations with him? What exact date?

As I no longer have the save, I haven't got a clue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DazRTaylor said:

I signed a player in the summer, he wasn’t overly keen so I threw in a promise stating we would make the playoffs this season. So he agreed to negotiate a deal, which we subsequently agreed, with no further promises.

Fast forward TWO months and he comes whinging I am not keeping my promise and threatens to have a meltdown and he then throws his rather expensive toys out of the pram, followed by spitting his jewel encrusted dummy out.  I dumped him in th4 reserves and never picked him again.  I even chose a raw, untried sixteen year old from our academy above him when we had an injury & suspension crisis at the same time.

Two things:

1).  It is September.  We have thirty five league games to go.

2).  Whilst it is true we are not in a playoff spot, it is only because we are top of the league.

The whole promise feature is broken.

dude, that sucks! always something trying to taint what should be a good feel start

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For people who've had experience with this, will Bonucci ever get over it?  Or will I just be dealing with his bad attitude and morale for the remaining 2.5 years of his contract?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jujigatame said:

For people who've had experience with this, will Bonucci ever get over it?  Or will I just be dealing with his bad attitude and morale for the remaining 2.5 years of his contract?

some times if you suck up to them a bit they cool down quicker. if you can get in a player he suggests that should cancel any of it out

depends how hard you want to try, i just give up usually and get rid of the guy as soon as i can. sucks but is just easier than trying to manage poorly scripted interactions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The player interaction is terrible and unpredictable in this game, at times it's infuriating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, lemeuresnew said:

some times if you suck up to them a bit they cool down quicker. if you can get in a player he suggests that should cancel any of it out

depends how hard you want to try, i just give up usually and get rid of the guy as soon as i can. sucks but is just easier than trying to manage poorly scripted interactions

Much of the time you're not able to interact with the player any longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/02/2018 at 18:16, Kazza said:

Lascelles came to me to complain and I had to make a choice, there was no option to say Ritchie wanted to go to further his career and would of been unhappy if I blocked the transfer offer. It may be that he, Ritchie, should have informed the squad but that is not coded into the game as far as I know.  There was one obscure option that appeased Lascelles but not an obvious one and neither did I have an option, as I said, to say Ritchie wanted to go. There were both highly influential.

I had something similar. At West Ham, Ayew wanted to leave for more first team football, and I figured it was a good chance to offload him. Agreed, sold him. Next thing I know, people are in my office wondering why I got rid of such a highly influential player. I defused the situation by claiming it was because he didn't fit tactically (true), but point is, he was the one wanting out. Had I stood in his way, no doubt he would use his position to cause a ruckus.

 

I ran into similar problems with another player, a backup who had no place in the team, where whichever route I went, there was a player drama waiting to happen. It is slightly excessive in my view and needs to be handled a bit better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, isignedupfornorealreason said:

I had something similar. At West Ham, Ayew wanted to leave for more first team football, and I figured it was a good chance to offload him. Agreed, sold him. Next thing I know, people are in my office wondering why I got rid of such a highly influential player. I defused the situation by claiming it was because he didn't fit tactically (true), but point is, he was the one wanting out. Had I stood in his way, no doubt he would use his position to cause a ruckus.

 

I ran into similar problems with another player, a backup who had no place in the team, where whichever route I went, there was a player drama waiting to happen. It is slightly excessive in my view and needs to be handled a bit better.

With your latter example, this will generally only happen if a player is high within the hierarchy of the club. The reality is, Football Managers can't just bomb out players every summer without any repercussions, especially those who have been at the club a few years and have a strong level of influence. Just a couple of examples from this year off the top of my head, earlier this season, Rafa decided to freeze out Colback as he's nowhere near good enough, and the player ended up kicking off and training with the kids. You have the famous example of Diego Costa being forced out of Chelsea and kicked up an almighty stink before doing so. The difference between real life and FM is that as a manager, you see first hand how the players react to these decisions. In real life, players (and more likely their agents) are too media savvy to let these types of incidents enter the public domain and they're kept behind closed doors so to speak.

If you feel there's specific examples where the game is overstating the importance of players within the hierarchy or too many players are reacting to someone leaving the club, please raise it within the bugs forum. These types of areas can always potentially be tweaked based on examples and evidence provided by the community. Thanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Neil Brock

All good examples of problems managers face when trying to force out influential & liked players, unfortunately in the example experienced by  @isignedupfornorealreason Ayew asked to leave & his departure upset the squad rather than the treatment he received while at the club, if his teammates felt he was being forced out through a policy of not selecting the player then that issue probably should have manifested itself much earlier & have been focused on teammates asking the manager why Ayew is not playing as many matches as they think he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Neil Brock Is there something else at play here to do with player personalities?  Do we understand enough about their personalities, media handling skills and our own relationships with individual players to fully appreciate that differences here can result in different outcomes to conversations?

ok, bugs and ambiguous statements notwithstanding, how much can we understand about our own and player personalities to have meaningful conversations?  At present, we get told a player's personality and their media handling - but what do they mean?  The coach/scout report only goes so far to relay us snippets of "hidden" information and many people don't even look at this anyway.  In the T&T forum it's pretty obvious most people there look as far as player attributes but no further.

Is there something here that could perhaps be expanded?  Create a "Manager's Dossier" type of file for each player which takes the player profiles and expands upon them?  Perhaps when we get asked by a player for a meeting we have an option to view this to give us an idea of how we could/should go about handling the meeting - for example player A's "dossier" might tell us he's been a loyal servant, handles himself in a professional manner, puts the club first, he trusts the manager, and rarely speaks out of place.  So we know we can be open with him and talk calmly.  Player B comes to us but he is highly controversial, speaks to the press a lot when he doesn't like something, he's missed training, stayed at home in Brazil and he really doesn't like the manager, so now we know we should perhaps be a bit more cautious when talking to him.

I guess to an extent that's kind of hand holding and isn't much more than we could (should?) learn from our own experiences, but perhaps we could have a more complete picture in game of our players rather than just their tactical attributes and a somewhat incomplete picture of their personalities. 

You mention reality above, so how do clubs handle this in real life?  Do they grade player tactical attributes on a 1-20 scale?  How do they judge (do they judge?) player personalities?  What information do clubs have about their own playing staff and prospective new players?  How close are we to reality at the moment?  I've no idea, but perhaps there is room to improve the information we have about players which may help us handle our talks with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue we are talking about is the lack of options to be able to say,; "He wanted to go" or the fact that he did not want to be blocked from talking to another club. If you allow him either/both then he could inform his colleagues or you could. As it stands there is no satisfactory option in those circumstances. It may just a line to say he wanted out or some such and then the players will be appeased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, herne79 said:

@Neil Brock Is there something else at play here to do with player personalities?  Do we understand enough about their personalities, media handling skills and our own relationships with individual players to fully appreciate that differences here can result in different outcomes to conversations?

ok, bugs and ambiguous statements notwithstanding, how much can we understand about our own and player personalities to have meaningful conversations?  At present, we get told a player's personality and their media handling - but what do they mean?  The coach/scout report only goes so far to relay us snippets of "hidden" information and many people don't even look at this anyway.  In the T&T forum it's pretty obvious most people there look as far as player attributes but no further.

Is there something here that could perhaps be expanded?  Create a "Manager's Dossier" type of file for each player which takes the player profiles and expands upon them?  Perhaps when we get asked by a player for a meeting we have an option to view this to give us an idea of how we could/should go about handling the meeting - for example player A's "dossier" might tell us he's been a loyal servant, handles himself in a professional manner, puts the club first, he trusts the manager, and rarely speaks out of place.  So we know we can be open with him and talk calmly.  Player B comes to us but he is highly controversial, speaks to the press a lot when he doesn't like something, he's missed training, stayed at home in Brazil and he really doesn't like the manager, so now we know we should perhaps be a bit more cautious when talking to him.

I guess to an extent that's kind of hand holding and isn't much more than we could (should?) learn from our own experiences, but perhaps we could have a more complete picture in game of our players rather than just their tactical attributes and a somewhat incomplete picture of their personalities. 

You mention reality above, so how do clubs handle this in real life?  Do they grade player tactical attributes on a 1-20 scale?  How do they judge (do they judge?) player personalities?  What information do clubs have about their own playing staff and prospective new players?  How close are we to reality at the moment?  I've no idea, but perhaps there is room to improve the information we have about players which may help us handle our talks with them.

We can't display these kinds of aspects for real players beyond what is already available in game. Our hands are tied with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a similar problem with the sale - at his request - of Michael Carrick. Several players complained, and all but one - De Gea - accepted the argument that it was time to give youth a chance. And whatever I did, De Gea remained unhappy, and refused to negotiate a new contract. Eventually, i did something unheard of for me, and had a bit of a think about it. A bit of scrolling through the interaction tab for captain, and various senior players, and I found it "Team-mates unhappiness". And lo and behold a chat with his captain and he was all better, signed a reasonable contract, and everyone was happy.

My point is that while there are certain parts of the interaction which I find irritating and repetitive without adding anything (unhappy with training, for example) I think there are other things that you have to treat as problem solving, rather than clicking the correct option in a single conversation.  Just a thought, maybe I'm off the mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, herne79 said:

@Neil Brock Is there something else at play here to do with player personalities?  Do we understand enough about their personalities, media handling skills and our own relationships with individual players to fully appreciate that differences here can result in different outcomes to conversations?

ok, bugs and ambiguous statements notwithstanding, how much can we understand about our own and player personalities to have meaningful conversations?  At present, we get told a player's personality and their media handling - but what do they mean?  The coach/scout report only goes so far to relay us snippets of "hidden" information and many people don't even look at this anyway.  In the T&T forum it's pretty obvious most people there look as far as player attributes but no further.

A related issue is I think the underlying model of player behaviour based on ~6 hidden variables which are often randomly set and presumably fairly difficult to research is always going to be difficult to test to see if it's behaving as expected, especially in game conditions. And I've certainly played FM variants where I have set those variables for custom players and the behaviour of players has been very, very unexpected. For other variables, they're visible and easily compared with others at the same level and there's a match engine to see how they perform and how that conforms with expectations.

Instead of relying on ambiguous combinations of "Ambition", "Loyalty" etc, it'd be nice if prominent players' decision making was based mainly around (visible or not) specific traits similar to the manager ones e.g "happy in backup role", "expects to win trophies", "will accept lucrative contracts at less prestigious clubs", "relaxed attitude to training", "aims to play for favoured club" etc.

Unlikely to happen, but from a realism point of view I think it'd be better actually scrapping a lot of the player personality/interaction logic altogether, focus on better implementations of stuff that's actually essential to a management simulation (transfer requests/promises, game time balancing, demanding more from players) and not stuff that isn't like making players overreact to implicit statements about young players or passing being a joy to behold in a forced-choice conversation system. I'd genuinely rather see player tantrums be completely random than the result of deficient conversational systems.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, scass said:

I had a similar problem with the sale - at his request - of Michael Carrick. Several players complained, and all but one - De Gea - accepted the argument that it was time to give youth a chance. And whatever I did, De Gea remained unhappy, and refused to negotiate a new contract. Eventually, i did something unheard of for me, and had a bit of a think about it. A bit of scrolling through the interaction tab for captain, and various senior players, and I found it "Team-mates unhappiness". And lo and behold a chat with his captain and he was all better, signed a reasonable contract, and everyone was happy.

My point is that while there are certain parts of the interaction which I find irritating and repetitive without adding anything (unhappy with training, for example) I think there are other things that you have to treat as problem solving, rather than clicking the correct option in a single conversation.  Just a thought, maybe I'm off the mark.

Thank you sir!  I couldn't talk to Bonucci directly, but I had Biglia talk to him for me, and he's now happy as a clam.  Didn't realize you could do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a counter to the argument that the promises module requires some adjustment ( which I agree with ) is that the ability to have the player issues resolved by the senior players is overpowered and unrealistic as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FrazT said:

the ability to have the player issues resolved by the senior players is overpowered and unrealistic as well.

This. I used it a lot and it works in 99/100 cases. Feels like cheating for me. But on the other hand it saved me a lot of nerves :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, FrazT said:

As a counter to the argument that the promises module requires some adjustment ( which I agree with ) is that the ability to have the player issues resolved by the senior players is overpowered and unrealistic as well.

Yeah this is something we're aware of and will look to tweak for the next update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Spurs08

There definitely isn't an article telling you that responding that you are going to give young players a chance is a promise. There is for saying a player can leave in a press conference. But I've told player twice this week that i will be uaing youth players instead of strengthening and this has never been highlighted as a promise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2018 at 12:34, Barside said:

@Neil Brock

All good examples of problems managers face when trying to force out influential & liked players, unfortunately in the example experienced by  @isignedupfornorealreason Ayew asked to leave & his departure upset the squad rather than the treatment he received while at the club, if his teammates felt he was being forced out through a policy of not selecting the player then that issue probably should have manifested itself much earlier & have been focused on teammates asking the manager why Ayew is not playing as many matches as they think he should.

Missed this first time, yeah it's a fair point and something to consider going forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2018 at 12:34, Barside said:

if his teammates felt he was being forced out through a policy of not selecting the player then that issue probably should have manifested itself much earlier & have been focused on teammates asking the manager why Ayew is not playing as many matches as they think he should.

Oh boy... I hope this doesn't manifest in game too much. :p It is my main method of getting rid of people. - I do drop their status to backup, or lower if I'm phasing them down because better talent is in the squad. I don't think I could deal with the headache of having to explain why I'm phasing players out. :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Neil Brock said:

Yeah this is something we're aware of and will look to tweak for the next update. 

Good news as long as the promises side of the equation is also looked at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it happen for me in my Watford save. Troy Deeney is 32 and he feel that he already achieved everything at the club so he want a new challenge.

With Adalberto Penaranda (24) and Juan Hernandez (22), I am okay to let him go. Actually, my initial planning is to keep him until he is retire because he is one of the Legend for the club.

Because of him as a team leader in hierarchy, this move concern Gerard Deulofeu, so I promise him to play our younger Players, I have (Adalberto Penaranda (24) and Juan Hernandez (22)) in my mind. 

I am currently still have 218 days left to fulfill this promise, what I want to know what considered younger players? Are both of Adalberto Penaranda (24) and Juan Hernandez (22) include ?

Really hope this interaction more than like transfer valuation, which we can tell to that player who the player that will replace him. And this could be interesting, if the concerned player think that player can replace the departure player, maybe the replacement can get some boost in the hierarchy. So everyone happy

Still looking forward and will give an update after 218 game days to you all

Edited by saintrainhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, saintrainhard said:

what I want to know what considered younger players?

Younger players are usually up to and including the age of 23, so likely to exclude Penaranda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, herne79 said:

Younger players are usually up to and including the age of 23, so likely to exclude Penaranda.

So to fulfill the promise I better go with Juan Hernandez for ST. Or take a rather extreme precaution with changing the formation to play with 2 striker, and play them both.

Maybe because I usually played Penaranda the status still in yellow. And after big loss against city, Deulofeu throw another bomb about dressing room atmosphere, but that is because the promise to him in first place. With 200++ days of time fulfill, this thing  could ruin a season 

Edited by saintrainhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...