Glaring Omission

[skipping pig]

I know player interaction is weak generally, but this really annoys me:

A rotation player comes to me with the usual demands for first team football. I ask for him to put some good reserve performances in first, whereupon he throws his toys out of the pram. As he's bloody useless anyway I tell him that if he wants to leave, NOW WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO TELL ME..

He says leaving the club would be for the best. This is fine by me.

However when I click on his Transfer tab, no transfer status is set despite him just telling me he wants to leave. If I click on the infamous Promises tab, then apparently the player is hoping to see some movement in relation to him being sold.

Now this players contract contained a very large loyalty bonus, and if I transfer list him he's going to be entitled to the rest of it. If he request a transfer it is my understanding that he forfeits it.

So my point is why is there no option during the conversation to tell the player "If you want to leave, you are going to have to put in a transfer request"? Even if they decline to do so that's fine as it would avoid me having to contend with getting pissy about yet another promise I never made. It would also mean I don't have to pay some unloyal git a loyalty bonus he should not be entitled to.

This is is such an obvious, glaring omission from the interaction dialogue and would potentially save managers paying out £ millions every year.

[Kenco]

Worse than that is when a player asks to leave, so I say I'll try to sell him and he seems pleased. I offer him to clubs but nobody wants him. Transfer window closes, then he throws a strop about my broken promise to sell him (even though I tried) and requests to be put on the transfer list (even though nobody wants him).

Then a few days later he asks to come off the transfer list. Fine, I take him off but within 24 hours he is moaning again about lack of action and wants to be transfer listed again.

It's a crazy game sometimes.

[forameuss]

I was all set to disagree, but you know what, you're totally right. If it wasn't for loyalty bonuses, it probably wouldn't matter, but for more valuable players this can be a sizeable amount, and I think they should be forfeiting a "loyalty" bonus the minute they come moaning that they want to leave.

However, reading it back, has he ever actually stated that he wants to leave? I'd need to see the exact exchange, but looks like you were the first to mention him actually leaving. That's pretty tenuous though, and even in that case the interactions would probably need a reword.

[themadsheep2001]

For such a glaring omission, amazed its taken so long for anyone to actually mention it.

[CWR15]

I do think it is not right, but I just assumed that as players were a bit clever, they weren't putting in formal transfer requests.

I would like the option, when talking to a player to say I am happy to sell you but you will need to put in a written transfer request (thus removing the need to pay up his loyalty clause). Then the player could come back and say he is not willing to do that or he could come to you with a formal transfer request. If it wasn't too complicated he could offer to lose half of his loyalty bonus as a compromise.

[Dagenham_Dave]

ISo my point is why is there no option during the conversation to tell the player "If you want to leave, you are going to have to put in a transfer request"?.

Because every single person would use it as a means to get out of paying a loyalty bonus. Everyone.

I like it the way it is. If you're worried about the loyalty bonus, don't even mention leaving, dig your heels in. Eventually the player will come scuttling back a week or so later demanding a transfer. OR if he's popular with the players, and is valuable to the club, you'll have issues. But that's what you have to weigh up when going through the discussion. Which is a good test of your man management.

Interactions overall could do with a few tweaks, but that one works not too bad on reflection.

[Karnack]

Because every single person would use it as a means to get out of paying a loyalty bonus. Everyone.

I like it the way it is. If you're worried about the loyalty bonus, don't even mention leaving, dig your heels in. Eventually the player will come scuttling back a week or so later demanding a transfer. OR if he's popular with the players, and is valuable to the club, you'll have issues. But that's what you have to weigh up when going through the discussion. Which is a good test of your man management.

Interactions overall could do with a few tweaks, but that one works not too bad on reflection.

Sure, but then the players reaction could be to be even more upset, it shouldn't work every time but it should be an option.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Sure, but then the players reaction could be to be even more upset

That's the chance you take. Which is the whole point of it.

If you have the option the OP wants, no-one would ever choose anything else in that situation, as that easily resolves the situation AND gets you out of paying a loyalty bonus. If you're going to have these types of interactions, there has to be some sort of risk/reward type element, otherwise it becomes like press conferences, where you just endlessly press the same anwers.

That option would only work if there was some sort of potential negative impact on the back of it. Remember, this is a game, and if you put any option in a game where the player can't lose out of it, no-one would ever pick anything else.

[skipping pig]

I should have the option to tell him to put a request in - he should have the option to say no and becoming a disruptive influence.

It's the double whammy of having to pay the loyalty bonus AND supposedly having promised to sell him. I either take the hit on the bonus or have a player (and teammates) complaining that I have broken a promise to sell am individual that I never made.

I don't have time to mess about uploading screen shots but suffice to say the player is the first one to mention leaving during the conversation

[dazbowski]

For such a glaring omission, amazed its taken so long for anyone to actually mention it.

Fantastic moderation that! :confused:

[themadsheep2001]

Fantastic moderation that! :confused:

Thank you.

The point is that it's not such a glaring omission at all, having not been picked up on at all by anyone in 2 years. Certainly could (should?) be an option to have, but it shouldn't be a certainty, the player should have the ability to reject, and also get angered by it.

OP it actually takes no time to upload at all. You dont even need to use another piece of software if you have windows, can do it using windows explorer.

[skipping pig]

If anyone thinks the issue needs illustrating I'll upload screen shots, but it's not a difficult situation to recreate so for the time being I wont.

[Dagenham_Dave]

The point is that it's not such a glaring omission at all, having not been picked up on at all by anyone in 2 years..

Watch the floodgates open now though...

[themadsheep2001]

If anyone thinks the issue needs illustrating I'll upload screen shots, but it's not a difficult situation to recreate so for the time being I wont.

I dont think it needs it all, but just saying the ability to upload is a lot quicker than people think. It's not a bug, but rather a pretty solid case for a feature request/improvement.

[Karnack]

That's the chance you take. Which is the whole point of it.

If you have the option the OP wants, no-one would ever choose anything else in that situation, as that easily resolves the situation AND gets you out of paying a loyalty bonus. If you're going to have these types of interactions, there has to be some sort of risk/reward type element, otherwise it becomes like press conferences, where you just endlessly press the same anwers.

That option would only work if there was some sort of potential negative impact on the back of it. Remember, this is a game, and if you put any option in a game where the player can't lose out of it, no-one would ever pick anything else.

But thats the risk with that option, that the player might go bananas and bring the whole squad against you. It's not supposed be a "fix it always" answer, but occasionally when a player might want to leave badly enough it might be a working option for both parties.

So in the end you might get sacked for it or you might find a decent solution where the player can leave without the club paying a fortune.

[Dagenham_Dave]

But thats the risk with that option, that the player might go bananas and bring the whole squad against you. .

Can you imagine the outcry on here if you had a player who wanted to leave 'go bananas' if you asked him to hand in a transfer request?

I still think an option like that would be open to abuse as a get out clause for paying loyalty fees.

Look at team talks. Does anyone ever use anything other than an assertive or passionate 'you have faith' talk when doing the positional part of the team talk? Ok, you might choose the odd other option occassionally, but you're almost guaranteed to get good reactions from that talk, so everyone uses it. That's something that needs fixed IMO, to have more chance of a negative impact with that talk (or remove it altogether). And it would be similar with this feature. So, whilst it's a nice idea, that is perhaps rooted in more realism, in the game, it'd be nothing more than an exploit.

[themadsheep2001]

Can you imagine the outcry on here if you had a player who wanted to leave 'go bananas' if you asked him to hand in a transfer request?

I still think an option like that would be open to abuse as a get out clause for paying loyalty fees.

Look at team talks. Does anyone ever use anything other than an assertive or passionate 'you have faith' talk when doing the positional part of the team talk? Ok, you might choose the odd other option occassionally, but you're almost guaranteed to get good reactions from that talk, so everyone uses it. That's something that needs fixed IMO, to have more chance of a negative impact with that talk (or remove it altogether). And it would be similar with this feature. So, whilst it's a nice idea, that is perhaps rooted in more realism, in the game, it'd be nothing more than an exploit.

I do. Mostly because I often say nothing to them at all and send them on.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I do. Mostly because I often say nothing to them at all and send them on.

I very rarely give any team talks at all these days and I can't remember the last time I even used the 'I have faith' option. It may always get 'good reactions' from your players (why wouldn't it) but that doesn't mean it guarantees better performance. It can do the opposite in fact if you need your players focused rather than relaxed. Green reactions do not automatically = better performance.

[themadsheep2001]

I very rarely give any team talks at all these days and I can't remember the last time I even used the 'I have faith' option. It's may always get 'good reactions' from your players (why wouldn't it) but that doesn't mean it guarantees better performance. It can do the opposite in fact if you need your players focused rather than relaxed. Green reactions do not automatically = better performance.

I cannot stress the bold enough. I don't enough people realize this at all.

[HUNT3R]

Meh. I'll use it on an under-performing player, low on morale. If he has good morale, I'll tell him I'm disappointed or I expect a performance.

[Äktsjon Männ]

I cannot stress the bold enough. I don't enough people realize this at all.

To be fair, and this is something I've mentioned a lot over years, team talk reactions shouldn't be color coded at all IMO. All it does is mislead people for no particular reason. It would be much better if all reactions were shown neutrally and left open to interpretation rather than suggesting a positive or negative impact.

[HUNT3R]

To be fair, and this is something I've mentioned a lot over years, team talk reactions shouldn't be color coded at all IMO. All it does is mislead people for no particular reason. It would be much better if all reactions were shown neutrally and left open to interpretation rather than suggesting a positive or negative impact.

The colour coding (IMO) indicates an increase or drop in morale. The problem is, that it leads people to focus on morale, when motivation is (again, IMO) much more important.

[Äktsjon Männ]

The colour coding (IMO) indicates an increase or drop in morale. The problem is, that it leads people to focus on morale, when motivation is (again, IMO) much more important.

True, that's why it makes little sense to code it that way. It's rather natural to look at all the 'good' reactions and think you've made a positive impact. In fact the game is pretty much telling you that you have by using the green vs red coloring. If it was neutral people would naturally be more inclined to think of the context and realise that players looking relaxed or happy is not actually a good thing in every situation.

[HUNT3R]

True, that's why it makes little sense to code it that way. It's rather natural to look at all the 'good' reactions and think you've made a positive impact. In fact the game is pretty much telling you that you have by using the green vs red coloring. If it was neutral people would naturally be more inclined to think of the context and realise that players looking relaxed or happy is not actually a good thing in every situation.

It's a difficult thing to get right. There needs to be some type of feedback to the user. The green/red (or if it gets replaced by arrows or something else) indicates morale going up or down, but it isn't noticeable as to what else your team talks affect.

IMO, you can't give that same feedback on motivation. It's more difficult to tell what the motivational effects are while you're still in the dressing room. This type of feedback would be more suitable to an after the game report and it is currently, in the form of the team talk feedback screen. That screen is too hidden though. Maybe only have vague lines like, "appeared more positive", "listened keenly" and "didn't seem to be listening" (some of which already exists in-game) or something to that effect. The team talk feedback screen should pop up as part of an after-match report so you can see with more accuracy what happened.

Edit: By the way, thanks Dave for getting us completely off track!

[Karnack]

Can you imagine the outcry on here if you had a player who wanted to leave 'go bananas' if you asked him to hand in a transfer request?

I still think an option like that would be open to abuse as a get out clause for paying loyalty fees.

Look at team talks. Does anyone ever use anything other than an assertive or passionate 'you have faith' talk when doing the positional part of the team talk? Ok, you might choose the odd other option occassionally, but you're almost guaranteed to get good reactions from that talk, so everyone uses it. That's something that needs fixed IMO, to have more chance of a negative impact with that talk (or remove it altogether). And it would be similar with this feature. So, whilst it's a nice idea, that is perhaps rooted in more realism, in the game, it'd be nothing more than an exploit.

Hmm, perhaps, I wouldn't know how people would react to that. I don't think people would be that upset by more options, many of the complains (that aren't directly bugs) regarding player interaction revolves around lack of options or "correct" options.

It could be, but I assume SI knows enough to implement it in the right way so it doesn't turn into an exploit.

I won't go in to that overly much since I don't think it's the same. Whilst player interaction actually can get you sacked for making a few bad choices team talks wont.

[MRW]

Even better - Player is away at the Olympics and we have played 1 league game - he comes back and starts whinging he hasn't had any first team football

[Dagenham_Dave]

Even better - Player is away at the Olympics and we have played 1 league game - he comes back and starts whinging he hasn't had any first team football

Did he play regularly at the tail end of the season before?

[MRW]

Not that I can recall

But that is completely and totally irrelevant - he was at the Olympics - its pretty bloody impossible to play a player whos not at the club - and even then we have only played one game whilst he was away!

To top it off - I played him pretty much straight away and the idiot said after featuring for a few weeks he is no longer upset even though he played ONE game - so not only do SI expect you to pick players who arent at the club - they cant freaking count!

[Lawlore]

Could someone direct me to where the green/red reactions are explained as not necessarily being positive/negative in-game (or in the manual)? I'd look myself, but I'm on my phone.

[HUNT3R]

I'm not sure if the manual does, but the team talk feedback screen makes it clear.

[dieu]

Tactics --> Analysis --> Last Match --> Team Talk Feedback

Or...

Click on your assistant manager --> Reports --> Team Talk Feedback

Should give you this:

[Lawlore]

Cheers, appreciate it. Not a screen I venture onto too much, which explains why I couldn't recall whether it was there or not.

[Dagenham_Dave]

Not that I can recall

But that is completely and totally irrelevant - he was at the Olympics - its pretty bloody impossible to play a player whos not at the club - and even then we have only played one game whilst he was away!

How is it not relevant? If he's not been in the team for ages stretching back to the previous season, of course he's going to moan about playing time. The game's code counts the last x amount of matches that the player could have played in, and factors in the cutoff point where the player will knock on your door if he's not played in the requisite number of matches. It can look a bit unrealistic if this straddles two different seasons, but it is just a piece of code, it's not real life. It's the fact he's been at the Olympics which is the irrelevance in this scenario.

It would work better if this could somehow be dealt with at the start of the season, ie the player knocking on your door before the season starts saying he wasn't happy about the playing time at the tail end of the previous season and that he hopes he'll get a better chance in the forthcoming season. As it is, the timing of when he started whinging has just been the trigger point in the code for this scenario.