Backed into a Corner by Player + Manager Interaction Choices

[bababooey]

This isn't a bug per se, so I didn't want to post this in that section. I think this is probably the best place to write this, but if I'm wrong, please let me know!

The player - manager interaction in FM22 needs significant work because often times, you'll get backed into a corner, forcing you to do something you don't need or want to do!

Example A: 

A player has come to the manager asking for higher wages. The manager chooses the "promise" option, which says they will offer a new contract with higher wages to the player.

The manager initiates discussion of a new contract, but the player rejects the first offer (despite higher wages being offered) and refuses to re-enter negotiations.

The player then returns to the manager, often times within a day or so, and says: "why did you break this promise to me? I was supposed to be given a new contract." 

The manager now has 3 choices:   promise (again), dismiss (and anger the player), or convince (this option often times makes no sense, and in this example, the manager is saying they need to sort out a replacement player first. That obviously makes no sense because the original problem was the player wanting a new deal, not the player wanting to leave).

Where is the option that says:  "We offered you a contract, and you rejected it." ?  This does show up at times, but the player manager interaction model is so unforgiving and rigid, that if it does not show up, you're backed into a corner and forced to make a sub-optimal choice.

Example B:

A player is unhappy about problem X.  The manager has ONE opportunity to discuss this with the player, and generally the only choice is either to dismiss the problem, or make some sort of promise. There should be an ability to have a continued back and forth where the player and manager can come to a solution, rather than a rigid choice of "promise vs. dismiss"

Making promises is almost always the wrong thing to do. Not because a promise itself is wrong, but because of the rigidity of the interaction system. There is no nuance, and often times, satisfying a promise becomes an impossible task. So it's wise to basically never choose that response.  This isn't how the game should be, in my opinion.

The in-game editor has been crucial in allowing me to correct these horrible interactions, and remove player unhappiness. I do think, however, that if this model cannot be reworked, that SI should include the in-game editor for free.

 

[XaW]

I'll move this to the feature requests section, since I think it fits there the best.

[bababooey]

54 minutes ago, XaW said:

I'll move this to the feature requests section, since I think it fits there the best.

Okay, thank you!

[autohoratio]

On 15/05/2022 at 18:58, bababooey said:

A player is unhappy about problem X.  The manager has ONE opportunity to discuss this with the player, and generally the only choice is either to dismiss the problem, or make some sort of promise. There should be an ability to have a continued back and forth where the player and manager can come to a solution, rather than a rigid choice of "promise vs. dismiss"

Along similar lines, when you have a player unhappy about not starting enough matches, I'd like an option like "I'll start you in the next game, but you need to impress me" rather than making a promise to give them continued playing time.

[Pezamaria]

Example A does exist in the game already actually. I can’t remember if I’ve seen it in FM22 but in FM20 it had the option to say you’ve already offered it and it’s not your fault they rejected it.

[Pezamaria]

I agree with example B. I wrote a feature suggestion the other day which is similar ish.

This is an element of the game where I avoid it (making promises) as it’s so likely you can’t control the outcome. Same as team meetings, I avoid them as what feels realistic always backfires (let’s aim for promotion = everyone hates you)

[Abdullah Patel]

Thanks all for the feedback, we appreciate the input. The requests are under review and may yet be rejected or end up in a future FM. They've come up before and so we are aware of them