I was hoping the morale system was improved over last year...

[jarmenia]

Not to belabor the point but this is another one that I have no idea how to deal with.

[Ron.]

If the team is doing badly players will be unhappy and will complain about nearly anything. Slackers, outspoken players, selfish players, no countrymen. It doesn't necessarily mean you have a problem that's worth trying to fix(other than losing).

[vtbub]

The whole issue seems to steamroll.

Players complain about atmosphere, team goes into a nosedive.

Team nosediving complains the pressure is too much. Refuses to name names. Rinse and repeat.

I had to nuke it from my fictional league. You can only fire and trade so many people without reason. If you are rebuilding a team with a tight budget, you can't take on bad salaries, regardless of how bad you need that vet.

It would be nice if you could direct the bench coach to lean on players or for those complaining to name names. This isn't Football Manager, unless we can directly soothe egos then having it part of the game makes no sense.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by vtbub

I had to nuke it from my fictional league.

That's been my MO in the past, and it seems like that's what I will be doing again.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

My issue is having a few guys with low leadership should not be a bad thing. It's almost as if the game should change the term leadership to character. Just because someone isn't a natural leader doesn't mean they have a negative effect on their team. In fact having too many leaders could be just as bad as not enough.

This is why the Personality ratings are supposed to be invisible. They don't mean what most people think they mean. The game doesn't have a "this guy is a ***hole" rating. But it needs one to model personality, so that's what low Leadership means. Your average 'not a leader' type guy has average Leadership.

[Hkim]

It just needs to be clearer in general. I'm okay with how the backend of it all works, more or less, but there needs to be a better way of presenting the information in a way that we can easily see and then figure out how to deal with.

The challenge should be in whether we need to get rid of or recruit players/personnel and whether that's worth it or not. The challenge should not be in scrolling through various windows, taking vague steps, and hoping that your changes are moving you in the right direction.

Even that last part would be a decent feature by itself. If I could discover if a player's morale is currently uptrending, downtrending, or staying the same, it could go a long way towards figuring out if I'm making a difference.

[Kronos]

I agree this feature is not finely implemented, this isn't grade school where the trouble maker can be put in a time out, nobody naming names and having to guess is just infuriating.

A trick I've found that helps is signing "LEADERS" who are terrible players for dirt cheap contracts and stashing them in the minors, as long as they are on the 40 man roster they count as being in the club house.

[malor]

I agree this feature needs more work. Since I like playing with the feature on as GM/Manager, to get around the lack of information, I'm forced to turn commish mode on and review the players with the editor to see their personality rating in order to find the players causing the problems. I don't like doing this because it is cheating and difficult to also not notice other rating about the player at the same time. However I've yet to find another way to resolve the morale issue so I will continue to do this.

As GM, I would like to see the manager or bench coach send weekly emails reporting player ABC is causing problems in the clubhouse or player ABC and DEF do not get along. This will provide specific information to work with and make decisions.

[Exodor]

Originally Posted by malor

I agree this feature needs more work. Since I like playing with the feature on as GM/Manager, to get around the lack of information, I'm forced to turn commish mode on and review the players with the editor to see their personality rating in order to find the players causing the problems. I don't like doing this because it is cheating and difficult to also not notice other rating about the player at the same time. However I've yet to find another way to resolve the morale issue so I will continue to do this.

You can see the personality ratings on the "BNN Page" of each player or create a custom view that shows the ratings. You won't get the actual values but you can get an idea of their relative ratings.

I like to leave the system on but it's incredibly frustrating to have to guess at who the problem players might be. A player on my terrible '57 A's team just sent me this message:



And the next day another player sends this:



What am I supposed to do with that? Right now all I can do is look at the leadership ratings and guess who might be the troublemakers. Give me names so I can decide - if the troublemaker plays like Barry Bonds I may keep him and get rid of the complainers, or I may try to trade him for whatever I can get just to get him off my team.

What I don't want to do have to do is guess.

[pjh5165]

I always play with the morale system off because of stuff like this. It's one area of the game that I just really don't like.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by Exodor

You can see the personality ratings on the "BNN Page" of each player or create a custom view that shows the ratings. You won't get the actual values but you can get an idea of their relative ratings.

I like to leave the system on but it's incredibly frustrating to have to guess at who the problem players might be. A player on my terrible '57 A's team just sent me this message:



And the next day another player sends this:



What am I supposed to do with that? Right now all I can do is look at the leadership ratings and guess who might be the troublemakers. Give me names so I can decide - if the troublemaker plays like Barry Bonds I may keep him and get rid of the complainers, or I may try to trade him for whatever I can get just to get him off my team.

What I don't want to do have to do is guess.

I typically scroll through player profile screens at that point. The offending player(s) will usually stand out because they're not complaining about team chemistry in the morale section. When I find a player that isn't complaining and whose personality scouting blurb indicates an attitude issue then I'm 99% confident he's the problem or at least one of them.

That being said I completely agree with lots of the points made here. You get one email per season on chemistry and your bench coach doesn't name names either. That's silly, it's his job. Those emails should be more frequent, even if only when there are chemistry problems. And he should absolutely point out specific players.

I only play with morale sometimes because it's an extra challenge. One thing I absolutely agree with the system on is that winning should be a major component. I like to say that winning creates good team chemistry, not vice versa.

[malor]

The BNN page does show personality traits, but I can't find how those combinations role up to the players overall personality. I.E., what combinations mean a player is a leader, a cancer, a prankster, etc. In fact, until I saw those terms on the forum, I did not even know they existed. That info needs to be summed up right below work ethic on the BNN page.

We as the player of the game, do not have a chance to interact by speaking directly with our players so have no way to apply our human intuition to find out if they are an a***ole or if the guy is the nicest guy on the planet. The game needs to provide that information to us in a simple way. I'd even settle for a chart in the manual indicating how the various combinations produce the players ultimate personality so I could quickly do some math and know the personality of a player. I should not be forced to guess what things mean when the information is critical to make the game playable.

Until this feature is made more useable, I will continue to use commish mode to find the info required to make GM decisions.

[endgame]

Not to take away anything from any of your criticisms or comments, but I have a lot of mixed feelings and questions about this area. Perhaps if I spit them out, a few of your responses may help me sort it out, if just for discussion of future feature expansion.

I suppose 'character' types could be more clear or more obvious hints included in the personality description. I'm not sure what's acheived by either of the following: knowing the formula composition that creates X character, i.e. Prankster OR the exact designation available in the profile or through descriptive discovery.

In other words, say a player is clearly labeld Cancer. To what end? Would he ever be offered a contract? Once your team is unhappy, what then? What choices are you really afforded? Release him? Trade him? We don't have alternatives. I'm not sure anything is gained other than the elimination of uncertainty.

As to composition and character-definition, don't we already have some idea about what constitutes the continuum from Captain to Cancer? Highs and lows in Work Ethic and Leadership for instance? Not sure how Greed plays into it, but personally I'd assume more of it doesn't move toward the better end.

We've discussed the idea of the Bench Coach chemistry report being a bit more direct, but I'm not sure how common it actually occurs that he'd walk into a locker room and see all the players pointing at one person, "That one!" And again, what if he did tell you, "Sure seems like Barcelona isn't making any friends here," what's the result? Back to trade, release, demote, live with it? I guess at least you know, eh?

How do we improve the feature, expand its possibilities, and offer more choices so that it accomplishes something, adds something, and not just simplifies it to a point that having it seems ........ insignificant? Open to more discussion. Thanks for the input.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by endgame

Not to take away anything from any of your criticisms or comments, but I have a lot of mixed feelings and questions about this area. Perhaps if I spit them out, a few of your responses may help me sort it out, if just for discussion of future feature expansion.

I suppose 'character' types could be more clear or more obvious hints included in the personality description. I'm not sure what's acheived by either of the following: knowing the formula composition that creates X character, i.e. Prankster OR the exact designation available in the profile or through descriptive discovery.

In other words, say a player is clearly labeld Cancer. To what end? Would he ever be offered a contract? Once your team is unhappy, what then? What choices are you really afforded? Release him? Trade him? We don't have alternatives. I'm not sure anything is gained other than the elimination of uncertainty.

As to composition and character-definition, don't we already have some idea about what constitutes the continuum from Captain to Cancer? Highs and lows in Work Ethic and Leadership for instance? Not sure how Greed plays into it, but personally I'd assume more of it doesn't move toward the better end.

We've discussed the idea of the Bench Coach chemistry report being a bit more direct, but I'm not sure how common it actually occurs that he'd walk into a locker room and see all the players pointing at one person, "That one!" And again, what if he did tell you, "Sure seems like Barcelona isn't making any friends here," what's the result? Back to trade, release, demote, live with it? I guess at least you know, eh?

How do we improve the feature, expand its possibilities, and offer more choices so that it accomplishes something, adds something, and not just simplifies it to a point that having it seems ........ insignificant? Open to more discussion. Thanks for the input.

This may help answer some of your questions. Clubhouse culture the real secret to Cardinals' success

I'm not the manager of a baseball team but I am the manager of a software development team. I have weekly one on one meetings with my senior team members and bi-weekly meetings with my junior team members. I've built a relationship with them and have on more than one occasion had them point out someone not following the team process, being selfish, or other detrimental behaviors. If this is the case on my team here, and given the information in the article I linked above, I think its reasonable to assume someone would give the manager or GM information they could act on.

Also, we as GMs of a virtual team don't get to see the casual interactions a GM would see between players in the clubhouse. If someone is causing fights, not interacting with the team, or being a general disruption, the odds that an actual GM or manager would not see some of that behavior seems slim to me. Since we don't have that informal interaction with our virtual players it seems reasonable to have the bench coach or other players name names.

[endgame]

Good article. Very interesting. I'd like to see the clubhouse atmosphere enhanced in some way, but primarily I think we need to look at expanded influences, whether the postiive or negative. All this down the road, I'm sure.

So let's cut to the chase in the system as it exists now. You've identified your problem player. Now what? Not much beyond what I've already mentioned. What would you suggest the game could incorporate in terms of choices available to either the Manager or GM, given we have both roles in play now?

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by endgame

Good article. Very interesting. I'd like to see the clubhouse atmosphere enhanced in some way, but primarily I think we need to look at expanded influences, whether the postiive or negative. All this down the road, I'm sure.

So let's cut to the chase in the system as it exists now. You've identified your problem player. Now what? Not much beyond what I've already mentioned. What would you suggest the game could incorporate in terms of choices available to either the Manager or GM, given we have both roles in play now?

Assuming I've been able difinitivly identify the problem player, unlike I can now, I would probably use traditional management techniques to try and resolve the issue. That might be benching the player but telling the media he has a day to day injury, having a private conversation with the player, asking my team captain to talk to him, suspend him without pay, trade him, or release him.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Assuming I've been able difinitivly identify the problem player, unlike I can now, I would probably use traditional management techniques to try and resolve the issue. That might be benching the player but telling the media he has a day to day injury, having a private conversation with the player, asking my team captain to talk to him, suspend him without pay, trade him, or release him.

Good. Good thoughts. What I'd like to collect and/or suggest, beyond the clarification you've been seeking, is a feature expansion that offers up the likes of the mound visit perhaps. At least off the top of my head. Some of your thoughts mirror my own. We should know what managers/GMs can possibly do, that is, their choices, and the potential for result and consequence.

So, as the mechanism currently exists, should you identify the player, of your suggestions all you really have available is the bench tactic. That seems limited and ineffective- again, as it exists -as players will still complain regardless whether or not he's in the lineup or rotation.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've only once in now 16 seasons ever acted on such a player. I managed to trade him at great penalty. Other than that incident, I'd basically let it play out. Sometimes it got better, sometimes it didn't. Sometimes the player went to FA or AAA, but I let the controversies pale while we were winning. Effect? Not much. In that 16 years, the team's won 8 championships and made the playoffs all 16 times. Not to sound egotistical, just pointing out one factor may offset another. I'm equally certain a losing team may continue to lose or lose more with one or more troublesome players.

Again, good input. Hope we can expand this and clarify through effective means in the near future. My original point remains, though. Even if you do know, your options are pretty limited in scope and effectiveness, IMHO.

[Hammercraft]

Originally Posted by pjh5165

I always play with the morale system off because of stuff like this. It's one area of the game that I just really don't like.

It's an equal part of the game for me. Improving team chemistry seems to have a positive impact on performance, and I enjoy that it's not completely clear and quantifiable - just like people.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Hammercraft

It's an equal part of the game for me. Improving team chemistry seems to have a positive impact on performance, and I enjoy that it's not completely clear and quantifiable - just like people.

I don't understand this line of thought. By definition if someone is being disruptive in the clubhouse it is obvious or it couldn't be disruptive.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Hammercraft

It's an equal part of the game for me. Improving team chemistry seems to have a positive impact on performance, and I enjoy that it's not completely clear and quantifiable - just like people.

See, that's the part of me that's in agreement. I like the uncertainties and a path, one I have to find, toward resolving them. Everybody has different styles, that's a given. It's hard for me to wrap my head around specific and accurate labels. I don't use 100% ratings, for instance. If all were out there simply straightforward, it'd be akin to printed cardboard counters in the old wargames. Assemble the right pieces, put them in the right places, let the dice roll commence. Not that it removes tactics and strategy completely of the equation, but at least from my vantage the simplification diminishes the quality of play.

I think having more active involvement in specific choices, however, is a worthy aspiration. Actions should have consequences and an inference those actions are causally related to those consequences, good or bad.