Let's talk about morale

[AlpineSK]

The morale system in 17 was something that had potential, but I felt that as a manager or GM, there was very little that I could do to effect my player's morale beyond firing my manager or bringing in a certain type of player whether he worked for me tactically or not.

What changes have been made there?

Also, kind of along the same line, have there been any changes made in the Manager to GM relationship? For example: in GM only mode, I can lock in a player to play a certain position or be a starter/closer. Is there any way in the new game as manager that I can say to my GM "I would like a new shortstop" for example.

Looking forward for 18, as always.

[Matt Arnold]

We're always willing to take suggestions on what you would like to see improved. We have a few things planned which should hopefully ease the pain overall of managing morale and chemistry, but always willing to hear more ideas.

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

We're always willing to take suggestions on what you would like to see improved. We have a few things planned which should hopefully ease the pain overall of managing morale and chemistry, but always willing to hear more ideas.

I think player morale fixes start and end with having some sort of off the field interaction with a player. Just adding a system where a GM can say the right thing based on a player's needs and personality and at least quell them for a bit would be important. Right now as it stands, there is too big a divide between morale and what a GM/Manager can do to impact it.

Also, just a thought, what about adding player relationships/chemistry to the mix? For example: if my second baseman and my shortstop get along really well, and I resign one of them to a lengthy contract extension so they can continue to play together, the morale of the other one should improve.

As for my other thought: it comes down to exactly what I said. There needs to be more communication when playing "manager only" where you can tell the GM what your needs are and have them at least take it under advisement depending on what their personality is.

[nielsoncp]

I think it would also be super helpful if we could see the player's character type (captain, prankster, cancer) without having to go into the editor. I don't think we can do that now, so if we can, ignore this - but having a sortable column would make it a lot easier to build clubhouses that work cohesively together.

[redranger]

Totally agree that you have to make the players come alive. To do this there does need to be some sort of interaction between the GM/MGR and the player. Depending on response determines negative or positive outcome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[T-Bone]

I like having the morale system - I just don't like having to be a Dixon Hill to determine where the problems are. I don't really care how the fix works, so long as I don't have to use trial and error to fix the problem.

[Matt Uk]

I think you have to be very careful with going down the player interaction path. The recent FM versions have become too reliant on player interaction I think. For instance the half time team talk that is now in the game you have to be careful what you say and the manner in which you say it (there are options like cautious, calm, assertive, aggressive) and it becomes very 'gamey' in that what you choose to say or how you say effects things way too much.

One prime example of this was a game where I was 0-2 down at half time and I opted for an aggressive manner and saying something along the lines of it's not good enough etc. Second half they went out and scored four goals and won 4-2.

In the press after the game the captain of the side told them that it was my team talk at half time that turned the game around and that ruined it for me. I thought, so basically my choosing the 'right' thing to say turned the game around rather than anything tactically I did or substitutions. So had I done the same things but said something totally different we wouldn't have won the game, which I felt was totally unrealistic. Of course motivating players is a part of it all but it was as if the whole result of the game rested on what I said.

On top of that it has become a game of choosing the right way to say something to each player dependent on their character and the morale system goes up and down like a yo-yo on the smallest of things happening.


So I think it's something to be very careful with and not having it impact the players performance in anything other than small margins.

[AlpineSK]

Oh I agree there needs to be a balance. Having a talk a game isnt practical with a 162 game season. i would envision it working something like this:

You are playing GM only. You get a mail from your manager saying "Ryan Howard is having a tough time right now, and it appears its pretty low. Would you like me to handle it?"

You are given three options: Have the manager speak to him, speak to him yourself, or do nothing.

You check the manager profile and see that they get along (that feature is already there) so you opt to let your manager address it. Otherwise, there would be some dialogue box where Howard tells you why he's upset. The team isnt winning enough, he isnt getting enough playing time, he's not getting along with player/staff x... And you have to decide how to deal with it: "I'll talk to the manager and we will get you more time on the field" for example...

It seems a little involved, but I think that its a good starting off point. You dont need as robust a system as FM has but its gotta be better than what it is now. For me personally, that's the one spot where OOTP is lacking at the moment.

[MBarrett]

Not interested in player interactions at all. Just simply listing the player personalities (Captain, Cancer, etc.) would go a long way to help this issue.

[drhay53]

I would strongly advise OOTP against going down the player interaction path of Football Manager. I've logged literally thousands of hours into FM and the interaction system is far more important than it should be; worst of all, however, there is no way to not make it repetitive.

In the end, with a player interaction system, you will simply learn the only ways that give you a 'correct' outcome, then you will experiment with the one that gives you the highest probability of success, then you will click through the interaction in that exact path every single time without even reading the repetitive text that is always there.

Focus on improving the information available, but please, please please, never introduce a player interaction system into OOTP.

Originally Posted by drhay53

In the end, with a player interaction system, you will simply learn the only ways that give you a 'correct' outcome, then you will experiment with the one that gives you the highest probability of success, then you will click through the interaction in that exact path every single time without even reading the repetitive text that is always there.

So let's make it not so repetitive -- make it dependant on a context, on a surrounding situation.

At least I think what has to be in the game connected with the player's morale (of course, can be turned off) is promises to the team. Like the pre-season promises or something similar.

[AlpineSK]

Ultimately my point is you need to know why morale is low, and you need a better way to deal with it than what is currently afforded to me.

Knowing player types would help, but there needs to be a way to deal with them.

[DB930]

I like the idea of player interaction, but would suggest that it be limited only to situations where a guy is unhappy with things related to the team, that can be fixed by the GM. He's upset that the club lacks veteran leadership, or has too many disruptive influences, or isn't winning, etc. You'd be able to pledge to him to bring in a clubhouse leader, or get rid of the cancer, or improve the team's record or whatever, and his morale will temporarily rebound. But you have to follow through on your promise, or he'll become even more unhappy than before, and maybe (in extreme cases) refuse to re-sign with your team because he feels the GM lied to him.

However, I wouldn't want to see a situation where you can go to a player and give them a pat on the back if they're in a slump, or other "minor" interactions like that. That's just going a little too far...

[drhay53]

Originally Posted by dmytron

So let's make it not so repetitive -- make it dependant on a context, on a surrounding situation.

At least I think what has to be in the game connected with the player's morale (of course, can be turned off) is promises to the team. Like the pre-season promises or something similar.

I played FM religiously for over 6 iterations, and every year the developers claimed they were improving the interaction system and making it less repetitive. Every year they failed.

I think it is basically impossible, or at least, incredibly difficult and time consuming. I would much rather the developers of OOTP focus on issues with a better risk/reward ratio and a better reward/time ratio.

I will say, however, that there are times where I would like to be able to hold a team meeting and say something to the effect of "you all need to get your heads out of your asses"

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by drhay53

I played FM religiously for over 6 iterations, and every year the developers claimed they were improving the interaction system and making it less repetitive. Every year they failed.

I think it is basically impossible, or at least, incredibly difficult and time consuming. I would much rather the developers of OOTP focus on issues with a better risk/reward ratio and a better reward/time ratio.

I will say, however, that there are times where I would like to be able to hold a team meeting and say something to the effect of "you all need to get your heads out of your asses"

Have you played Eastside Hockey Manager? They have a much more rudimentary interaction setup there.

[BusterKing]

Interaction with players = The Sims


No thanks. I want baseball, not domestic dramas.

[Caporegime]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Interaction with players = The Sims


No thanks. I want baseball, not domestic dramas.

Not really. If the GM had to first wake up, shower/shave, get dressed, eat breakfast, purchase a higher quality refrigerator for the kitchen to ensure leftovers last longer, and then spend a quick two minutes interacting with the owner to maintain a high "Friendship Level"...all before having a chance to interact with the players, then it would = The Sims.

[Déjà Bru]

What do you guys mean by "repetitive" player interaction? Do you mean that you get into the same nonsense situations over and over again with different players over time? I don't play FM or maybe I would know . . .

If that's the case, then my vote is "No," too. That would be quite tedious after a while.

Life and human interaction are too varied to be simulated in that manner. At least for now. Let's wait until the joint venture and partnership of OOTPB 28 and Sims 14.

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

What do you guys mean by "repetitive" player interaction? Do you mean that you get into the same nonsense situations over and over again with different players over time? I don't play FM or maybe I would know . . .

Yeah, pretty much. I have player type A and problem B so I select C. It's definitely a challenge to overcome.

I dont see player interaction as "The Sims." I saw more of that from the earlier family building mechanics in the game. Morale has been made part of the game and it should grow with the game is all that I am saying. A way to effect it other than trading for players of a certain type to just fill a void whether they fit a tactical need or not would be nice.

[r0nster]

I would think everyones moral is GOOD at beginning of season or some rookies as HOPEFUL or AAA player being hopeful at beginning of season