Option to have unsackable human managers

Would you like an option in the next FM to have 'unsackable' human managers? This would be done via a tick box option, if you want the game as it is now then you won't have to tick it, for those who play with one club and never want to get sacked.

been mentioned loads of times.. and no!!

quite frankly, no.

I remember this coming up before. I don't think I would use it but as you said, if it was an option, it wouldn't bother me as I don't have to use it.

I remember this coming up before. I don't think I would use it but as you said, if it was an option, it wouldn't bother me as I don't have to use it.

I don't see the problem in adding something like this to be honest, I only want it because...I manage 1 team in FM and that is Man Utd so would benefit me greatly without having to worry about being sacked.

I wouldn't use it. But I see absolutely no harm whatsoever in having it there as an option. If there are people that want it why not include it, it's not like it's hard to implement.

Voted for yes - I wouldn't use it personally but I don't see any problem with it being a tick option to satisfy those who would like it!

Voted for yes - I wouldn't use it personally but I don't see any problem with it being a tick option to satisfy those who would like it!

Can people who voted 'No' please post why is shouldn't be implemented even though it won't affect you if you don't use it?

Can people who voted 'No' please post why is shouldn't be implemented even though it won't affect you if you don't use it?

To be fair you worded the question poorly. Your question implicates you want to know whether people would want this option. What you're actually trying to ask I think is whether people would mind it or not. It's a different thing as most people don't want it because they don't see themselves using it, but many of them wouldn't mind it if it was there as an option.

yeah i agree actually. voted no, because i dont want one. doesnt mean i wouldnt buy the game if it was there, i dont care if it IS there or not.

To be fair you worded the question poorly. Your question implicates you want to know whether people would want this option. What you're actually trying to ask I think is whether people would mind it or not. It's a different thing as most people don't want it because they don't see themselves using it, but many of them wouldn't mind it if it was there as an option.

I suppose I did word it incorrectly , never thought of that.

FM is one of the few game series where a number of its users do not want options and customizable features. I'm all for options, letting people play as realistically or as enjoyably (if they're not the same) as they want.

I wouldn't use it, but it would be a good idea to have the option. It could be particularly useful for beginners.

I reckon it would be a great feature, it would be handy for people who are beginners and haven't yet got used to the way tactics, transfers and stuff works yet.

Wouldn't use it, but wouldn't mind it if it was there

no, it is unrealistic

FM is one of the few game series where a number of its users do not want options and customizable features. I'm all for options, letting people play as realistically or as enjoyably (if they're not the same) as they want.

I'm with dankrzyz on this one: I don't think "unsackable" is an option I would personally use, but I see no harm in having it available as an option in the game for those that do want it.

I just don't see how it impacts those who don't select it!

I posted no, and this is because it would detract from the "simulation" meaning of the game,

if you are unsackable you could just run the team into the ground, and bankrupt it.

For me if you are getting sacked that often that you need this as an option,

its time to try a new game,

especially given you are Man Utd!

FFS you should try not getting sacked with a team not in the scale of Man Utd and then ask for the "immunity" button!

If SI put this in it would open the floodgates to other such optional gameplay devices. FM is and always will be about realism and what a manager does and what happens to a manager as a simulation of the real world. In real life managers get sacked, therefore this option will never happen in a FM game imo

No, never.

Even though it is an option, no it shouldn't be implemented. Being sackable gives added pressure which, in turn, makes the game more enjoyable.

My first thought was "Hell no" but I figure, wheres the harm in the option?

I don't see the problem in adding something like this to be honest, I only want it because...I manage 1 team in FM and that is Man Utd so would benefit me greatly without having to worry about being sacked.

I agree with you. What someone said about the way you phrased the question is correct, though. If I was to answer your question in the poll, I would say no because I would not like it. It would not bother me if it was included, either, because I wouldn't be using it so it would not affect me in any way. It would be there for people who do want to use it, and people who don't want to use it could carry on like before. So I see no problem.

Even though it is an option, no it shouldn't be implemented. Being sackable gives added pressure which, in turn, makes the game more enjoyable.

For you. Others might disagree though.

For you. Others might disagree though.

Then they don't like realistic features do they?

Then they don't like realistic features do they?

I wouldn't necessarily say so. This has got nothing to do with features. It would just be an option. They'd be able to enjoy the game, you and I still would as well so why not have it in?

People don't have to play the game the way you personally think is right, it's up to themselves to decide what gives them the most enjoyment. If it is to be unsackable then I can't see a single reason why the option would be a bad thing.

Then they don't like realistic features do they?

But its all upto how the user wants to play, the realism is there if the user wants it, but whats the harm in having such an option? It would be the same as the 'Mask all players' option in a similar way in terms of realism.

I wouldn't necessarily say so. This has got nothing to do with features. It's would just be an option. They'd be able to enjoy the game, you and I still would as well so why not have it in?

People don't have to play the game the way you personally think is right, it's up to themselves to decide what gives them the most enjoyment. If it is to be unsackable then I can't see a single reason why the option would be a bad thing.

I was just giving my reason for why I don't want it.

But its all upto how the user wants to play, the realism is there if the user wants it, but whats the harm in having such an option? It would be the same as the 'Mask all players' option in a similar way in terms of realism.

Sorry for having an opinion.

Not against having it as an option, as I'm sure some people would like it, but for me, part of the fun of the game is in being able to be sacked,

Battling against relegation to preserve your job or fighting to gain promotion otherwise the board will find someone who can do it, is all part of the game being realistic and makes the game more tense and exciting come the end of the season

That for me is a big part of the enjoyment of the game

No, si is trying to make the game realistic not unrealistic!

Tell it to the new FM user who just wants to manage his home team, but can't seem to stay employed for more than 4 to 6 months. Makes for a lot of restarts. Hopefully that user doesn't pack it in on the whole FM series.

But it's so realistic to spend 10 of your first 16 months in the game as unemployed.

i personally wouldnt use such a feature and voted no. then i saw those:

Tell it to the new FM user who just wants to manage his home team, but can't seem to stay employed for more than 4 to 6 months. Makes for a lot of restarts. Hopefully that user doesn't pack it in on the whole FM series.

But it's so realistic to spend 10 of your first 16 months in the game as unemployed.

I reckon it would be a great feature' date=' it would be handy for people who are beginners and haven't yet got used to the way tactics, transfers and stuff works yet.[/quote']

i have mixed feelings about that. on one hand sure some beginners might be put off when they fail and get sacked but then again it also can encourage them to learn adjust and do better next time. it depends on the person imo.

One thing I've learned as a programmer is that introducing options into software is the developer's failure to make a decision.

Adding more and more options could lead up to the point where we're all playing essentially different games... blurring what the developers originally envisioned.

Personally I'm in favor of understandable sackings (either based on managers performance, finances, transfer decisions, chairman's personality or age, or other factors). I don't think truly random sackings are reasonable (nor am I convinced that they exist in this game).

What's the harm in having it? If you want it on, turn it on, if you don't want it on, turn it off. Simple as.

Some people who've read a few of my recent posts might be surprised to hear that I actually voted yes on this. The thing is, I would never use it, but I don't see the harm in having it there as an option. It would at least give something to those who think the game is too realistic and not fun enough.

However, in voting yes, I still have a concern. You see, whilst it seems harmless to include it as an option in theory, it could serve to make for even more arguments between us all, as once SI start implementing optional features, whole new debates will crop up about what features should be optional and what shouldn't.

So although I voted yes, I don't think this is a black and white issue.

Some people who've read a few of my recent posts might be surprised to hear that I actually voted yes on this. The thing is, I would never use it, but I don't see the harm in having it there as an option. It would at least give something to those who think the game is too realistic and not fun enough.

However, in voting yes, I still have a concern. You see, whilst it seems harmless to include it as an option in theory, it could serve to make for even more arguments between us all, as once SI start implementing option features, whole new debates will crop up about what features should be optional and what shouldn't.

So although I voted yes, I don't think this is a black and white issue.

Very good point man,

Like you say I think if SI gave us the option to turn this on or off, they could be flooded with requests for complete pie-in-the-sky things, like no injuries and stuff, but then again, it could make the game more enjoyable to those people who wanted more emphasis on fun in that recent poll of yours,

To me it is a bit of a dodgy subject now I've had time to think about it and would require a lot of weighing up by people better placed to implement such an idea

I'm with dankrzyz on this one: I don't think "unsackable" is an option I would personally use, but I see no harm in having it available as an option in the game for those that do want it.

I just don't see how it impacts those who don't select it!

Agredd 100%

I posted no, and this is because it would detract from the "simulation" meaning of the game,

if you are unsackable you could just run the team into the ground, and bankrupt it.

But how would it detract from the realism if you switched it off?

Even though it is an option, no it shouldn't be implemented. Being sackable gives added pressure which, in turn, makes the game more enjoyable.

Why? You have the option to turn it off so you would still be pressured by the sack.

One thing I've learned as a programmer is that introducing options into software is the developer's failure to make a decision.

Adding more and more options could lead up to the point where we're all playing essentially different games... blurring what the developers originally envisioned.

I don't think I agree that it is the dev's failure to make a decision but you're the first person thats against it to give a real reason why

I also don't agree with the thought that adding this would bring in more optional features. Plus nothing would happen except for us debating it here. We debate this one several times in a few months anyway.

IMO, I wouldn't use the option but as it is a tickable box upon a new game - I see no harm whatsoever. I'm 95% certain it won't ever be included though.

I voted no as I enjoy the realistic aspects of the game compared to the arcade side (not that FM has many if any arcade features).

I also don't agree with the thought that adding this would bring in more optional features. Plus nothing would happen except for us debating it here. We debate this one several times in a few months anyway.

Well, I voted yes, which suggests I haven't stopped this concern from making me think I approve of the idea. But can you imagine what this place would be like if SI introduced it? Honestly, think about the debates around whether some features should be there at all or not. Now throw the debate about what should be optional or not into the mix. We'd have Nicolas Sarkozy making us all sign treaties!

Still, I guess you can't halt progress in the game just to make the forum more peaceful!

I voted no as I enjoy the realistic aspects of the game compared to the arcade side (not that FM has many if any arcade features).

But the point is that the feature would be optional. So does it impact on your enjoyment on the realistic aspects at all if unsackable managers is there just as an option? All you'd have to do, presumably, is not tick the box. Or untick it if it comes ready-ticked, I guess.

But the point is that the feature would be optional. So does it impact on your enjoyment on the realistic aspects at all if unsackable managers is there just as an option? All you'd have to do, presumably, is not tick the box. Or untick it if it comes ready-ticked, I guess.

I see your point, and I may have changed my view on the situation but would this interrupt with other aspects of the game such as board confidence? or would the whole confidence system be abolished if you choose to play using the "unsackable" option? although for some the thought of FM without the current confidence system would be a blessing.

Well, I voted yes, which suggests I haven't stopped this concern from making me think I approve of the idea. But can you imagine what this place would be like if SI introduced it? Honestly, think about the debates around whether some features should be there at all or not. Now throw the debate about what should be optional or not into the mix. We'd have Nicolas Sarkozy making us all sign treaties!

Still, I guess you can't halt progress in the game just to make the forum more peaceful!

I understand the point, but I don't think it would be any worse than it is now, tbh. We always have debates like this whether its about new features, bugs or myths, IMO it would be no worse but no better either. I don't know, I could be totally wrong.

Maybe SI should make a false announcement that it will be included and see if all hell break loose in GQ?

I see your point, and I may have changed my view on the situation but would this interrupt with other aspects of the game such as board confidence? or would the whole confidence system be abolished if you choose to play using the "unsackable" option? although for some the thought of FM without the current confidence system would be a blessing.

That's a good point. I suppose certain other features would have to be configured in two different ways. I shudder to think how the confidence system would handle that if it was still like it is now!

I see your point, and I may have changed my view on the situation but would this interrupt with other aspects of the game such as board confidence? or would the whole confidence system be abolished if you choose to play using the "unsackable" option? although for some the thought of FM without the current confidence system would be a blessing.

I think everything would be the same except for never being sacked. Thats how I pictured it working.

I think everything would be the same except for never being sacked. Thats how I pictured it working.

I would have thought the same, except for confidence, why would it be needed if you could never be sacked?

I think everything would be the same except for never being sacked. Thats how I pictured it working.

What would be the point of board confidence if you can't be sacked? The board could think you were about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but it wouldn't matter.

What would be the point of board confidence if you can't be sacked? The board could think you were about as useful as a chocolate teapot, but it wouldn't matter.

There would be no point but I don't think it would be worth removing just for this feature. If they had to start taking out feature for this mode then that is when I'd chnage my point of view and have to say no.

As long as it is a tick box - that prevents you from getting sacked, I don't think anything else would have to change.

No, the only problem I can see with being sacked is where people are sacked due to the 'board takeover' feature, mainly due to a roll of the dice, that needs removing.

like the others say, probably won't use it but i won't mind if it's there, especially if you can still leave the club when you're ready to

They can't fire you, but you can quit kind of thing