Sacked in FM2010

[xonnk]

Omg rofl ahahahahahaahahhaahahaha, this was the funniest OP i've seen yet in this forum.

[bean824]

Go play FIFA Manager then OP. FM is for realism.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Go play FIFA Manager then OP. FM is for realism.

If you had read all the other Posts in this thread you may have stopped before making a total fool of yourself. Too late now though...

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

If you had read all the other Posts in this thread you may have stopped before making a total fool of yourself. Too late now though...

WHS

[bean824]

In what way did I make a fool of myself? FM has publicly called itself 'the most realistic football management sim', so it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't include a 'no sackings' button. However, FIFA Manager might, so OP can buy that if he wants it.

And Leeds, there was no point in your post, so I'm just guessing you're using any opportunity to have a dig at me. Mature.

[doagrl]

In what way did I make a fool of myself? FM has publicly called itself 'the most realistic football management sim', so it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't include a 'no sackings' button. However, FIFA Manager might, so OP can buy that if he wants it.

And Leeds, there was no point in your post, so I'm just guessing you're using any opportunity to have a dig at me. Mature.

Well in that case I expect SI to remove the Save option from FM immediately. I mean real life managers don't get the chance to save before a big match and reload if things don't go to plan so why should we.

And while they are at it they can also remove the player attributes, managers personally negotiating player contracts and of course they definitely need to remove the ability of FM managers to just walk into a job with Barca, Man Utd, etc.

Yes, from now on all FM players will be forced to work their way up from the lowest divisions. All teams outside of non-league football will be locked and only open once you've proven yourself at the lower level. Let's see a historic rise to the top would only take about a decade (of course since they'll have to remove the Holiday feature as well since it's not at all realistic a decade in game years could drag on for a while).

Now once they have all that sorted then they can also remove the editor (since you don't see one of those in real life) and ban all save game editors, player scouting programs and downloadable tactics files. All completely unrealistic options that should never be in the most realistic football management sim.

I think that's a good start for what they need to accomplish with FM10 to make it truly the most realistic football management sim ever.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

In what way did I make a fool of myself? FM has publicly called itself 'the most realistic football management sim', so it's pretty obvious that it wouldn't include a 'no sackings' button. However, FIFA Manager might, so OP can buy that if he wants it.

And Leeds, there was no point in your post, so I'm just guessing you're using any opportunity to have a dig at me. Mature.

Because if you had read all the other Posts you would realise how foolish the "Go play Fifa " arguement is now - we moved on from that several years ago in truth. This thread has contained some interesting and very thought provoking Posts which both support and contradict the OP, your Post added nothing. As for realism, as I clearly stated earlier (and as others have agreed) "Realism" is a double edged sword, if you want total realism a lot of the universally liked features of FM09 would have to go, and some disliked ones would need to be introduced. Like choosing the size of the dressing room, anyone?

Realism is fine, but let's have game that as far as possible can be all thngs to all men rather than reflecting a narrowminded vison of a footy man sim utopia. I think you will find the SI guys will agree with that general principle, as will most "Purchasers", certainly all those of reasonable charachter.

I dont think anyone wants to dig at anyone else particularly, it is just that we dont always agree with other Posters views. I hope that is correct anyway.

[SCIAG]

Well in that case I expect SI to remove the Save option from FM immediately. I mean real life managers don't get the chance to save before a big match and reload if things don't go to plan so why should we.

Saving is necessary.

And while they are at it they can also remove the player attributes, managers personally negotiating player contracts and of course they definitely need to remove the ability of FM managers to just walk into a job with Barca, Man Utd, etc.

Players have attributes in real life, they just aren't on a 1-20 scale. Managers could be involved in negotiating contracts, in fact it has been/was commonplace for decades. A manager can set himself as a former international footballer, which Guardiola was...

Yes, from now on all FM players will be forced to work their way up from the lowest divisions. All teams outside of non-league football will be locked and only open once you've proven yourself at the lower level. Let's see a historic rise to the top would only take about a decade (of course since they'll have to remove the Holiday feature as well since it's not at all realistic a decade in game years could drag on for a while).

Not if you're a former player...

Now once they have all that sorted then they can also remove the editor (since you don't see one of those in real life) and ban all save game editors, player scouting programs and downloadable tactics files. All completely unrealistic options that should never be in the most realistic football management sim.

Editor would be needed for fixing data mistakes, they can't ban external programs.

I think that's a good start for what they need to accomplish with FM10 to make it truly the most realistic football management sim ever.

I know you were making a point, but I couldn't resist.

[x42bn6]

Editor would be needed for fixing data mistakes, they can't ban external programs.

There are no data problems in real life, so there's no need for an editor.

We should ban the continue button as well and the game should progress at real-life speed. Nothing better than waiting a whole week before your next game.

[SCIAG]

In real life Hleb doesn't go from one of the best dribblers in the world to one of the worst literally overnight, for example. To make the game more realistic, that needed fixing.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I dont think anyone wants to dig at anyone else particularly, it is just that we dont always agree with other Posters views. I hope that is correct anyway.

WHS

[bearsy]

If you had read all the other Posts in this thread you may have stopped before making a total fool of yourself. Too late now though...

He is not a fool. His opinion is shared by quite a few of us. In fact I would be interested to know whether the majority of people would prefer FM with a unsackable option or stay as is. I'd be quite willing to put a good bit of money on the fact that most people wouldn't want it. So don't go calling him a fool. Completely unnecessary!

[bean824]

He is not a fool. His opinion is shared by quite a few of us. In fact I would be interested to know whether the majority of people would prefer FM with a unsackable option or stay as is. I'd be quite willing to put a good bit of money on the fact that most people wouldn't want it. So don't go calling him a fool. Completely unnecessary!

Thank you, some people here are too quick to criticise.

I don't understand why so many of you are having a go at me. An 'unsackable' button would be pointless, as not many people would need it - and it would take the element of challenge out of the game. What's the point in developing tactics, building a team, if the fear of being sacked when things don't go your way isn't there? Maybe they could make the editor able to edit chairmen attributes (If it can't already) to make them more relaxed towards you - that would fix your problem.

And I honestly laughed your post doagrl. I don't see the point in replying - the point of each of those features is obvious, and has been pointed out to you, so I won't bother.

Leeds, stop spamming with your useless posts please.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

He is not a fool. His opinion is shared by quite a few of us. In fact I would be interested to know whether the majority of people would prefer FM with a unsackable option or stay as is. I'd be quite willing to put a good bit of money on the fact that most people wouldn't want it. So don't go calling him a fool. Completely unnecessary!

This Thread has taught me one thing, I need to temper my replies to take into account the fragile sensibilities of the mollycoddled... so I will just calmly refer back to my previous posts No.' s 130 & 207 (for those that need clarification of the obvious). I hope that wasnt too rude or classless (LOL) for anyone.

PS Never called anyone a fool, I accused someone of making a fool of themself which is no less than you have done if you Post in the 200's of a thread with a banal unhelpful statement (with no rationale) which had been previously made, discussed and ultimately ridiculed to some depth by a large number of Thread participants.

Again, I am not saying my opinions are correct, but they contain considered justification.

For what it is worth I would estimate that opinion for / against "unsackable" is probably near 50/50% - reason enough for the serious consideration of its inclusion.

[doagrl]

I know you were making a point, but I couldn't resist.

And I appreciate your post because it just goes to show how ridiculous the notion of being "realistic" is when it comes to a computer game.

You can't save in real life so the very idea that "saving is necessary" makes FM not realistic.

Players have attributes right, so tell me how does one go about seeing a card on a scale of 1-20 of these attributes in real life (I'm sure quite a few managers would love to have that knowledge as the transfer period winds down); you can't do that in real life, but it would make it quite a bit harder to do things in the game if we didn't have that ability. It's not realistic but it works in the game to make the game more enjoyable.

How realistic is an editor? I mean do you think Wenger can sit behind a desk and bump up the stats of all his players before they take to the pitch every week? I don't think so. (Oh and I do believe that SI can lock down their code if they so chose to make outside editors pretty darn impossible to create in effect banning them.)

And regarding setting yourself as some kind of legendary former player coming back to take your club to glory I can't think of anything more unrealistic than that, unless of course you are Pep Guardiola. Unsackable tick box = Absolutely not, too unrealistic. Setting your manager profile as a glory boy, international football hero = Perfectly acceptable and right in line with the realism of FM.

It's all just so very silly and though I think bean824 believes that people are having a go at him that is not my intention at all. It just seems like for some people they refuse to grasp the concept that this is a game and the way they choose to play it is not the word of God it is just the way that they choose to play it. Others see the game differently and want different things from it than total "realism", an unsackable option is just that an option not in any way mandatory. Sort of like the play in a window option, 3d match view option or the use $ instead of Euro option, so what's the problem?

[Ceching You Out]

And I appreciate your post because it just goes to show how ridiculous the notion of being "realistic" is when it comes to a computer game.

You can't save in real life so the very idea that "saving is necessary" makes FM not realistic.

etc. etc. etc.

Agreed. Since maintaining any sense of realism is not an issue, I would like my FM10 to come with the option for my players to carry guns. And steal cars. Maybe stab people for fun too. Oh, and complete missions for money. In fact, I want my FM10 to be just like GTA IV, except with footballers. And I get to choose the tactics!

**EDIT**: Sorry, couldn't help myself. Obviously part of the difficulty in creating a game is balancing fun versus realism. Your arguments seem to present the almost absurd point that we can't prefer a certain level of realism unless we're willing to sacrifice all practicality and fun. Personally, I agree with dafuge and co. that if the feature would help new players and the development time isn't too bad, why not. But of course I'm still a bit unsure it would actually be a help.

[silva_gunner]

Players have attributes in real life, they just aren't on a 1-20 scale. Managers could be involved in negotiating contracts, in fact it has been/was commonplace for decades. A manager can set himself as a former international footballer, which Guardiola was...

In that case lets just hide them all, permanently

Not if you're a former player...

So all people who aren't former international players (about 99.9% of people) must start as low as possible

FM is a game. It is not real life. Get over it.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I can't believe people are still saying they don't want it in the game.

If you don't want it in the game then don't use it - simple. But if it is in the game and you don't use it then why/how does it effect you? Surely in no way at all.

I won't use it but I wouldn't mind it in the game for people who find the game difficult to start with.

Edit: Also bean, it's called puberty. Everyone is not having a go at you but once you mature you will realise this.

[bean824]

Then start with Man City or Real Madrid.

But hey, why not have a button that randomly turns each one of your players, in turn, into Chuck Norris? Or have a button that gives you an extra £50m in the transfer window to make it easier on people?

[Nomis07]

If you don't want it in the game then don't use it - simple.

It isn't simple though, is it? A feature like this would take time to get right, time that could be spent on other areas of the game and if they aren't willing to take staff away from other areas of the game, SI are going to have to hire more staff to deal with this feature, which costs money. I don't disagree with the idea, but when people keep saying "you don't have to use it", as if it's a feature that just plops out of thin air and has no connotations or side effects, well, that's just plain wrong.

[Unknown Hacker]

Why has nobody mentioned the fact that you could use the no sacking option to destroy a club from within, like I did on FMH07 with Man Utd. As FMH has always had a no sacking opption, you have to unlock it 1st though, as I am pretty sure I have already mentioned...

[Nomis07]

Then start with Man City or Real Madrid.

Is this a cheat? Play as one of these clubs and guaranteed success?? :confused: First I heard about it.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

It isn't simple though, is it? A feature like this would take time to get right, time that could be spent on other areas of the game and if they aren't willing to take staff away from other areas of the game, SI are going to have to hire more staff to deal with this feature, which costs money. I don't disagree with the idea, but when people keep saying "you don't have to use it", as if it's a feature that just plops out of thin air and has no connotations or side effects, well, that's just plain wrong.

I didn't argue the point you made. I was saying IF it was in the game, then don't use it if you don't want to.

As for whether SI have to employ others or spend time on this then this isn't my concern, if they want to do it then fine, they obviously feel it is a good idea and will put it in the game and put aside time and man power to do it.

[bean824]

Did I say automatic success? Leeds said to make it easier. I'm damn sure playing as Real, Man City or Notts County will be easier than say, Southampton or FC United.

[doagrl]

Agreed. Since maintaining any sense of realism is not an issue, I would like my FM10 to come with the option for my players to carry guns. And steal cars. Maybe stab people for fun too. Oh, and complete missions for money. In fact, I want my FM10 to be just like GTA IV, except with footballers. And I get to choose the tactics!

**EDIT**: Sorry, couldn't help myself. Obviously part of the difficulty in creating a game is balancing fun versus realism. Your arguments seem to present the almost absurd point that we can't prefer a certain level of realism unless we're willing to sacrifice all practicality and fun. Personally, I agree with dafuge and co. that if the feature would help new players and the development time isn't too bad, why not. But of course I'm still a bit unsure it would actually be a help.

And that's because I personally find the level of delusion on display among the ultra - realist fans to be completely absurd. I understand perfectly that it is a very delicate balancing act to create this kind of game where you are constantly going to have to weigh realism (for lack of a better term) against the fun factor.

However, what none of the people who have brought up that particular argument in this thread have ever been able to answer is how is adding an optional unsackable box for people who want it interfering with the way they play their games. In other words, if I tick a box that allows me to play the game without being sacked how is that going to hurt bean824who chooses to play his game without ticking that box.

[Nomis07]

Did I say automatic success? Leeds said to make it easier. I'm damn sure playing as Real, Man City or Notts County will be easier than say, Southampton or FC United.

You didn't have to say automatic success and your point is flimsy, at best. People who would use this feature would obviously not understand the game, so they would struggle regardless of what team they managed.

I didn't argue the point you made. I was saying IF it was in the game, then don't use it if you don't want to.

I didn't make a point for you to argue with :confused: You said, "if you don't want it in the game, don't use it, simple", or something to that effect and I was simply saying that it isn't as simple as that, because not everyone against it would mind that they didn't have to use it, the damage could already have been done.

In other words, if I tick a box that allows me to play the game without being sacked how is that going to hurt bean824who chooses to play his game without ticking that box.

It won't, but everything that went before it might. Time spent on this feature, rather than other features or money spent on this feature, will affect everyone. It isn't as simple as saying don't use it.

Btw, i'm in favour of this option, i'm just trying to see both sides, something a number of users in this thread aren't willing to try.

[Ceching You Out]

Directly it wouldn't, but well Nomis07 explains one indirect affect in his post:

It isn't simple though, is it? A feature like this would take time to get right, time that could be spent on other areas of the game and if they aren't willing to take staff away from other areas of the game, SI are going to have to hire more staff to deal with this feature, which costs money. I don't disagree with the idea, but when people keep saying "you don't have to use it", as if it's a feature that just plops out of thin air and has no connotations or side effects, well, that's just plain wrong.

You could also believe that if SI does implement an unsackable option as an "Assistant Manager" or "Tutorial" option as has been suggested in other threads, the functionality will only serve to confuse new players and ultimately damage my playing experience by driving down FM's ability to retain future customers.

And of course you could make the lofty argument that if SI begins to focus their philosophy more on providing accessibility and fun, they will do so at the expense of realism.

I'm not necessarily putting forth any of those arguments as my own personal belief, but there is a certain naivete in claiming that the addition of an unsackable option won't have an effect on those who would rather not use it. Either way, there are points to be made on either side and ultimately the proper answer depends on SI's business strategy, customer model, etc. Anyone have access to those?

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

A suggestion if "Unsackable" is not forthcoming:

How about each manager position having a star rating (visible only when you view a club as unemployed). This rating would take into account Resources / expectations / reputations / current status (if part way through a season) and all associated factors so you would know that eg Liverpool / Southampton was a 4 star challenge, Colchester / Bournemouth a 3 star challenge, Stoke / Morecambe a 2 star Challenge etc.

[Nomis07]

Not bad, but all that information is pretty much common knowledge, unless you're going for LLM, in which case you probably have a decent grasp of the game.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Not bad, but all that information is pretty much common knowledge, unless you're going for LLM, in which case you probably have a decent grasp of the game.

Yeah, but maybe there could be a table of star rated tasks. If eg you found Crewe was a really easy challege you would know that would be a good / forgiving starting point to learn the game. Doesnt account for "unsackable" being no longer required, taht is another issue, but would give "easier game" options.

[Suttface]

I'm always amazed at the replies to this suggestion. I think this comes under the heading of 'customisation and personlisation'. People choose the way to play a game they have spent good money on. Why limit opportunities for people to play it the way they want? It would be no different to having DDT files, if people want to tick the 'unsackable' box then let them. The point is, gamers should choose how they want to set up and play their own save games. It really shouldn't bother players who simply won't use it and it certainly won't impact on their enjoyment of FM because they may have to leave a tickbox unchecked!

[bean824]

I'm always amazed at the replies to this suggestion. I think this comes under the heading of 'customisation and personlisation'. People choose the way to play a game they have spent good money on. Why limit opportunities for people to play it the way they want? It would be no different to having DDT files, if people want to tick the 'unsackable' box then let them. The point is, gamers should choose how they want to set up and play their own save games. It really shouldn't bother players who simply won't use it and it certainly won't impact on their enjoyment of FM because they may have to leave a tickbox unchecked!

Yes but there's no point to have it in the first place. It's pointless. New users have the manual, the internet and their own common sense to learn how to use the game - any other users using the button would be to customise a game, and that can be done through the editor.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Yes but there's no point to have it in the first place. It's pointless. New users have the manual, the internet and their own common sense to learn how to use the game - any other users using the button would be to customise a game, and that can be done through the editor.

I am stunned at the way some (in the first person) find it impossible to comprehend anothers views / ideas, especially when they have no impact whatsoever on the first persons experience. I truely hoped and always believed SI games had a better quallity of clientelle!. My faith in human nature has not been so shaken since Freddie Got evicted from BB10 !.

SI, let's have that damn button and the naysayers can frankly go do whatever, they will not be missed!

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

To all those that say "Go play Fifa" (or similar) because they dont agree with the OP I say, no WE will carry on playing FM, YOU jog off and go take your FIFA Coaching badges....and close the nursery door on the way out.

[doagrl]

Directly it wouldn't, but well Nomis07 explains one indirect affect in his post:

You could also believe that if SI does implement an unsackable option as an "Assistant Manager" or "Tutorial" option as has been suggested in other threads, the functionality will only serve to confuse new players and ultimately damage my playing experience by driving down FM's ability to retain future customers.

And of course you could make the lofty argument that if SI begins to focus their philosophy more on providing accessibility and fun, they will do so at the expense of realism.

I'm not necessarily putting forth any of those arguments as my own personal belief, but there is a certain naivete in claiming that the addition of an unsackable option won't have an effect on those who would rather not use it. Either way, there are points to be made on either side and ultimately the proper answer depends on SI's business strategy, customer model, etc. Anyone have access to those?

I understand what you and Nomis07 are trying to put across but is that not one of the main arguments that the people who didn't want a 3d match engine used to bring up? How much time and effort SI would devote to it and how it would hurt the rest of the game,etc. And then as now it just doesn't jibe with reality since SI are not going to stop adding features to these games. We will never ever have a situation where a release doesn't bring something new or different.

Since I think we can all agree that SI will always add things to FM what this debate has really come down to is the people who only want the stuff they think is important to be added to the game vs the people who think it sounds like it could be of use to someone so why not include it.

Which is why I asked what does it cost the people posting against it on this thread if such an option is available? Not what does it cost SI because we don't know, won't know and frankly it's none of our business to know how they go about their business. But basically, how does it hurt your ability to enjoy your game in concrete terms, not farfetched hypotheticals of how SI will implode if they were to add one more tick box option to FM?

[lovingthegreen]

An 'unsackable' button would be pointless, as not many people would need it - and it would take the element of challenge out of the game. What's the point in developing tactics, building a team, if the fear of being sacked when things don't go your way isn't there? Maybe they could make the editor able to edit chairmen attributes (If it can't already) to make them more relaxed towards you - that would fix your problem.

Hmm, maybe the point is that you want to lead your team to titles and promotions? That drives me more in FM than fear of being sacked ever will.

It isn't simple though, is it? A feature like this would take time to get right, time that could be spent on other areas of the game and if they aren't willing to take staff away from other areas of the game, SI are going to have to hire more staff to deal with this feature, which costs money. I don't disagree with the idea, but when people keep saying "you don't have to use it", as if it's a feature that just plops out of thin air and has no connotations or side effects, well, that's just plain wrong.

Would it honestly cost SI money? Seriously, how complicated would adding that option be? You just get rid of that line that when crossed causes the manager to be let go. Simple.

[Shottaz]

I must admit I have not read this post but getting sacked is basically a "your doing it wrong" message. People would get unhappy if they kept losing and werent 'shown' they are doing it wrong.

[Elrithral]

Would it honestly cost SI money? Seriously, how complicated would adding that option be? You just get rid of that line that when crossed causes the manager to be let go. Simple.

You'd have to code board and fan confidence, contract renewals, other managerial interest, managerial sackings etc etc etc. Not simple.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I am stunned at the way some (in the first person) find it impossible to comprehend anothers views / ideas, especially when they have no impact whatsoever on the first persons experience. I truely hoped and always believed SI games had a better quallity of clientelle!. My faith in human nature has not been so shaken since Freddie Got evicted from BB10 !.

SI, let's have that damn button and the naysayers can frankly go do whatever, they will not be missed!

I think you have to look at the comments and guess at the age of some people making the comments tiger.......without actually knowing their age my guess would be it is a bit of immaturity creeping in

[x42bn6]

You'd have to code board and fan confidence, contract renewals, other managerial interest, managerial sackings etc etc etc. Not simple.

- Board confidence: Don't see why it has to change, the board can still lose confidence in you - just that you can't be fired.

- Fan confidence: See above.

- Contract renewals:

public boolean allowNewContract(Manager manager) {
   [b]if(manager.isUnsackable()) return true;[/b]
   // Existing contract logic goes here
}

- Managerial interest: Doesn't have to change, just that they'll never get the job.

As for the unsackable code:

public void sackManager(Team team) {
   [b]if(team.getManager().isUnsackable()) return;[/b]
   team.getManager().removeTeam();
   team.removeManager();
}

SI should hire me one day, by the way.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

I think you have to look at the comments and guess at the age of some people making the comments tiger.......without actually knowing their age my guess would be it is a bit of immaturity creeping in

I guess. Some really valid arguements were made in the thread both for and against but still 2 weeks into the thread some say "Go play FIFA" and others dont respond with any view on the Post contents themselves, they just get personal about other Poster's. I really cannot understand:

a/Why "other" people cannot be left in peace to play thie game their way without Junior "Nanny State" Officials trying to impose their unrepresentative polarised views.

b/Why Posters ignore the Posts that they cannot reason with but just plough on with the same jaded arguements when previous considered Posts have opened other valid & reasonable relevant directions of thought (I guess it is because these trains of thought are not in line with their own opinionated opinions.

I could almost believe some Posters copy & paste the Posts into their own Word format document, deleting or amending the Posts they disagree with and creating their own little hermitacally sealed bubble of agreement.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

- Board confidence: Don't see why it has to change, the board can still lose confidence in you - just that you can't be fired.

- Fan confidence: See above.

- Contract renewals:

public boolean allowNewContract(Manager manager) {
   [b]if(manager.isUnsackable()) return true;[/b]
   // Existing contract logic goes here
}

- Managerial interest: Doesn't have to change, just that they'll never get the job.

As for the unsackable code:

public void sackManager(Team team) {
   [b]if(team.getManager().isUnsackable()) return;[/b]
   team.getManager().removeTeam();
   team.removeManager();
}

SI should hire me one day, by the way.

Dont understand any of that code, but it looks clever. Add to that perhaps "all moral values = Normal" (always), as a separate tick box if necessary, and the arguement in favour of "Unsackable" as an OPTION (!) is pretty conclusive I would suggest.

[Elrithral]

- Board confidence: Don't see why it has to change, the board can still lose confidence in you - just that you can't be fired.

- Fan confidence: See above.

- Contract renewals:

- Managerial interest: Doesn't have to change, just that they'll never get the job.

As for the unsackable code:

SI should hire me one day, by the way.

So it's an unsackable option, that takes absolutely nothing else into account, the only change is that you can't get sacked and regardless of how unrealistic that is, the people who use it will have to put up with unrealistic features like terrible confidence, but not getting the sack? Absolute nonesense, afaic.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Why is it nonsense? How would it effect you?

[chopper99]

Why is it nonsense? How would it effect you?

That's not really an argument though. Being able to become chairman or using my earned wages to buy a club are not things that I would use and therefore would not effect me, but I still would be against them being put into this game.

My argument against this has always been that this would be the easy way out. There are so many better and more realistic ways to help newer users without resorting to these kind of features. A more intuative tactical interface, better staff interaction, a better manual, a more interactive turorial etc ect are all more realistic and better ways of achieving the same goal without taking the easy option of simply throwing in an unsackable option.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Well this thread has already discussed that, if the guy who knows how to code knows what he is talking about then it wouldnt be time consuming.....

I totally agree with you BTW about the improvements, but I have to say this wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it was implemented. I think if anyone opposes it they need to take a good look at themselves as begrudging anyone else an advantage in a GAME is pathetic! It's their game, let them play it how they want...

[Elrithral]

Why is it nonsense? How would it effect you?

So I shouldn't have an opinion, unless it directly affects me? Better stop thinking drugs are bad, I don't use them and am never in contact with anyone who does, so I can't have an opinion on it.

Have you even read this thread or are you jsut adding little soundbites that allude to argument, before disappearing, every so often? I have been a staunch advocate of implementing the unsackable option throughout, but only if done right. For goodness sake, at least have an idea of what people are saying, before you add your tuppence worth.

[chopper99]

I think if anyone opposes it they need to take a good look at themselves as begrudging anyone else an advantage in a GAME is pathetic! It's their game, let them play it how they want...

Almost as pathetic as calling people pathetic for having a different viewpoint to you. I think there have been many good points put forward as to why some of us do not want this to be put into the game.

As someone pointed out earlier, this had been a good debated. But it's now just degenerated into petty insults and people making the same points over and over again.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Yes because as someone else pointed out, which if you read the thread without jumping in with your patronising tone every now and then as if some god when it comes to opinions on the game you will have noticed, "b/Why Posters ignore the Posts that they cannot reason with but just plough on with the same jaded arguements when previous considered Posts have opened other valid & reasonable relevant directions of thought (I guess it is because these trains of thought are not in line with their own opinionated opinions.".

The people not in favour of this go on and on saying it should not be implemented. Your patronising tone helps no discussion whatsoever, and I think you will find if you take the time to actually read this thread, that a lot of people have agreed, and disagreed, with some valid points I have made.

If all you have to do is jump in to this thread with nothing to offer on it then don't bother in future.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

So I shouldn't have an opinion, unless it directly affects me? Better stop thinking drugs are bad, I don't use them and am never in contact with anyone who does, so I can't have an opinion on it.

Have you even read this thread or are you jsut adding little soundbites that allude to argument, before disappearing, every so often? I have been a staunch advocate of implementing the unsackable option throughout, but only if done right. For goodness sake, at least have an idea of what people are saying, before you add your tuppence worth.

Well if you had read this thread you will see we are in agreement then, or did you miss my other posts saying it should be implemented? Perhaps you should practice what you preach..

As for 'if done right', I don't give a damn how it's done, but I'm sure that we can assume SI won't just throw in a totally pathetic example of it and make it worthless to the game should it be implemented. Or is that me being super intelligent to assume they will do it properly because you seem to think it's worth bringing up over and over.....