Sacked in FM2010

[Elrithral]

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..

What you said prior to your "why's it nonsense?" post, matters little to me and should matter little to you in the context of this conversation. You jumped on my post because it said x42bn6's suggestion was nonsense, and you assumed that I was saying the addition of the feature was nonsense, in which case you were wrong.

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.....

Ah right, my mistake. I didn't realise that the suggestion to ignore confidence and moral and the subsequent implications was ok and people wouldn't be bothered by it. I also forgot all about how perfect cofidence and press conferences were when first implemented. You're right, i'm being stupid and you, with your hat full of assumptions, are being super intelligent.

I'll spell it out for you, since you have missed the point on no less than two occasions, so far!

- I am in favour of the idea.

- The assertion that something was nonsense was regards the suggestion that there is no need to alter confidence or morale if this feature is added.

- I never said SI wouldn't do it right.

- I was enforcing the point that x42bn6's code ignored areas of thegame that would render this feature pathetic.

Now please, drop it. You jumped on something that you had picked up wrong and now you're backtracking and trying to put words in my mouth. Accept that you misinterpreted me and move on.

It's no coincidence that a nice, healthy debate has died a death as soon as bean jumped in with his "idiot" comments and you jumped in with your "pathetic" comments.

[chopper99]

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.

These are your posts from this page:

WHS

WHS

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.

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.

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

Why is it nonsense? How would it effect you?

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...

There doesn't seem to much there that adds anything useful to the debate. Most of it is either pointless or having a dig at someone.

There are plenty of people who have made much better arguments for this being introduced than you so perhaps it is you that shouldn't bother in future?

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

From this page, if you looked from the start of the argument you moron then you would see more.....christ almighty is that so difficult to see.

The reason this page's posts have been so dull is because of the point I made earlier, people bring up the same argument of not wanting it without answering a lot of questions.......

*wasting my breath*

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Oh, no doubt I'll be in the wrong for calling you a moron now, so don't bother with saying that. Perhaps if you don't want to be referred to as that then you should do better research first...

[Elrithral]

Leave it chopper, you'll get infracted and he's just trolling, hopefully the debate can improve from now on.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Just trolling because I don't agree with you, I love that. Such a feeble attempt to look for support too because both your points have been made to look stupid, sad...

The debate reached it's peak about a page and a half ago, you two are adding nothing new, it's about adding a button or not, simple. Been discussed, discussion over. Still I'm sure you two could go on and on about the ethics or reality issues all night, interesting stuff....

Edit: I think you will find your last post is trolling too, hypocrite

[Elrithral]

Which of my points were proved wrong?

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Could you stop trolling please and stop trying to take this off topic.

[Neji]

All I can see is people trying to wind each other up, so cut it out. If you don't have anything decent to add to the topic, then I would suggest you avoid the thread.

Either discuss the topic at hand in a civil manner, or don't bother.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

No problem Neji.

[chopper99]

It's a fair question don't you think? You claim he's looking for support because both of his points have been made to look stupid. So the least you can do is enlighten us all as to which points these are.

you two are adding nothing new

Again, please enlighten me to where you've added anything new in this last page. In fact, please show me where you've added anything new in the entire thread.

[Elrithral]

It's on topic and relevant. Both my points were regards the addition of an unsackable option, I don't know wheich ones were proved wrong. Please explain.

[chopper99]

All I can see is people trying to wind each other up, so cut it out. If you don't have anything decent to add to the topic, then I would suggest you avoid the thread.

Either discuss the topic at hand in a civil manner, or don't bother.

I posted my last post before seeing this one. I'll choose to not bother trying to have a discussion then.

[Neji]

You can discuss all you want, just without the winding up of other users and pointless bickering.

[Elrithral]

I'm still unclear as to what parts of a) my belief that it should be added to the game and b) my belief that x42's comments were nonsense, have been proved wrong.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

If this is so unrealistic why do games such as Call of Duty or G.R.A.W. on the xbox360 (and yes I hate comparing but these two games are recognised as some of the best ever made) have options to reduce or increase the likelyhood of your death when shot? This isn't realistic at all in real life?? How many times do you see a soldier get shot in the arm, leg and stomach, then hide behind a wall for 10 seconds and be fully healed?

Anyone who owns these games knows they are very enjoyable though. If I choose a difficult level I dont complete a mission and then think, wow I did well there but what about all the other wimps who only did it on easy! I just enjoy my game because that is all that should matter. I don't begrudge anyone to have the chance of getting further in a game and seeing the nice results you can get with success all because they play it at an easier level than me.

It's a sad state of affairs if people cannot give others a chance to enjoy a game at a level comfortable to them which may not be so difficult to someone else. It's discrimination in a way, saying others are less intelligent/not as good at gaming as you and therefore should suffer. Anyone who doesn't like the idea of a different difficulty level or a 'no sack' option is simpy taking this game too serious, no other way of putting it.

What are you going to do if it is introduced, sit behind your computer constantly chuntering to yourself about how many people there are out there playing it at an easier level?? I doubt anyone would do this or I hope they wouldn't so really there is no argument for these things not to be implemented.

Did you miss this post of mine then Chopper?

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I'm still unclear as to what parts of a) my belief that it should be added to the game and b) my belief that x42's comments were nonsense, have been proved wrong.

Erithral, I think I got my wires crossed with your response to x42's post, apologies.

I never argued the fact that you said you didn't want it did I?

[SCIAG]

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.

Morale normal just wouldn't work. It would do more harm than good. You can't use half the game's features, which are probably as important as tactics. It would suck the fun out of the game and most of the ways a manager could turn around a bad run of form are gone. You'd have to resort to arbitrary tactical changes in the hope that something new would click. Non-starter IMO.

[chopper99]

Did you miss this post of mine then Chopper?

Nope. But it added nothing that hadn't already been said. The argument that it is an option had already been raised and there had been some excellent arguments both for and against it. The last two paragraphs of that post are simply condescending and make it look like you've not bothered to read some of the excellent debate that occurred beforehand.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thread now so feel free to carry on.

[Neji]

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.

Problem is, then you're just adding a bunch of cheats to the game. I said this feature could help early in the thread but from the points made, I just can't see the point anymore.

Also, it isn't a simple as adding a bit of code. Even if it is a simple as pointed out, you then have to do testing to make sure it works. Make sure there are no knock on effects etc. So it will take development time away from other areas.

[Elrithral]

I don't really see the problem. Someone mentioned earlier that FMH has this option, so why not FM? I assume FMH would suffer fromt he same problems, morale etc, so surely it can't be that big an issue.

[Neji]

I don't really see the problem. Someone mentioned earlier that FMH has this option, so why not FM? I assume FMH would suffer fromt he same problems, morale etc, so surely it can't be that big an issue.

I wouldn't have a problem either way tbh. How exactly does it work on FMH?

[Elrithral]

I've no idea, I just noticed someone mention that it was part of FMH already. I don't even know if morale is included in FMH!

Morale normal just wouldn't work. It would do more harm than good. You can't use half the game's features, which are probably as important as tactics. It would suck the fun out of the game and most of the ways a manager could turn around a bad run of form are gone. You'd have to resort to arbitrary tactical changes in the hope that something new would click. Non-starter IMO.

What can a manager do to turn around a bad run of form, that isn't linked to tactics? Genuine question.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I don't really see the problem. Someone mentioned earlier that FMH has this option, so why not FM? I assume FMH would suffer fromt he same problems, morale etc, so surely it can't be that big an issue.

Exactly, so why not have it in this.

However, one thing I do know about FMH is that SI make it more 'fun' to use compared to PC/Mac ( i asked them on twitter!), so maybe the coding is different and things such as morale aren't included.

[Neji]

I'm interest now, my mate has a PSP so I may go on the rob

[Elrithral]

Exactly, so why not have it in this.

Because it's a very balanced argument atm, save for our tet a tet , and no-one has really proved whether or not it should be included. You have to think of it from both sides;

For:

It's a feature that would help new gamers egt used to the tactical side of the game. It's already in FMH, so why not FM. You can ignore morale, it's not best case scenario, but tactics are the hardest part of the game.

Against:

For it to work properly and not cause more problems than before, you would need to tune morale as well, otherwise it's pointless and the new user won't learn anything. Also it would take time away from other areas fo the game and cost money that could be better spent elsewhere.

It's very evenly balanced imo.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I don't know how much time it would take up etc or how much it would cost so can't comment.

I would say though that if it was switched on (the option) and you was bottom of the league with Man Utd, your morale is surely going to be rock bottom as is confidence and everything else. Maybe if everything was kept the same (such as morale etc), and you had the option switched on, an indicator should say : "You would usually get the sack by now" or something like that, just so new users do know what would happen should the option not be there.

[Doc Gonzo]

I don't understand the problem.

If you get sacked there is a workaround to get your job back -> options -> new user -> so you can take over your "old" club

[Elrithral]

@ Leeds - Ah, but that's the pitfall of this option. By adding a static morale and confidence, it turns from "unsackable" to "easy" and if you add "easy", you have to add "medium" and "hard", then you get into a good old difficulty level debate. See, it isn't as simple as everyone keeps making out.

I don't understand the problem.

If you get sacked there is a workaround to get your job back -> options -> new user -> so you can take over your "old" club

Problem = that system means you start from 0 again, no experience (other than preset), no reputation (other than preset), your team have to learn your tactic again and it takes up to 10 games to get used to a new manager. There's no sense of continuation, you basically start from scratch again.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Sorry I didn't mean keep morale the same when playing the game, I meant keep the coding the same so the game isn't changed apart from this option. Don't touch morale or confidence etc, keep it the same. Then when it's going t...boobs up, you get the message saying, normally you would be sacked. Then you know morale has to be better etc and you have normal conditions.

[Neji]

@ Leeds - Ah, but that's the pitfall of this option. By adding a static morale and confidence, it turns from "unsackable" to "easy" and if you add "easy", you have to add "medium" and "hard", then you get into a good old difficulty level debate. See, it isn't as simple as everyone keeps making out.

Exactly. To get around the problems raised, you're having to effectively put in cheats which FM really isn't about IMO.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

See above your post Neji, I think I didn't make it clear enough what I meant.

I was saying keep the coding the same but just have this option. Then when, normally, the game is about to sack you, you get a message instead saying 'in normal circumstances you would have been sacked'...

[Flemming1966]

Hi again.

I started this thread, now I will try to close.

Since it's getting way out of hand ;-)

I asked if there would be a 'Not able to get sacked' button in FM2010.

I have read the entire thread and I can see that some in here don't want it in the game.

That's fine with me.

If this options takes 2 progammer 5 days to make, then I would rather have they do something else. I agree on that.

But if it is more simple, like 1 progammer spending one afternoon to fix some coding, then why not make it?

To those who hate the unsackable option - just don't use it. It will have not ruin your game at all.

To those who will use it - play it you way. And if you would try to play it the way SI intended it. Then do so when you feel like it.

About realisme in the game (oh no, not again)... It's a game. As it is right now you can be a manager in the game as long as you want. you could stay at the same club for more than 100 years (if you a good enough).

About the relegation below selected leagues.. I can see that is a problem. But not a big problem. If you fx. select only the top two divisions, then if you end up to relegate from the last division then.... Well, you dont get relegated. You stay in that division. Not realistic, I know. But when you select the 'unsackable option' you know you have selected the 'very unrealistic' way to play the game... And so what. If someone want to play it that way, then let 'em.

I didn't ask for the unsackable options to help new players. I don't think it will help 'em.

Some new players will play it as SI intended. And loving it, even tho the get sacked again and again.

But for, my brother and a few freinds, we would love the unsackable option. Playing for years against each others, at over own pace. And at our favorite club. Keeping manager history and all that stuff.

I know SI is not making this game only for me. This is an options that me and my freinds would love.

Some others in here are asking for other features. Some of 'em I really don't like, but I would never flame 'em for bringing it up. If that's want they want, and SI have time and people to make, then okay.

When I started this thread a few weeks back, i never imagined that it would make this much trouble. To me it's just a little thing. Not saying it's simple, but really not a big deal.

If you hate, don't use it.

If you like it, try it out. If you after a while don't like it. Play without it ;-)

Hope this will end it or at least bring it back on topic and in a nice tone.

Thx all

[Doc Gonzo]

Problem = that system means you start from 0 again, no experience (other than preset), no reputation (other than preset), your team have to learn your tactic again and it takes up to 10 games to get used to a new manager. There's no sense of continuation, you basically start from scratch again.

If you create a new user you will have the possibility to choose "past experience" and I don't think your players have to learn again your tactics. If you adapted the tactics to your players it will work after the "reset".

You are right at some points you have to start from the scratch but is it really that bad? I mean there were probably reasons why you got fired.

[Elrithral]

See above your post Neji, I think I didn't make it clear enough what I meant.

I was saying keep the coding the same but just have this option. Then when, normally, the game is about to sack you, you get a message instead saying 'in normal circumstances you would have been sacked'...

There's always a counter argument. If you do that, you could end up with a team that has rock bottom morale, which in turn affects results and you have no chance of fixing it. So, you won't get sacked and you can't learn because your teams lack of morale almost guarantees defeat.

Like I said, it really isn't as simple as people are making out and whilst I am arguing for it's inclusion, there are issues that are almost unfixable, without heading down the road of cheats, as described by Neil.

If you create a new user you will have the possibility to choose "past experience" and I don't think your players have to learn again your tactics. If you adapted the tactics to your players it will work after the "reset".

You are right at some points you have to start from the scratch but is it really that bad? I mean there were probably reasons why you got fired.

Yes, for a new user, which is what the discussion has hinged on, yes, it would be a big deal and it would be that bad.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

So you don't think that you could turn around a club with rock bottom morale etc etc etc ?

Would be an interesting challenge, I bet I could do it lol...

[Elrithral]

You could, but this discussion is based on how it helps new users who have absoltuely no idea what they are doing and from their perspective, fixing morale is an more daunting task than recovering from the sack.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Yea I know.....would help them learn without getting the sack though!

[Elrithral]

But you wouldn't be learning, you'd just be in an endless spiral of misery and defeat as it's so hard to reverse a drop in morale, especially when you don't understand tactics.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Lol that is true, but that would be the same if you had the sack button or not. If you was doing so bad you could come on here and then ask people and get advice?

[Elrithral]

Assuming people know about this place, not all FM fans use these forums. How many have played since CM2 and only signed up recently?

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

Now we are getting on to people and their use of the internet, if they can't suss out to search for help then that's their problem.

Google answers a lot of questions for problems you are having, if you typed in 'help with Football Manager' I'd bet these forums would come up.

[SCIAG]

What can a manager do to turn around a bad run of form, that isn't linked to tactics? Genuine question.

IMO motivation through team talks, media interaction and such is as powerful as any tactic at turning things around.

[Leeds_Leeds_Leeds!]

I agree, team talks, especially when you have suffered a defeat really effect things. If you constantly tell your team that you are angry, it won't get you very far IMO.

[Ranbir]

Doesn't SAF have the unrealistic check box of unsackable ticked?

Perhaps Wenger does too, I mean, four seasons without a trophy? Is FM as tolerant?

[Neji]

Doesn't SAF have the unrealistic check box of unsackable ticked?

Perhaps Wenger does too, I mean, four seasons without a trophy? Is FM as tolerant?

I believe there is an 'untouchable' job status which amounts to the same thing.

[bean824]

I think I need to actually explain why I'm against this idea. People seem to have not understood where I was coming from, and that's led them to have a go.

- It'll take time away from the developers/programmers, meaning that other areas of the game won't improve. Whether it takes 1 programmer 1 afternoon, or 5 programmers 5 days, it's all time taken from other areas of development. I'd rather see the 3D slightly less jerky than have this button, for instance.

- The people who'll actually use the button are a niche group. You can't say that there are many people like the OP, would want it just to keep some semblance of control over a multiplayer game. As I've said before, these people may be able to edit using the editor - I wouldn't know if this is possible. The button wouldn't be used so much by new users, as many people who play the game already have the tactical knowledge to create a decent tactic. Coupled with a slightly easier team to manage like Real, would create a 'tutorial' effect, if you ask me. For the people that come to the game with little tactical knowledge (and I'm guessing there aren't many of them, but again I may be wrong), there's tactical help in the manual that can be used. Add on top of this the help on the internet (such as the tactical bible) there's enough help out there for people to acclimatise to the way the game's played.

- To elaborate on something above, the editor exists for things like this. People use it to personalise their game in whatever way they want, so why can't those who want the button just use the editor to do this?

Before you call it, I'm not trying to troll, I'm just fed up of the conflict that some people seem to be creating and want to contribute without any more occuring.

[bearsy]

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.

Lol. Sorry couldn't leave this be... so because of your estimate of 50-50 for inclusion that means it must be seriously considered. That is as bad as me saying I doubt less than 10% would want it, so lets dismiss it all together. Your biased opinion is no more a reason to consider it, than mine to dismiss it

Anyway, to be honest this entire thread is completely and entirely pointless. Miles said in the blog about features that 'all unrealistic ideas for features were dismiss almost immediately'. I must admit this brought a sense of relief to me and I've no doubt quite a few other who have been following this thread.

[SJFunk]

Personally, i'm not for the idea... As people have said it'll be good for new consumers to the game.

The game has tutorials in it, as well as if your starting new then you really should start from the bottom and work your way up, just like a real life manager would have to (ones that aren't that famous from their playing days). This new button would hinder them as they would not likely improve knowing that they wont be sacked, and therefore are not that likely going to enjoy the game when they dont win anything.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Lol. Sorry couldn't leave this be... so because of your estimate of 50-50 for inclusion that means it must be seriously considered. That is as bad as me saying I doubt less than 10% would want it, so lets dismiss it all together. Your biased opinion is no more a reason to consider it, than mine to dismiss it

Anyway, to be honest this entire thread is completely and entirely pointless. Miles said in the blog about features that 'all unrealistic ideas for features were dismiss almost immediately'. I must admit this brought a sense of relief to me and I've no doubt quite a few other who have been following this thread.

Yes I did mean that, but IF my estimate of 50/50 were right. I started to do a straw poll of the Posters in this thread then realised...(apart from wasting valuable FM playing time) it doesnt really matter, although we disagree about the OP's suggestion you are right in a certain respect - SI will only include it if it is warranted, and neither your or my opinions prove that conclusively one way or the other. Something I had not alluded to also is the very good suggestion made several times - a good tutorial (and other aids) would maybe prevent the need for the inexperienced to desire "unsackable", leaving just the "stay with one club at all costs" long term gamers who also struggle with tactics, and as you probably attempted to highlight, though I may have missed it, there ultimately may not be so many of those.

I must just highlight the weakness of your maths though:

50/50 (if correct) means half desire hence not a majority against, hence should be considered.

10% is clearly not representative of the thread's "we want it" contributors (50% would be a much closer estimate), but as I said, I dont really want to debate the exact percentage as it is subject to too many variables (Posters in favour who wouldnt use it, Posters who believe it uncodeable hence wont support it but with no proof to back that up, etc.).

And the thread is not pointless as it has had some vibrant worthwhile discusssion included. Also to my knowledge no one in the know has deemed this officially "an unrealistic idea", even a mod who suggested it was not worthwhile, when pointed in the direction of the option actually existing in FML (! - I didnt know that!), trotted off to reconsider his opinion (not sure he actually changed his mind in the end though, to be fair). So regarding unsackable not appearing in FM10 - true, is probably too late but FM11 is another story - naysayers do not count your chickens....

My opinion is "biased" as it is my opinion - how could an opinion not be?????? !

Interestingly, some over-lively debate this afternoon made our own little keyboard jousting look like handbags at 10 paces, but I was pleased that the mods calmed that and let the debate continue - another indication that the subject is being taken quite seriously, I imagine.