Reccy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But for all the realism, it is still a game. Why should a player not have any control over keeping his job in game? Becuase he is the manager of the club, Not the Chairman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whilewolf Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Chairman Interference is one of the most frustrating features in the game. Selling players over your head, sacking you for poor performance despite your games in hand and an easy upcoming fixture list and the OP's example of a totally out of the blue redundancy. As its such a game stopper I see no reason why the player shouldn't be able to opt out of having it. Would it really be that hard to implement tick boxes at set up for "Allow Chairman to sell players", "Make Player unsackable" ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 At what point do you draw the line between game and simulation? Do you add a tick box that says the human user can never lose? The same argument could be applied to that as the not getting sacked option. I'm not belittleing the OP, it must be annoying, but this is ment as a simulation of football management as far as i can tell, and unfortunately these things happen in football, you can go through countless examples of managers losing their job for little or no reason, the big difference being we get 5 days of newspaper coverage with various stories and finally statements from all sides explaining things, in FM we have 1 message that says your sacked, as Barside suggested they could definitely expand on the reasoning given when this comes up. As suggested as well in here if the OP really see's it as a bug it should be raised so SI can check the code is doing exactly what they wanted it to do, otherwise the tons of anecdotal evidence we can all throw at this will go on indefinitely. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 At what point do you draw the line between game and simulation? Football Manager is, first and foremost, a game. It has to be fun. If something happens that can immediately destroy (literal) days, weeks, months of time invested, then that would just be stupid. Games and simulations are not different things, a simulation is just a type of game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Football Manager is, first and foremost, a game. It has to be fun. If something happens that can immediately destroy (literal) days, weeks, months of time invested, then that would just be stupid.Games and simulations are not different things, a simulation is just a type of game. I see your point, but there is a difference between FM and what i would class as a normal computer game, again if we're to go down the route of none of this happening then why not options like "cannot lose" or "no team will try and poach your young players" because if its just a game for fun then these types of things should be optional, i would imagine its equally as little fun taking a team from the bottom, leading the league, then losing your last 5 games and missing out on everything, we see threads like that all the time, its also equally as little fun taking a young player through your ranks only for him to be stolen off you just as he gets good. I'm not for one second saying these options should be in the game, but like i say, where is the line drawn? Where do you cut off the reality aspect to appease the human fun aspect? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freakiie Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Chairman Interference is one of the most frustrating features in the game. Selling players over your head, sacking you for poor performance despite your games in hand and an easy upcoming fixture list and the OP's example of a totally out of the blue redundancy. As its such a game stopper I see no reason why the player shouldn't be able to opt out of having it. Would it really be that hard to implement tick boxes at set up for "Allow Chairman to sell players", "Make Player unsackable" ? If you want these kind of things you can very well do them yourself. Considering they're highly unrealistic there's no reason for SI to implement them as they strive towards a manager game that simulates the real world as closely as possible. Pissed by your sacking? Make a new manager and go and take over your club again. Pissed by your chairman selling players? Load up FMRTE and set his interference to 1. Pissed because you lost? Reload the match until you win. And so on. In the meantime SI can work on improving the ME and taking care off actual bugs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whilewolf Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 At what point do you draw the line between game and simulation? Do you add a tick box that says the human user can never lose? The same argument could be applied to that as the not getting sacked option. That's just a silly slippery slope argument. Call it a game or simulation it makes no difference it a recreational activity undertaken for fun. Fun for a lot of users will be managing the team they support they want to do that for as long as they retain interest. Why not let them run their team into the ground if that's what they want to do. Why do you care if there is an option at start up you don't use? Do you want the "use real players" check box removed because it allows users to play the game in a way you wouldn't choose to? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You can do something about not losing, and not losing your players. In most instances you can do something about not losing your job when the chairmen changes as well. But if there comes a point where you have no chance whatsoever of saving your job, no matter how well you do, I'd consider that a game-ending bug. Losing a player because your chairman overrules you is fine - there are things you can do to combat this, even if it involves finding a new player/waiting for the chairman to leave etc But losing one player cannot be compared to what people lose when their jobs are taken away for no reason. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coentrao Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I wouldn't want an option to just make a player unsackable but an option to turn off sackings from takeovers would be reasonable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's just a silly slippery slope argument.Call it a game or simulation it makes no difference it a recreational activity undertaken for fun. Fun for a lot of users will be managing the team they support they want to do that for as long as they retain interest. Why not let them run their team into the ground if that's what they want to do. Why do you care if there is an option at start up you don't use? Do you want the "use real players" check box removed because it allows users to play the game in a way you wouldn't choose to? Hang on a sec, im not saying that option should be removed at all, how i play the game is completely unrelated to this topic. All i am saying is where does the line get drawn between this game being designed purely for fun, or to simulate reality, id imagine its a question SI ask themselves most of the time when deciding on any new feature. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fabian Jonsson Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 At the end of the day you need to consider if you want to play a strategy game or a football simulator. If you want to play a game that simulates real-life football as realistic as possible, then yes the board will do stupid things outside of your control. If you want FM to be a strategy game that simply happens to be about football, then these things should be removed as they have nothing to do with tactics. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You can do something about not losing, and not losing your players. In most instances you can do something about not losing your job when the chairmen changes as well.But if there comes a point where you have no chance whatsoever of saving your job, no matter how well you do, I'd consider that a game-ending bug. Losing a player because your chairman overrules you is fine - there are things you can do to combat this, even if it involves finding a new player/waiting for the chairman to leave etc But losing one player cannot be compared to what people lose when their jobs are taken away for no reason. My point is some people are not interested in analysing their team to figure out where the problems are coming from, they want to pick and buy their fav players and go for it, without too much thought, anyone who comes on here with that kinda attitude is told this is not a simple game in that context, it requires more thought, not everyone finds analysing their team as fun. So where is the line drawn between this being something designed purely for fun, or being designed as a simulation of football management? Games and simulations are slightly different for each other, even if they do fall under the recreational category. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Why do some people believe those two things have to be separate? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Why do some people believe those two things have to be separate? Because they are different to each other, otherwise they would both be called the same thing, yes a simulation is a type of game, but its different from your normal game format. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whilewolf Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Hang on a sec, im not saying that option should be removed at all, how i play the game is completely unrelated to this topic. All i am saying is where does the line get drawn between this game being designed purely for fun, or to simulate reality, id imagine its a question SI ask themselves most of the time when deciding on any new feature. And all I said was if there is a way for both sets of users to play the game the way they want to why not implement it? An idea that you seemed hostile to. reading between the lines, on the grounds that it's a simulation and should not allow the user to cheat. Well I don't care how other users play their game I have never started a game with fake players but I'm happy that the options there for those that want it. Maybe there are perfectly good reasons why this would be a non starter. Maybe there are thousands of lines of code that would have to be amended maybe its just to complicated to find all the ways a player can be sacked and amend them all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reccy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Why do some people believe those two things have to be separate? Fifa 12 - Football Game - Plug in and play, is about the team and match, nothing more. FM12 - Football Simulation - Is about simulating by being a Football Manager in the greatest detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Because they are different to each other, otherwise they would both be called the same thing, yes a simulation is a type of game, but its different from your normal game format. But it's not? Simulations are still meant to be fun to play. There isn't one popular simulation out there that doesn't try to be fun to play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Fake players still uses the same game, nothing changes except the names of the players infront of you, the game is still the same game, just a different database, that comparison is weak in this instance. Thing is i'm not really arguing against the option being introduced, and i have also suggested that the OP could have stumbled upon an issue and should raise it with SI. I'm only pointing out this is advertised as a simulation of football management, SI have to decide what is worthwhile to keep this game as close to that as possible, a line somewhere has to be drawn between a gamey feature and a realistic feature. FM as it stands has very few "game" features, no fancy music, of flashing things, or anything like that, if your not a fan of management simulation you hate FM, as there is very little there for bog standard gamer to enjoy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I really cannot see why the "in the name of realism" aspect is thrown out as a defence with this sort of thing. As I said earlier as soon as you pick "Ex International Footballer" as your reputation realism goes out of the window. Regens don't exist IRL so that's realism gone in a few seasons, Taking a BS League Club from the Blue Square to Champions League glory in 5 seasons, highly unlikely, Signing certain players for certain Clubs is not realistic. The whole game will never be realistic because it's just not possible. So it's a game pure and simple. Do we play it to improve our football knowledge? No, we play it because it's fun and we enjoy it and when you spend hours, days, weeks, months on a game and you get sacked for a reason such as this it is extremely irritating. Another example is if you get sacked when you get relegated. Fine that's realistic we accept that but as it's a game wouldn't it be nice if you could try and regroup and take that team up again the following season, even if the Chairman says that you have just got that one season or you have to be in the top three by Christmas that sort of thing. Just a bit of common sense and poetic licence is needed. Noone is saying that we all insist managers are never sackable and we want to win every week just that it is made as what is is, a game. Otherwise SI may as well in the name of realism make sure unrealistic transfers never happen so if you were outside the big four you would never be able to sign stars that you really wouldn't be able to get IRL. Now that would be boring wouldn't it!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 But it's not? Simulations are still meant to be fun to play.There isn't one popular simulation out there that doesn't try to be fun to play. They are different, by their very name they are different, otherwise we would be talking about Halo or GOW as future war simulations, they are not, they are games. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 They are different, by their very name they are different, otherwise we would be talking about Halo or GOW as future war simulations, they are not, they are games. No, they're FPS and TPS games. FM is a sports management simulation game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reccy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I really cannot see why the "in the name of realism" aspect is thrown out as a defence with this sort of thing. As I said earlier as soon as you pick "Ex International Footballer" as your reputation realism goes out of the window. Regens don't exist IRL so that's realism gone in a few seasons, Taking a BS League Club from the Blue Square to Champions League glory in 5 seasons, highly unlikely, Signing certain players for certain Clubs is not realistic. The whole game will never be realistic because it's just not possible. So it's a game pure and simple. Do we play it to improve our football knowledge? No, we play it because it's fun and we enjoy it and when you spend hours, days, weeks, months on a game and you get sacked for a reason such as this it is extremely irritating. Its a pathetic estate of affairs when you get comments like this. No matter what scenario in FM you decide to do the realism is immediately taken away when you click continue and you face your first mail welcoming you to "xxxx" Club. These things are unrealistic straight away and from that moment it stars being a simulation game. Just like COD is a first person shooter game. Unrealistic to be running around in Iran or wherever it may be situated trying to find some dude who has destroyed half the world, or when you look left and your next to Jenson Button on the grid on a F1 racing game. The difference is the variation in the game type, and as advertised, FM promotes itself as a Football Simulation. Its still a GAME at the end of the day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, they're FPS and TPS games. FM is a sports management simulation game. Well we could go round and round on this, its a matter of opinion i think, i would personally class simulations and games separately, i can see the argument for not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No matter what some teachers say, some opinions are wrong Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No matter what some teachers say, some opinions are wrong Your completely right there At the end of the day opinions are like aresholes, we are all entitled to them Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I technically had two for a period of about 3 months Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawlore Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I technically had two for a period of about 3 months Two opinions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 lucky bugger, taking two dumps at the same time must have been an experience for you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Could only use one at a time I think I may have derailed this derailment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreet Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No way a club will sack a successful manager just for the heck of it. option 1 - New owners are fans and since the guy is successful they would like him, so he keeps his job. option 2 - New owners are businessmans and since the club is successful, business is good, so he keeps his job. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 There is always a third way; new owners are idiots & therefore make an idiotic decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sussex Hammer Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Its a pathetic estate of affairs when you get comments like this. No matter what scenario in FM you decide to do the realism is immediately taken away when you click continue and you face your first mail welcoming you to "xxxx" Club. These things are unrealistic straight away and from that moment it stars being a simulation game. Just like COD is a first person shooter game. Unrealistic to be running around in Iran or wherever it may be situated trying to find some dude who has destroyed half the world, or when you look left and your next to Jenson Button on the grid on a F1 racing game. The difference is the variation in the game type, and as advertised, FM promotes itself as a Football Simulation. Its still a GAME at the end of the day. You must have misread my post because I absolutely agree with you!! That's what I was saying, it's a game and will never be realistic so to counter argument the OP post with "it's realistic so get over it" is wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreet Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 There is always a third way; new owners are idiots & therefore make an idiotic decision. There is no such feature and until is implemented this should be regarded as a bug and fixed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreet Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 That's what I was saying, it's a game and will never be realistic But it COULD BE much more realistic and fun if they sit on their asses and start coding.There are so many undeveloped thing when it comes down to transfers and media it's a shame. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 There is no such feature [that owners make idiotic decisions] and until is implemented this should be regarded as a bug and fixed. Of course there is. The game clearly includes the concept of boards firing managers who don't deserve it. Whether or not this particularly egregious type of sacking should remain in the game is arguable but there are many instances of managers being unreasonably canned. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
efreet Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Of course there is. No there isn't.If it was someone from SI would have confirmed it don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Every manager is meant to be able to have the chance to change the mind of a board determined to bring someone else in. The demands needing to be met to successfully take that chance will change from board to board. But there is always, always, meant to be a chance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 efreet-- We don't need SI to confirm it. I've seen it. It's happened to me. I'm confident others can cite instances where they were sacked while performing well. There's no argument here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I can get people to cite instances of players leaving their contracts on the day they were signed, does that means its intentional? If so, why was it fixed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Ackter-- Are you saying that the AI logic is absolutely rigid and that the decision to retain/fire a manager contains no element of chance? I would certainly need SI to confirm that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, and that's not even slightly what I typed so have no idea where you got it from. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Then I don't know what we're arguing about. If board decisions on manager retention include the element of chance, then there have to be unreasonable firings, don't there? Otherwise, why have an element of chance? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 No, there doesn't have to be unrealistic firings because it's a game. The element of chance should be in how demanding your board are of you, nothing else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 One could argue the new board were too demanding and did not think what the OP had achieved was good enough for them, and as such fired him, one could argue that....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If they clearly laid out their demands and he failed to meet them in a satisfactory way, then there's no problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Ackter-- My question was not about what should be but about what is in the current situation. IF there is an element of chance coded into a given board decision on firing a manager, then some percentage of sackings will necessarily be below the minimum standard and thus unreasonable. Otherwise, what's the purpose of rolling dice on whether to retain or fire the guy? The board simply makes its decision based on the number of "performance" points the manager has accrued relative to the board's requirements. If you and efreet believe that this is the case, then I would instantly agree that all unreasonable firings are a bug but then I'd argue that the decision-making process is deeply flawed and needs a lot of work. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 What I'm talking about above is how it's meant to happen. The board are always meant to give you the chance to prove yourself (by winning matches), they're not meant to just turn up and fire you point blank. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
milnerpoint Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 If they clearly laid out their demands and he failed to meet them in a satisfactory way, then there's no problem. Which brings us back to Barside's point earlier, would this be acceptable if everything happened in the same way except the news message says "you have been sacked because of your lack of domestic league success" ?? You would have the reasoning right there and then, and would know exactly why you were replaced. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AytchMan Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Ackter-- Ah, then I'm just duking it out with efreet. Where is that rascal? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackter Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Which brings us back to Barside's point earlier, would this be acceptable if everything happened in the same way except the news message says "you have been sacked because of your lack of domestic league success" ??You would have the reasoning right there and then, and would know exactly why you were replaced. The game should always tell you why you were sacked imo. Alongside everything else it makes it easier to tell if it's a bug or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.