Option to have unsackable human managers

[djuzelovic_fmserbia]

Yes, it would be great

[Navie]

Why are people turning this idea into such an issue?...if it does get into the game as a new feature then its not exactly going to be hard-cored to the game, you either turn it ON or OFF depending on how you like to play your game, this will only be for single player games.

As far as "What is the use of board confidence?" etc this is how it would work...

...You can never get sacked unless you ask the board for an ultimatum for something, unless you have been at a club for 20 years and are a miracle worker. If your at Man Utd and haven't won the league say for 3-4 years then you won't get enough transfer money as you normally would to suffice the 'Confidence' as useful because you can't keep getting money to spend if you don't win anything or is that delving a little deep?

[Navie]

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

I think if you spend all the transfer budget and you go into the red the and the board is taken over it would be like a normal board takeover where you can get replaced, this 'Unsackable manager' thing is there for when you don't win like the league with Man Utd for 3-4 years and your team are unlucky or your still building.

[PMLF]

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

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

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

What they said, just add some punishment for those who use this option like disabling the hall of fame points, for example.

[Navie]

What they said, just add some punishment for those who use this option like disabling the hall of fame points, for example.

Good thinking but I think that is too harsh. What I reccommend like I mentioned above is...if you don't meet your aims like your board says then your transfer budget and wages get cut down to what you would normally get until you win something, which in effect means you have to be wise and think about what your doing etc.

[Navie]

Good thinking but I think that is too harsh. What I reccommend like I mentioned above is...if you don't meet your aims like your board says then your transfer budget and wages get cut down to what you would normally get until you win something, which in effect means you have to be wise and think about what your doing etc.

Btw...the board would say at the start of the new season "Since you didn't meet the target league position last season, this season we have decided spending should be limited to make up for lost income, your transfer and wage budget therefore has been set to £XXXXX" etc.

[jod123]

Btw...the board would say at the start of the new season "Since you didn't meet the target league position last season, this season we have decided spending should be limited to make up for lost income, your transfer and wage budget therefore has been set to £XXXXX" etc.

But then it would be getting harder as it goes along and if you did not achieve success in your first season you are obviously less likely after that.

[AIK]

I voted yes and i would use it all the time as i only manage two teams in the game, AIK & Manchester United.

Those who says no and say it's unrealistic. I guess those people wants to restrict the club selection too, so we can't take over big clubs in the beginning. I mean, how realistic is it that an unknown guy takes over Manchester United as his first club? That will never happen in real football..

We can't have everything as realistic at possible, it's just a game. I've read in some threads that there's some people who wants to make it so when we wants to buy a player we just leave a request to the board and then they manage the negotation and stuff like that. Now we're talking about "features" that will take the fun out of the game. Sure, the cool hardcore-guys will love it but the majority of gamers will probably leave the game..

Don't get me wrong, i like the realism in some extent. But there has to be a balance. It wouldn't be funny without injuries or if we could buy a superstar to a division two team in Azerbaijan (no reputation). But for people like myself who doesn't play the game as a traveling career-manager it would be a good security when managing my favourite teams. When i get sacked now i lose my motivation for months.

[Marquez]

There should be, I wouldn't use it but some people can...

[Gentleman]

I don't mind the option, although I wouldn't be using it. I'm all for fair play.

I think the people who'd be using the option are people who believe they can't stay at their club anyway, whether it is lack of ability, or lack of a properly working board. When the board (confidence) is at least reasonable, any human manager should be able to stay up. The problem with board takeover-sacking and other silly sackings are what most people would drive to use this option, imho.

Which means that, when the board gets implemented properly, there would be less people complaining about getting sacked for no reason, or wrong reasons. Which I believe would mean less people getting sacked, which then results in less people using this option.

I can be wrong too, of course, but this is my take on why this option is being used.

[backpackant]

Pointless feature. Why take more realism out of the game? We already have daft transfer prices, automatic ability decline past a certain age, low "too-good-to-turn-down" chairman transfers... why go backwards?

No one would be asking for this feature if the board confidence thing had worked better. Just fix that.

It would be like having an un-crashable option on a racing game or an un-killable option on a shoot-em-up. Might not affect ME if someone uses it, but programming it would be a nightmare - how to get around the board WANTING to sack you, how much bile the AI fans can hurl at you, how low player morale has to get, how when you get into a losing streak it's very difficult to get out (player morale again), and so on. See the hundreds of other threads for the full arguement.

[Ryan,,,]

I voted no, but it might be usefull at the start when you're learning the ropes of fm09.

[chargreaves]

I'm in favour as it is only an option, and those who don't like the idea can simply choose not to use the function.

[philly_flyer10]

Yes, it wont affect me because I wont use it but I dont see why anyone would want to prevent others from using it. Why do people care?

[rakhabbit]

no.

it's as bad as asking for an 'I Win!!' button.

[Blackcats]

No, i don't see any point in that being there, it would take away most of the point of the game.

[daddiopimpio]

Not for me but no harm in it i guess, may allow beginners to get a better understanding of the game at there own pace!

[Heisenberg]

I'm against, in that I think other posters who've suggested it would lead to lots of other "option" features, which aside from making the game less realistic would also potentially slow it down, and cause various problems with implementing it in the code

This is a football management simulation after all, so keeping the balance between realism and enjoyment is hard. I suppose it'd cut down on the number of threads filled with "OMG DIS GAME SUXX CUZ I GOT SAKD!!!111!1"

(Note I am not tarring all users with the same brush, and agree that some sackings are pretty unrealistic. That comes more under the heading of board confidence problems though)

[Gauvner]

If this was a Checkable box i would have it in the game. But no i wouldn't use it.

Would be a fantastic tool for new players to FM

[LRJ]

Possibly the worst suggestion ever

Makes the game totally pointless, as there'd be no consequences for taking a title winning team to relegation or something like that

Would probably be crap for new players too, as they'd check it and then have no limits too what they could do.

Its just terrible

[Bongo-Bongo]

As an option I see no harm in it. It doesn't appeal to me, but if it makes the game more enjoyable for those who want to use it, then that is surely a good thing isn't it?

[ssestig]

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

same here tbh

[reddevil0728]

TS must be a noob. Thats the reason why he needs that option

[dlnwba86]

As previously stated by the majority, i wouldn't use it at all but can't see why it shouldn't be an option other than possible moanings and requests for other 'cheat' boxes to tick/untick.

At the end of the day if this is the only tickbox of this kind then if you want it, use it, if you don't then just untick it and carry on as usual. It really isn't a big deal and i doubt very much it would make the game anyway.

[JockStein1967]

Agredd 100%

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

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

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

Ok I understand where you ar ecoming from but having the option does take away from the games ideal, but as you say "option" is a choice so fair dos you me and I won't use it but for rookies and Steve McLaren, it could be a good thing!

[Swede86]

No, I don't like this suggestion.

[Klimowicz]

defeats the object of the game. a fat, sweaty no.

[Millie]

I'm not on either side here, but for those that are saying "all it is is a check box, where's the harm?" are missing the point slightly.

There is more to it that simply being unsackable. Presumably, the purpose of this is to keep a player playing with his team and keeping it enjoyable. However, with everything else in the game, how do you play beyond a certain point? I mean, if you really aren't doing well, you have the following problems (or potential problems):

Player bankrupts club -> No money to spend -> Can't buy players -> Restarts anyway

Player loses hundreds of matches -> Players don't respond to manager -> Morale rock bottom -> Lose more and more -> Restarts anyway

When you think about it, player morale, bank balances, supporter pressure, team talks, tactics, etc. etc. would all be skewed well beyond perameters that would be thought of by the game makers. Not only would you see transfer requests by your entire team after a while, your team talks falling on deaf ears (what else is new ), players not responding to tactical instructions, morale rock bottom, staff leaving at the first available opportunity, supporters putting even more pressure on the players making things even worse - the list goes on and on and on.

The game is so complex and there are so many variables, that once it gets to the point that the game would sack you, you simply cannot go on much longer before the game becomes unplayable. Players mutiny and it becomes impossible to win games or buy players. In effect, people will be restarting left, right and centre and complaining about how impossibly hard the game is.

It's not just a checkbox, and it solves nothing. All it would be is a placebo to make people feel invincible, when in reality they're still going to find the game unplayable if they fail to live up to expectations. Just because they won't get sacked will not improve their enjoyment.

[Scott1990]

The only reason why I think this should be implemented is to save the manager from ridiculous board expectations or to save the manager from an impending takeover.

I think Millie makes some great points, but my view is that realism shouldn't compromise an entire game. Yes, takeovers are part of real life, but, cmon, this is a game! You should be able to continue with your team if you want to. Also, board expectations get unrealistic at points; if I lose to Man U in the early FA Cup rounds, they're disappointed! Unrealistic! And with my horrible luck in draws, this happens quite often. If this happens too much and you are unlucky enough to fail at some of the cup competitions, it shouldn't mean the sack because you lost to the Big 4 a few times.

[philly_flyer10]

It's not just a checkbox, and it solves nothing. All it would be is a placebo to make people feel invincible, when in reality they're still going to find the game unplayable if they fail to live up to expectations. Just because they won't get sacked will not improve their enjoyment.

Yes it will, especially for the ones who get sacked after doing very well due to a takeover.

[jod123]

Yes it will, especially for the ones who get sacked after doing very well due to a takeover.

Yeah, but that is a different topic as the current way of getting sacked in the game due to a takeover is neither realistic or fun. Not getting sacked due to poor performance is a different thing altogether which I would not agree with but as I already said it would not bother me if it was an option as I would not have to use it.

[Millie]

Yes it will, especially for the ones who get sacked after doing very well due to a takeover.

I can count on my unicorns how many times that's happened to me. Sure, it does happen, but let's be honest, the majority of people clamouring for this feature are not getting sacked for this rare reason, are they?

[DMaster2]

I voted yes.

Dafuge and others challenge will be much more enjoyable

[dafuge]

I voted yes.

Dafuge and others challenge will be much more enjoyable

I disagree, this option would be awful for the challenges. People would need to show some kind of proof they haven't used the option if it was there.

[philly_flyer10]

I can count on my unicorns how many times that's happened to me. Sure, it does happen, but let's be honest, the majority of people clamouring for this feature are not getting sacked for this rare reason, are they?

How about getting sacked because the team started on -30 points or how about getting sacked because the board mis manage the finances?

The fact is, having this in will not negatively affect one single person.

[jod123]

How about getting sacked because the team started on -30 points or how about getting sacked because the board mis manage the finances?

The fact is, having this in will not negatively affect one single person.

The game just needs to tweaked to take these into account. These are not realistic sackings in this case, either. That does not mean you should be unsackable. In that case you are going from one extreme to the other.

[damienroden]

absolutely not, i couldnt sit at home playing this game knowing others arent gettig sacked and playing thier games how they want, even though we both payed for it. seriosuly though i wouldnt use but i wouldnt slit my wrists if it was there.

[philly_flyer10]

The game just needs to tweaked to take these into account. These are not realistic sackings in this case, either. That does not mean you should be unsackable. In that case you are going from one extreme to the other.

I know they arent realistic, thats the whole point, to prevent unrealistic sackings and ruining peoples games.

Bugs are always going to exist and there might even be more in 09 meaning more bad sackings.

[jod123]

I know they arent realistic, thats the whole point, to prevent unrealistic sackings and ruining peoples games.

Bugs are always going to exist and there might even be more in 09 meaning more bad sackings.

So the solution is to never get sacked for anything?

[Kain]

I think some people are thinking adding this would be far easier than it actually would be. Take for instance the suggestion of reducing the transfer budget and wages if targets aren't met. That will need additional programming, plenty of testing to make sure it works properly, it may end up impacting on other things in the game, which will then also need to be tweaked and tested. There's a lot more to it than simply adding a tick box, and I'd rather SI spent their time focussing on something that will keep with the idea of FM being a simulation than adding an option to take away even more realism from the game.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

As far as I'm aware this is an unlockable feature in the PSP version of the game, so if it works for the PSP I don't see why it cannot be included as an option for the PC version. (Whilst they are aimed at different people - I don't see why good/wanted features from other versions shouldn't be ported over).

For the people not wanting it in as its not realistic - not using real players isn't realistic, if its an extra option like this that doesn't affect other peoples games then I see no problem with it being in the game. (As long as programming it doesn't take resources from a more important area)

Whilst personally I won't use it, people should be free to play the game how they want.

(Dafuge - it may be a problem in challenges, but we'd just have to trust people, like with using save game editors.)

[philly_flyer10]

So the solution is to never get sacked for anything?

If people chose to play that way, yes.

It would be useful to new players too.

Why is anyone arguing against it if they wont use it anyway? It makes zero sense.

[Millie]

If people chose to play that way, yes.

It would be useful to new players too.

Why is anyone arguing against it if they wont use it anyway? It makes zero sense.

For the reasons I said. There is more to it than a check box. because of the way the game works, it would become virtually unplayable as your position became more and more untenable, yet you still didn't get sacked. People would then be complaining that all their players were immensely unhappy, asking for transfers, that you had no transfer budget etc. etc.

I'm actually (as I said) not arguing one way or another, but you're wrong in suggesting that it has no negative impact. And this is the sense in arguing the case against it.

[jod123]

If people chose to play that way, yes.

It would be useful to new players too.

Why is anyone arguing against it if they wont use it anyway? It makes zero sense.

I am not arguing against the feature. I already said that I don't mind. I am arguing against your reasoning. I think the feature would be there for people who want to manage just one club and don't want a career type game and so don't mind the lack of realism. You said that it would be there to prevent unrealistic sackings. Would it not be better just try to correct this? If that is all people would want it for then it is does not make sense. And also you said there is always going to be bugs so will probably be always unrealistic sackings so this feature would make that stop. According to you it is better to remove sackings from the game altogether due to the unrealistic sackings currently in the game. That is not a good reason in favour of this feature. That is like saying the match engine will always have bugs and so will be unrealistic so lets just remove it and just generate an immediate result instead.

[nick...]

I'm not on either side here, but for those that are saying "all it is is a check box, where's the harm?" are missing the point slightly.

There is more to it that simply being unsackable. Presumably, the purpose of this is to keep a player playing with his team and keeping it enjoyable. However, with everything else in the game, how do you play beyond a certain point? I mean, if you really aren't doing well, you have the following problems (or potential problems):

Player bankrupts club -> No money to spend -> Can't buy players -> Restarts anyway

Player loses hundreds of matches -> Players don't respond to manager -> Morale rock bottom -> Lose more and more -> Restarts anyway

When you think about it, player morale, bank balances, supporter pressure, team talks, tactics, etc. etc. would all be skewed well beyond perameters that would be thought of by the game makers. Not only would you see transfer requests by your entire team after a while, your team talks falling on deaf ears (what else is new ), players not responding to tactical instructions, morale rock bottom, staff leaving at the first available opportunity, supporters putting even more pressure on the players making things even worse - the list goes on and on and on.

The game is so complex and there are so many variables, that once it gets to the point that the game would sack you, you simply cannot go on much longer before the game becomes unplayable. Players mutiny and it becomes impossible to win games or buy players. In effect, people will be restarting left, right and centre and complaining about how impossibly hard the game is.

It's not just a checkbox, and it solves nothing. All it would be is a placebo to make people feel invincible, when in reality they're still going to find the game unplayable if they fail to live up to expectations. Just because they won't get sacked will not improve their enjoyment.

I agree with this entire post. I don't think people would be clamouring for this feature if it weren't for the random sackings due to boad confidence/takeovers.

So sorting these out would be the soluton to this issue.

However, while we're on the subject (and I don't think anyone's mentioned it yet) it could be a good feature for multiplayer games where both of you have chose teams at a similar level (Celtic & Rangers being an obvious example) - the game wouldn't be as fun if one of you gets sacked and has to join a club at a lower level - there's not so much competition left there (particularly as the person who got sacked is likely to be the weaker manager anyway).

It's a pretty narrow scenario where it's useful, but noone's mentioned it yet, so i'll put it out there...

[Neji]

Just because they won't get sacked will not improve their enjoyment.

No but it will help them learn.

What you said about the morale, more losses etc you have a good point well made.

Will help players learn, the option (as I interpreted it) would give the players a little extra time to build there team. As I imagined it, it wouldn't be used as a way of saying with the same team for years and years despite relegations etc. I don't think it would be used as that as people would probably start again after a while but then again, I guess it could be abused and that wouldn't be good for anyone really

[philly_flyer10]

For the reasons I said. There is more to it than a check box. because of the way the game works, it would become virtually unplayable as your position became more and more untenable, yet you still didn't get sacked. People would then be complaining that all their players were immensely unhappy, asking for transfers, that you had no transfer budget etc. etc.

I'm actually (as I said) not arguing one way or another, but you're wrong in suggesting that it has no negative impact. And this is the sense in arguing the case against it.

thats still better than getting wrongly sacked to which theres no redemption. If a player gets into a position like that, he can just resign and get a new club.

If that feature wasnt there, hed have been sacked anyway so thats still not a negative impact.

[Millie]

It is a negative impact. The point of being unsackable is, surely, to give the player chance to stay at a club and enjoy the comfort of knowing things can go wrong but they can keep at the club. It is, primarily, a feature designed to increase enjoyment and allow a player to continue playing.

What I'm saying is it won't allow a player to continue playing. So it's meaningless in this situation. "If that feature wasnt there, hed have been sacked anyway so thats still not a negative impact" is basically saying the feature is pointless. So which is it?

I just can't understand where you're coming from here.

You said that it would be there to prevent unrealistic sackings. Would it not be better just try to correct this? If that is all people would want it for then it is does not make sense. And also you said there is always going to be bugs so will probably be always unrealistic sackings so this feature would make that stop. According to you it is better to remove sackings from the game altogether due to the unrealistic sackings currently in the game. That is not a good reason in favour of this feature. That is like saying the match engine will always have bugs and so will be unrealistic so lets just remove it and just generate an immediate result instead.

Precisely. I think the game would be better off being in a position to remove these unrealistic sackings than by adding a feature which will just result in more complaints (see my reasons above).

If indeed the feature is pointless, why add it? If there's other ways of improving the game beyond adding an "invincibility" setting, why not explore those avenues?

The main point is that not all those arguing against this feature are doing so with no reason.

[philly_flyer10]

It is a negative impact. The point of being unsackable is, surely, to give the player chance to stay at a club and enjoy the comfort of knowing things can go wrong but they can keep at the club. It is, primarily, a feature designed to increase enjoyment and allow a player to continue playing.

What I'm saying is it won't allow a player to continue playing. So it's meaningless in this situation. "If that feature wasnt there, hed have been sacked anyway so thats still not a negative impact" is basically saying the feature is pointless. So which is it?

I just can't understand where you're coming from here.

It will stop wrongful sackings, if that was so easy to correct elsewhere then it would have already have been corrected.

As for the 2nd point, it will give new player more time to learn things. There is no negative impact to having this. Its just the people telling others how to play their game which is stupid.

If you arent going to use it, why are you against it?

[Gentleman]

It is a negative impact. The point of being unsackable is, surely, to give the player chance to stay at a club and enjoy the comfort of knowing things can go wrong but they can keep at the club. It is, primarily, a feature designed to increase enjoyment and allow a player to continue playing.

I opted to apply it only when the "Advisor" is turned on. Perhaps one would have to start a "Guided Game" instead, so the option can't be turned off and on whenever one likes it (to make sure one would properly play the dafuge challenge), but it would be a good addition for people who still need the Advisor.

Of course, it would then be useful to get e-mails like: "If this game was for real, you would have been sacked because of " & ReasonX.

In that case it's really a learning process. In which, after having seen this 3 times or so, one could be prompted to start over and try it without the Advisor, with the message that it would improve realism by having the possibility of getting sacked.

thats still better than getting wrongly sacked to which theres no redemption.

Wouldn't a "better" option simply be to fix/improve the realism for the reason of getting sacked? If you don't get sacked for silly reasons but only for legitimate ones, there wouldn't be any problem, right?