Option to have unsackable human managers

[canvey!!]

Can I just link you all to another debate on this that contains a lot of arguments both ways including my opinion. Post 64 on that thread contains most of my argument. I voted no, by the way.

Just to add a little bit of an argument here, I personally think that the idea is ludicrous. That is like going on to a forum for Halo (e.g.) and asking for the option to never be able to die. If we're having an unsackable option, why don't we have a win every match option or a get really rich option. It's basically asking for a legal cheat code to be implemented into the game, and then people using that to be treated the same as those who don't use this check box. Absolutely barmy.

[philly_flyer10]

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?

but the game is designed that way, its not a bug to be sacked due to a takeover, some people might like the feature, some might not.

Wheres the harm in allowing the people to want this to play with it and letting the people who dont want it play with the option of not being sacked?

[jod123]

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.

I full agree with you there. I think that would be much better in order to get beginners used to the game.

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?

I have tried suggesting that already to philly_flyer10 but he keeps saying that unrealistic sackings can't be fixed as there is always bugs in the game.

[canvey!!]

I have to say, Gentleman, that a sort of practice mode may be a good idea, to focus on helping beginners rather than on realism. However, SI have said that they want players to figure out things like the tactics for themselves.

[jod123]

but the game is designed that way, its not a bug to be sacked due to a takeover, some people might like the feature, some might not.

Wheres the harm in allowing the people to want this to play with it and letting the people who dont want it play with the option of not being sacked?

The current situation where people are sacked after a takeover needs to be improved. i can't imagine anyone would like it the way it currently is as it seems you are getting sacked for nothing and is entirely random. This just needs to be improved to remove unrealistic sackings. I still come back to the point of what you keep saying. The solution of 'fixing' the unrealistic sackings by removing sackings altogether just does not make sense.

[Chris Ritchie]

I would like there to be more customisable stuff like this so that those looking for a simulation could have the simulation and those looking more for a game could use options like this.

[dafuge]

In my opinion, making yourself unsackable is a cheat. I don't think cheats should come as part of the game, you should have to go out of your way to enable a cheat. If you really wanted to, I'm sure you could use a save game editor to 'unsack' yourself but I just don't think something like this belongs in the game.

I said this in the other thread. If people really want to be unsackable, there are save game editors available that will allow them to play like this, I just don't think it needs to be officially included in the game.

[Gentleman]

but the game is designed that way, its not a bug to be sacked due to a takeover, some people might like the feature, some might not.

Who says that the game is designed that way?

It might not be a bug to be sacked by a takeover, but as said often times, board decisions are flawed.

An example would be "board intervenience". It is not a bug for the board to intervene with selling players, but as said before in other threads, it is not realistic for a board to sell a player when they don't have any need for money. So yeah, that behavior is flawed.

In short: Board intervening is good. Board intervening without a reason is not.

The same goes for a board takeover. I don't say that it is wrong for a board to sack you after there has been a board takeover, but it is not realistic to randomly sack a manager, as dafuge pointed out before. The randomly part, that is what needs to be fixed - not the board takeover sacking.

In short: Manager sacking by board takeover is good. Manager sacking by board takeover without any reason is not.

Do we agree on that?

(Note that I'm not discussing whether or not there should be an "unsackable" option here. I'm just trying to see if we're thinking the same way.)

[SCIAG]

What if a player with the box ticked was relagated outside of playable leagues? What would happen then?

[jod123]

What if a player with the box ticked was relagated outside of playable leagues? What would happen then?

They'd be sacked.

[Gentleman]

What if a player with the box ticked was relagated outside of playable leagues? What would happen then?

I'd guess that would be a legitimate "Game Over" :-D That would be fun, coming up with that screen.

But that would probably result in either a holiday, or retirement.

And honestly, if you did that bad despite being unsackable, you deserve to go into retirement :-P

[B. Stinson]

In my opinion, making yourself unsackable is a cheat. I don't think cheats should come as part of the game,

Becoming manager of any already-managed team is a cheat, too.

[dafuge]

Becoming manager of any already-managed team is a cheat, too.

True, although I can't imagine the game would sell very well if you were forced to start unemployed.

[2FS]

I'm surprised (and saddened) that so many want to see this option available, I've always seen the FM series as a bastion, very much apart from that style of game play.

[Millie]

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?

We're going around in a circle here, aren't we? I haven't said I'm against it. I'm saying it's a flawed proposition.

I'm also saying that regardless of whether I would use it or not, it wouldn't (in the form you're suggesting) provide anything meaningful to the gameplay, and would actually cause a raft of new problems.

However, I just don't think you're getting this point at all, so there's very little more for me to say.

[Luppi_10]

i vote yes..

i will not use it, but, if someone whant to get this option, why not?

[dafuge]

i vote yes..

i will not use it, but, if someone whant to get this option, why not?

Because if they really want it, they can already do it using an unofficial save game editor.

Adding it with the game will just encourage people to use it who wouldn't have usually, which is bad in my opinion.

[aadamka]

Personally I would like to have this option. I know it makes the game less realistic, but come on, how realistic the team-talk or player reaction system is...? It wouldn't be the biggest problem with realism. What do people who only want to play managing the same team and get sacked? Most of them retires, creates a new manager and takes control of that team again, I suppose... So this option wouldn't change anything just make their lifes more comfortable. Also, if we pay money for a game we should be given the chance to control the team we would like to. And if you don't like the option, you just tick the box off...

Anyway, how many human managers are sacked...? If I was close the be sacked, I would certainly stop playing... I think if someone is very unsuccessful with a team, he just starts a new game... So 80% of human managers enjoy success playing the game, or do quite well at least. This option would keep the job of those few managers who get sacked and give the feeling of security to the others.

But my main argument is that the current board confidence system is just so horrible that managers could be sacked for laughable reason (for example, a League One team not reaching the 3rd round of the cup, after losing against Chelsea + making a bad signing).

[Ecks Ginger Mop]

This really is the option for the match fixers and players who cant face a bad run of form.

This is as stupid as an "unbeatable" option.

[jod123]

But my main argument is that the current board confidence system is just so horrible that managers could be sacked for laughable reason (for example, a League One team not reaching the 3rd round of the cup, after losing against Chelsea + making a bad signing).

I think the confidence has been fixed somewhat in the patches. It now just tells you they are not happy but 'under the hood' it has been toned down I think. Also, again, that is not really a reason to introduce the unsackable option. The best thing is just to fix the confidence system.

[sydfc4ever]

although i would not use it, I think it would be a great option.

I was playing a hot-seat game on the w/e with a rather inexperienced friend, who, although playing like 3 different kinds of sh*t was enjoying himself, only to be sacked due to poor form (he was Chelsea and only won 1 in his first 15!) after that he lost all interest in the game and we quit. personally i think he won't really play it again. being able to tick unsackable for him would've meant we kept on playing for a bit longer.

I think you should also be able to turn it off (but never on) in the middle of a game once you've got the hang of it.

i think this option would bring more people to the game, and isn't that what SI want?

[Luppi_10]

Because if they really want it, they can already do it using an unofficial save game editor.

Adding it with the game will just encourage people to use it who wouldn't have usually, which is bad in my opinion.

using this option, or using the data editor is the same thing..

we are talking about an option that is not "real", is not available in the real life..

but, i remember u that FM its only a game..

if an "cheatting" option is available, why not?

whatever i will not use it..

[Nomis07]

I wouldn't use it, but I do see why it would be attractive to some people and especially people new to FM. I voted no though, as Dafuge says, you can already do it in the data editor/FMM so it's no big deal really.

[Gentleman]

Adding it with the game will just encourage people to use it who wouldn't have usually, which is bad in my opinion.

Looking at my previous suggestion, combined with the example sydfc4ever gave in his last post, don't you believe that it would be an idea to have the option available in a sort of "beginner level"? Where you get an "Advisor" turned on and which lets you get the hang of the game. And where you are being told where, when and why you would be sacked - despite not getting sacked (perhaps even a "restart?" box would be nice).

Because, honestly, if you've never played a CM/FM before, you're bound to go down due to all the options, sliders and dropdownboxes which seemingly have random effects.

The Advisor is a step in the right direction, but with an "unsackable" option, it would be an ideal way for beginners to start off. Of course it tears at the realism factor, but that's why I believe it shouldn't be made possible for a "real" game. It would still feel like a good addition for new people who have no clue what they are doing and will get sacked very fast due to their inexperience.

@sydfc4ever Don't you think it was a bad idea to start off with a club who has immense pressure on winning everything? :-P It was expected to get sacked when you start with such a team and not doing great.

[GillsMan]

Meh, if people want it, let them have it. However, I'd ask that you can only choose this option BEFORE you start the game. I'd hate to be tempted to tick this option if I suffered a bad run. At least if you can only choose it before you start a game, I'd always tick "no" and the temptation would never be there. I don't cheat in the game (I find it makes any wins seem meaningless - I used to cheat all the time, but I've seen the light since FM06!), but I'd still rather not have the temptation.

[philly_flyer10]

The current situation where people are sacked after a takeover needs to be improved. i can't imagine anyone would like it the way it currently is as it seems you are getting sacked for nothing and is entirely random. This just needs to be improved to remove unrealistic sackings. I still come back to the point of what you keep saying. The solution of 'fixing' the unrealistic sackings by removing sackings altogether just does not make sense.

Why do you care if it doesnt affect you as you will not be using it? That does not make sense.

SI are probably working in the new features that have lots of bugs, if it was so easy to fix this already, it would have already been done.

[philly_flyer10]

Who says that the game is designed that way?

It might not be a bug to be sacked by a takeover, but as said often times, board decisions are flawed.

An example would be "board intervenience". It is not a bug for the board to intervene with selling players, but as said before in other threads, it is not realistic for a board to sell a player when they don't have any need for money. So yeah, that behavior is flawed.

In short: Board intervening is good. Board intervening without a reason is not.

The same goes for a board takeover. I don't say that it is wrong for a board to sack you after there has been a board takeover, but it is not realistic to randomly sack a manager, as dafuge pointed out before. The randomly part, that is what needs to be fixed - not the board takeover sacking.

In short: Manager sacking by board takeover is good. Manager sacking by board takeover without any reason is not.

Do we agree on that?

Yes on both counts and removing the bad sackings is also good, if you are in the bottom 8 during a takeover then you could be sacked, if you are doing really well then you shouldnt be sacked.

If SI cant fix this, we need an option to fix it ourselves either by removing sackings or removing takeover sackings with a check box at the start of the game.

[philly_flyer10]

We're going around in a circle here, aren't we? I haven't said I'm against it. I'm saying it's a flawed proposition.

I'm also saying that regardless of whether I would use it or not, it wouldn't (in the form you're suggesting) provide anything meaningful to the gameplay, and would actually cause a raft of new problems.

However, I just don't think you're getting this point at all, so there's very little more for me to say.

It maybe a flawed proposition but its better than people losing a game they spent 30 hours on due to no fault of their own, maybe youd feel different if it happened to you.

[sydfc4ever]

@sydfc4ever Don't you think it was a bad idea to start off with a club who has immense pressure on winning everything? :-P It was expected to get sacked when you start with such a team and not doing great.

He wanted to start with the most money, and wanted me to be Derby to 'even it out'!! After 15 games, I was 11th (Derby is hard) and he was in a tie for last (with Reading)! Sounds even to me!

[Gentleman]

Yes on both counts and removing the bad sackings is also good, if you are in the bottom 8 during a takeover then you could be sacked, if you are doing really well then you shouldnt be sacked.

Great :-) We agree on that.

If SI cant fix this, we need an option to fix it ourselves either by removing sackings or removing takeover sackings with a check box at the start of the game.

If SI can give you the option to tick a checkbox to override the sacking, then they can also get rid of the wrongful sacking itself. If they can determine when to sack you, then they should also be able to determine when to sack you when it's due to a board takeover.

It's like a leak: if you can put a bucket under it, you also know where the leak is. If you know it leaks, you can tell someone to fix it. You don't ask that someone to put a valve there, while he can also fix the leak. The only reason someone would put a valve there, is when he believes that it should be working like that.

The only reason SI wouldn't fix this, is when they believe the sacking should be random. Which means you won't get any options to turn it off either, no matter what you say.

So, in short, I think you're simply overreacting a bit by requesting that option as a countermeasure.

[Heisenberg]

From havign a quick read through this since I last posted, it seems that the users who have a legitamate problem with a sacking in the game would be just as happy if the confidence problem was fixed, and if some kind of safeguard against random takeover sackings was used. Those who are simply demanding it because they always want to be able to stay with their favourite club are essentially asking for a cheat where they can never die (I'm aware I'm repeating what others have said, but I'm coming to a point)

Basically, if the board issuses are resolved, is there any legitamate reason to have this feature?

[abyss616]

I'm amazed at how many people here are worried about how other people play their game. Why should I give a crap how some bloke in Stoke-on-trent plays? If he wants it so that he doesn't get sacked - SO BE IT! Quit worrying about it. There are many other ways to egregiously cheat (editors that can give you 1,000,000,000 in the bank) that this is so small in comparison. If you don't want to play this way, DON'T DO IT!

As far as realism is concerned, how realistic is it that I got Slough Town into the Premiership and into the Champions League? Add to that the fact that I'm American and never played football past high school, it's pretty unrealistic.

I wish I had this option when I first started playing. So frustrating having to start all over again.

[jimmyjazz1983]

Voted 'no' since it's unrealistic and would make the game too easy. Though again I wouldn't necessarily care if it was there as an option, I just wouldn't use it.

Perhaps rather than an unsackable option SI could create a more realistic difficulty curve, or different difficulty settings since getting the tactics right without downloading them from somewhere is rather difficult to begin with. Alternatively a tutorial program with regards to what each setting on the tactics screen does, how to best implement it, and which players would be successful may help beginners, though this may make the game a bit too easy.

Also the scouts could be better in my opinion, a CA/PA of 180+ doesn't always make a good player when the attributes they have are so poorly balanced, I don't need a striker with 20 for long throws for example.

Anyways that's my 2 cents, make of it what you will...

[tarbanrael]

First of all, let me state I would not use the option if it were available. But the reason I would be against is that it will involve new coding taking place and that means potential new bugs into the game, so no. I prefer it when the flaws of a new game are caused by more positive development

[Gauvner]

Voted 'no' since it's unrealistic

Since when has the "average joe" i.e. me and you.

Been able to take over a professional football team and take them on a rollercoaster ride that is the football league?

To me this is also Unrealistic, but its still in the game, is it not?

I do understand where your coming from though, with the tutorial programs etc. But thats what the manual is for. To help a new player understand the game and then learn whilst doing.

I realise with what i have just said is that a new player should learn the game whilst playing & if there is a unsackable option will never learn truly how to play FM

But overall if people want it in and want to use it.... let them

People use Savegame Editors and 3rd party scouts. So surely its up to the person to play his or hers own game in how they want too? No other individual should have to right to take that away from anybody else.

[rougess]

like most people, i wouldn't use it, there's no harm in having it if people want it, but tbh i don't see the point of buying a manager simulation game and want an extremely unrealistic feature. i agree with what tarbanrael said as well though, chances are it might muck something up. i have no idea how the confidence system would work, or what the point of it would be if you can't get sacked.

[jod123]

Why do you care if it doesnt affect you as you will not be using it? That does not make sense.

SI are probably working in the new features that have lots of bugs, if it was so easy to fix this already, it would have already been done.

You are just not getting my point. I have already said that I don't care about it and it would not bother me if it was introduced. The point surely is simple to understand.

[b]Problem                             Your Solution[/b]
Unrealistic Sackings                Remove sackings altogether

So based on that theory this would also be true

[b]Problem                              Your Solution[/b]
Unrealistic Match Engine(Bugs)       Remove the match engine

So really anything that is not working perfectly in the game the best option is to remove it. Transfers, media and everything else that does not work perfectly should be removed? :confused:

The only real reason I can see to introduce something like this is to help beginners in the game. I can understand where people from coming from in that suggestion.

Great :-) We agree on that.

If SI can give you the option to tick a checkbox to override the sacking, then they can also get rid of the wrongful sacking itself. If they can determine when to sack you, then they should also be able to determine when to sack you when it's due to a board takeover.

It's like a leak: if you can put a bucket under it, you also know where the leak is. If you know it leaks, you can tell someone to fix it. You don't ask that someone to put a valve there, while he can also fix the leak. The only reason someone would put a valve there, is when he believes that it should be working like that.

The only reason SI wouldn't fix this, is when they believe the sacking should be random. Which means you won't get any options to turn it off either, no matter what you say.

So, in short, I think you're simply overreacting a bit by requesting that option as a countermeasure.

Fully agreed.

[Serdar]

Considering it is an "Optional" feature and only applies to human teams when it is turned on I definetely love to have it. If I pick a big team like ManUni, Barca, Inter on something in that scale. I would not use it because getting sacked is natural for these teams. But If I take a local team and want to spend decades for raising them to top then I really would love to have this feature so all my years of carrer wont go to trash because of one bad one.

I can not understand why many people voted "no" since the poll suggests it as an option so these people who does not want to use this could basically turn it off. I believe this is an easy feature to add for developer but even here many people vote "no" then I doubt such thing will be added. Unfortunate

[jod123]

Considering it is an "Optional" feature and only applies to human teams when it is turned on I definetely love to have it. If I pick a big team like ManUni, Barca, Inter on something in that scale. I would not use it because getting sacked is natural for these teams. But If I take a local team and want to spend decades for raising them to top then I really would love to have this feature so all my years of carrer wont go to trash because of one bad one.

I can not understand why many people voted "no" since the poll suggests it as an option so these people who does not want to use this could basically turn it off. I believe this is an easy feature to add for developer but even here many people vote "no" then I doubt such thing will be added. Unfortunate

I think most people voted no as the question was not really phrased correctly. The question is "Do you like the option?" and the people who won't use the option obviously don't like it. I would still be surprised if SI ever introduced this feature.

[chopper99]

I voted no, for the reasons I outlined in the other thread that was linked by Canvey.

I genuinely believe that people will not learn anything by being 'unsackable', and it will take something away from the game. As I said, this game is one of the few games out there that can really evoke strong emotions in people. It can have you clinging to your seat and shouting at your screen. And that's because it's difficult, and because of that it is more rewarding when you do get somewhere.

Don't get me wrong, I think the game does need to introduce elements that make it more intuative for newer users. But I'd rather see the assistant feedback expanded, the tactical system be more intuative (which it hopefully will be in FM10), more interaction with staff and that type of thing. An unsackable option, or on a similar note difficulty levels, are way down the list for me of how this can be achieved.

[roykela]

Unrealistic - realistic. It's a game. It will never be realistic, until we have the technology.

I don't get why not more people don't compare it to the option of playing with real players or not. Surely that's on a same level of discussion.

I would like to believe that if it ever made it to the game then of course it would have to be placed as an option upon starting the game, and not in the middle of it.

As for what it would do to other modules and stuff like that, well that would be up to the people who makes the game, to figure out.

I also don't get, like others have said here, why people who would never use it are so concerned about what it would do to the game? I personally wouldn't use it, but i don't see a problem with it whatsoever for those who want it. How to implement it, well that would again be a question for the people who makes the game, not for the common gamer.

People won't understand other choices that differs from their own, and that's just how it is; unfortunately.

If it's possible to include it - why not?!

We can already to do a lot of things, like the real player thingy. Choose valid takeovers or not. Edit the game in the middle of it (now that's not very realistic, is it ).

Well that is it with my current thoughts about it, so far lol

[chopper99]

If it's possible to include it - why not?!

Because there are much better ways to make the game more intuative to newer users. An unsackable option would be the easy way out imo.

[Elrithral]

Because there are much better ways to make the game more intuative to newer users. An unsackable option would be the easy way out imo.

That's true, but it would be good as an interim option. I noticed someone, in another thread, mention things like assistant advice etc, those are good ideas, but they are consistently poorly implemented. An unsackable option, even as a quick start, would buy SI and newcomers some time.

[roykela]

Because there are much better ways to make the game more intuative to newer users. An unsackable option would be the easy way out imo.

So if people wants an easy option in a game they love, and suppose it can be done. Why not?

Sometimes it doesn't have to be for a better learning curve, or more intuitive etc.

It can be just for the fun of it.

[chopper99]

That's true, but it would be good as an interim option. I noticed someone, in another thread, mention things like assistant advice etc, those are good ideas, but they are consistently poorly implemented. An unsackable option, even as a quick start, would buy SI and newcomers some time.

True, but once it's in then it's in. It's unlikely that it will then be removed in future versions. For me we will then have a different game, an FM lite if you like. I still maintain that a big part of FM's massive appeal is the fact that it's at times really difficult, which in turn leads to people becoming more satisfied with their achievments. Take that away, even optionally, and the game will be poorer for it imo.

The problem is that in places the game has moved from difficult to counter-intuative. It should remian difficult while working to improve the tools the user has to help them understand the game.

[chopper99]

So if people wants an easy option in a game they love, and suppose it can be done. Why not?

Sometimes it doesn't have to be for a better learning curve, or more intuitive etc.

It can be just for the fun of it.

But in truth where will the fun be in having a team with abysmal moral who have lost faith in you? It will actually make it harder for you to have any success with that team. Much better to be forced to start again.

And also, where is the fun in not being punished for performing badly?

[Elrithral]

I still maintain that a big part of FM's massive appeal is the fact that it's at times really difficult, which in turn leads to people becoming more satisfied with their achievments.

But there's nothing to say that not getting sacked will make the game easy, you'll still get relegated and you'll still have chmpionship battles. Removing the prospect of getting sacked won't actually make a difference, unless it makes you feel that you've cheated the game and if that's the case you would porbably never have used the option in the first place.

[roykela]

But in truth where will the fun be in having a team with abysmal moral who have lost faith in you? It will actually make it harder for you to have any success with that team. Much better to be forced to start again.

And also, where is the fun in not being punished for performing badly?

That's how you like the game, and that's also how i like the game.

But sometimes it's nice with a small change like that. And that part of the game would still be there. You just start a new game and play it regularly, like we do now.

And many people start a new game anyways already if it doesn't go the way they intended.

The point is, it's fun for some people. I'm not going to try to understand why, but i understand there are people who think that's fun. And i'm not going to argue with them about it.

Now obviously, they can't just add stuff anything people would like. Thought i'd add that, in case people start talking about that

[chopper99]

But there's nothing to say that not getting sacked will make the game easy, you'll still get relegated and you'll still have chmpionship battles. Removing the prospect of getting sacked won't actually make a difference, unless it makes you feel that you've cheated the game and if that's the case you would porbably never have used the option in the first place.

True, especially since the moral of your squad will be shot and the players will have most likely lost faith in you and want to leave. So I accept that it would not make the game easier as such.

I suppose it depends on what you want out of the game. For me, knowing that I could get sacked if I don't turn things around is a big part of the fun. But others may feel differently. So perhaps there is a place for this in the game. Perhaps.

I still feel the following points are important though:

- There are much better ways to help newer users get used to the game.

- Not being punished for doing badly is neither helpful or fun imo.

[trekman]

When I get sacked I simply retire then re-add myself to the game, managing the club i've just been sacked from and then continue where I left off so in a way the option is already in the game.