Owner/Commisioner Mode for FM15

[forameuss]

I'm going to second the bus driver idea from the first page. If we get 12 more who like it then it's a better idea than Chairman mode. Come on people, all aboard!

Can I fly the plane to European games too?

[Kenco]

You'd need an extra licence. This feature is getting bigger already.

[forameuss]

You'd need an extra licence. This feature is getting bigger already.

I think we can do it though. It'll only take half an hour after all.

I'm in.

[chob]

A feature where you own the club but still manage it would be good. This was an option in FIFA manager (i know, I know). You would still do everything you do now but the club would be yours, you wouldn't have to worry about getting sacked either.

With additional things added in this mode like ability to upgrade stadium etc would be pretty cool, you could set your own budgets while trying to stay within Financial Fair Play rules etc....

I think if done this way it would make for a good experience and maybe satisfy some people that want to be chairmen as all it does is add a few more features to what is currently on offer and If you didn't want to play the match itself just leave it to your assistant.

[Chinook2000]

A feature where you own the club but still manage it would be good. This was an option in FIFA manager (i know, I know). You would still do everything you do now but the club would be yours, you wouldn't have to worry about getting sacked either.

With additional things added in this mode like ability to upgrade stadium etc would be pretty cool, you could set your own budgets while trying to stay within Financial Fair Play rules etc....

I think if done this way it would make for a good experience and maybe satisfy some people that want to be chairmen as all it does is add a few more features to what is currently on offer and If you didn't want to play the match itself just leave it to your assistant.

Do you know how many different models of owning and running a Club there is?How do you decide if a Chairman is also an owner.In the Premiership alone we have a number of management structures and we only see what's on the surface few Club's would ever give a Computer Game it's company structure or financial statements to allow SI too recreate it accurately.

Chelsea/Man City:Bruce Buck/Kahldoon Al Mubarak are Chairman who take orders from the owner.What happens when you get sacked?How would the role differ from FM's current Manager role? You would just be a Chairman asking for New Stadiums/Budgets etc without the Manager bit's who gets to work with the outcomes on the pitch?

Swansea:Fan owned with Huw Jenkins Chairman/Cheif Executive being part of a consortium backed by the Supporters Trust that took them over.Do we know his duties and how are you going to replace him in the game like we do as Managers.To recreate this will mean a load of Boardroom meetings where you vote on decisions and are answerable to the trust.

There are many more examples before we get to the Sports Club models or the Elected President Real Madrid/Barcelona traditionally have

Jack Walker at Blackburn is probably what you pro ''Chairman mode'' are thinking of where One Man buys a Club and plough money into building it,Yet all he probably did was give a budget and allow the Manger and Executives too negotiate Transfers and Contracts.what happens when a tycoon buy's you out?Do you then buy another team?The only example of that I can think of is Milan Mandaric.

The Financial side is there already you get a budget,you buy and sell players and can access the Accounts page to see the impact your actions have,if their healthy we can decide to ask the board to build infrastructure for your Club, RL Mangers would rarely ever get this level of control or information.I doubt many even get to handle Transfer or Contract negotiations.We even get the opportunity to discuss and request whether the Club should buy or rent a stadium,even though traditionally stadiums take longer to build than a Managers employment at a Club.

And so in ''Chairman mode'' you've got permission to build a stadium it takes 3-5 years,it's built,you see income change,then what you wait another 120 years to do it again.How interesting.It's not as if FM allows us to see a Brand new accurately represented Stadiums being gradually built and turned into an iconic structure

The DOF inclusion already gives us plenty of option's on how much control a Manager has of running a Club,where you can either be a traditional English Manager with full control of transfers and youth departments or the Dutch example of allowing the DOF to deal with Transfers Staff and so on allowing you to concentrate on Tactics and Managing the team.

If there's any appetite for this game then let someone do it as a stand alone game then the Market will decide if it's wanted.

[Methos]

A Chairman Sim would have nothing to do with the Football so what's the point in it? You can buy and sell as a Manager so what difference would a Chairman do other than not play,him not manage him or train him to play with your developed tactics,If you hate this side of the game what the **** are you doing playing a Football game?.

As Chairman you buy him and that's it. How interesting!I see a lot of life in that game. Also SI would have done it by now or someone would have designed one. Feel free to develop this game yourself if you see a market. FM is popular because it allows people to Manage a Football team it already goes into the business side far more than Football Manager would ever be able too.

If there's any appetite for this game then let someone do it as a stand alone game then the Market will decide if it's wanted.

I don't neccesarily hate tactics. I just enjoy everything else about football a lot more than the current implementation of tactics. Why the **** do you care how I enjoy myself or my gaming? There are people who enjoy playing crap cinematic games with horrible to non existant gameplay in android. There are people who enjoy destroying their gamepad, pressing overlapping commands and combos that are not existant in fighting games. There are people who enjoy cartoons and japanese faced anime at their 40s. Isn't a little arrogant to correct them and advise them how they should play? You know variation is all that makes life enjoyable. Do not try to correct what others do or enjoy. Especially do not do it full of uneeded arrogance.

The key point is that football manager has a lot of fascinating gameplay, that could get better for a group of people without *much* effort. It would be a lot easier to make an enjoyable Chairman or DoF feature in FM than to make their rivals make every feature that is great with FM, into their game.

And do not make mistakes. There is an appetite for the genre. I know more than 10 people that would play it from my real life social circle alone. As somebody else has stated there are 13 different posters in this thread. Also the topic is being brought back so often all these years.

The simplest of all truths, is that the way CM was introduced back in the nineties with the the most rediculous match engine of all times, tactics having no sifnificance, and the game becoming *SUCH* a giant, alone proves there is a market for the game. More people would play a Chariman/Dof game with real player names than a manager game with fake players. It is not the tactics that define the game. At least not when it was first introduced.

[Kenco]

The key point is that football manager has a lot of fascinating gameplay, that could get better for a group of people without *much* effort. It would be a lot easier to make an enjoyable Chairman or DoF feature in FM than to make their rivals make every feature that is great with FM, into their game.

The simplest of all truths, is that the way CM was introduced back in the nineties with the the most rediculous match engine of all times, tactics having no sifnificance, and the game becoming *SUCH* a giant, alone proves there is a market for the game. More people would play a Chariman/Dof game with real player names than a manager game with fake players. It is not the tactics that define the game. At least not when it was first introduced.

But you wouldn't need to make all the key features of FM in a separate Chairman game because it has so little to do with actual football.

Your last paragraph in no way proves there is a market for the game. It proves there was a market for a management simulation. Sure the tactics were basic back then but it was picking the team and the feel of being in control of what happens on the pitch that people wanted. This has evolved over the years into a great management game. Why ruin it by wasting resources on a tacky add-on that the majority of FMers won't go near with a barge pole?

If SI ever went down that route they would probably lose more custom than they would gain.

[Methos]

But you wouldn't need to make all the key features of FM in a separate Chairman game because it has so little to do with actual football.

Your last paragraph in no way proves there is a market for the game. It proves there was a market for a management simulation. Sure the tactics were basic back then but it was picking the team and the feel of being in control of what happens on the pitch that people wanted. This has evolved over the years into a great management game. Why ruin it by wasting resources on a tacky add-on that the majority of FMers won't go near with a barge pole?

If SI ever went down that route they would probably lose more custom than they would gain.

You claim little with actual football, I claim the majority. The game I picture is different than the game you picture.

Why ruin it by wasting resources on a tacky add-on that the majority of FMers won't go near with a barge pole?

If SI ever went down that route they would probably lose more custom than they would gain.

There is nothing to ruin, there is only gain from variation and expansion. That is exactly the attitude the doomsayers were saying to nokia executives when they dominated the cell market and refused to invest in smartphone technology. Then iphone happened.

[Chinook2000]

I don't neccesarily hate tactics. I just enjoy everything else about football a lot more than the current implementation of tactics. Why the **** do you care how I enjoy myself or my gaming? There are people who enjoy playing crap cinematic games with horrible to non existant gameplay in android. There are people who enjoy destroying their gamepad, pressing overlapping commands and combos that are not existant in fighting games. There are people who enjoy cartoons and japanese faced anime at their 40s. Isn't a little arrogant to correct them and advise them how they should play? You know variation is all that makes life enjoyable. Do not try to correct what others do or enjoy. Especially do not do it full of uneeded arrogance.

The key point is that football manager has a lot of fascinating gameplay, that could get better for a group of people without *much* effort. It would be a lot easier to make an enjoyable Chairman or DoF feature in FM than to make their rivals make every feature that is great with FM, into their game.

And do not make mistakes. There is an appetite for the genre. I know more than 10 people that would play it from my real life social circle alone. As somebody else has stated there are 13 different posters in this thread. Also the topic is being brought back so often all these years.

The simplest of all truths, is that the way CM was introduced back in the nineties with the the most rediculous match engine of all times, tactics having no sifnificance, and the game becoming *SUCH* a giant, alone proves there is a market for the game. More people would play a Chariman/Dof game with real player names than a manager game with fake players. It is not the tactics that define the game. At least not when it was first introduced.

Make the game then.If it's so easy

There 250,000 members on this forum 13 agree with you the majority on this thread don't want it.I don't care how you play games I don't care what games you play I don't care what you do in your spare time use it to make this new game. CM started with next to nothing

I do care about FM.

Knob's who don't think things through trying to spoil it and constantly starting threads who have no idea what their talking about. People who start threads proclaiming too not like the game then want to wreck the game by bringing a mode 99% do not want and have zero understanding of the work that it would entail and want it because they have no interest in the FOOTBALL i'll say it twice FOOTBALL side of the game.CM originally was based on building a Football team not a Marketing strategy or Business plan game.If selling as many Twix's as you can is your thing When your back in School ask if you can open up a tuck shop.

[Methos]

Make the game then.If it's so easy

There 250,000 members on this forum 13 agree with you the majority on this thread don't want it.I don't care how you play games I don't care what games you play I don't care what you do in your spare time use it to make this new game. CM started with next to nothing

I do care about FM.

Knob's who don't think things through trying to spoil it and constantly starting threads who have no idea what their talking about. People who start threads proclaiming too not like the game then want to wreck the game by bringing a mode 99% do not want and have zero understanding of the work that it would entail and want it because they have no interest in the FOOTBALL i'll say it twice FOOTBALL side of the game.CM originally was based on building a Football team not a Marketing strategy or Business plan game.If selling as many Twix's as you can is your thing When your back in School ask if you can open up a tuck shop.

This is my last post commenting you. Your sense of logic frightens me as in non-existant.

Make the game then.If it's so easy

It's easy for an established developer. Not for me a poor salesman.

There 250,000 members on this forum 13 agree with you the majority on this thread don't want it

The 249950 members out of the 250000 are not even aware of this topic.

I don't care how you play games I don't care what games you play I don't care what you do in your spare time use it to make this new game.

But you do care and you lie. You say "If you hate this side of the game what the **** are you doing playing a Football game?. "

You are trying to enforce a take it or leave it mentality. You believe your way is the righteous one and everyone else's way should burn. Thats plainly and simply wrong. No debate.

have no idea what their talking about

..... priceless

want to wreck the game

... keep ranting

by bringing a mode 99% do not want

there is no evidence this mode would wreck the game.

there is no evedence 99% do not want it

CM originally was based on building a Football team not a Marketing strategy or Business plan game

have you played the game? Effectively the game was more of a business sim than a manager game.

[sporadicsmiles]

To wade in before this thread loses all semblance of order. I can understand why people want this mode, and I can understand why it seems attractive. I also understand (and share) many of the counter-arguments made. In particular, you would not really do anything except watch a season unfold. But, everyone wants a different thing, so each to their own. I do not think this kind of mode will be incorporated into FM any time soon.

From what I have read, people who want to play in this manner either do not have the time to devote to the game as they wish. I know this feeling, the older I get the less time I have to play, but conversely the more I have enjoyed it because I now have the time to do things properly and not rush headlong all the time. They also seem to not actually enjoy playing matches, for whatever reason. I am generalising what I have read in this thread, so I am not suggesting this is true of everyone.

Anyway, it seems to me you can essentially do all this in the game currently. Sure, you cannot hire Mourinho, or Wenger, or Van Gaal or whoever as manager, you cannot decide when to expand a stadium (although to be honest how often is this going to be relevant. Once in a game, if you are lucky). Obviously there is none of this, or any of the new features. However, try this:

You can choose to hire an Assman based on his stats, and his preferred formation and style of play. You can then delegate all tactical decision to him, and leave all training and anything else like that to him. If you are playing full FM, you probably will want to set a style similar to what he plays for familiarity sake. But I digress. You are then free to focus on buying and selling players, make sure young players develop, making sure the game is played as you wish. If you have access to the in game editor you can even set things like transfer budget and wage budget to your liking (changing balance would be cheating, of course, and frowned upon in my vision). You would holiday the matches, and leave the assistant to take charge or selection and tactics. Or maybe you are interfering and want him to play a certain way, or play a certain player, in which case you can make him play your tactics or pick your player using the options in the holiday menu. You play no games, you have much of the control you wish, and seasons will go much faster than if you play matches.

Evidently, this is not ideal for people who want a new game. And people who do not want to play like this will find it stupid and think it is not worth their time. Which is fine. I rarely play this way, and when I do it is usually because I am testing an editor file where winning is less important than stability and balance. But I offer a vision of how to play the game in an approximation to the way many in this thread wish. And thus I hope it was useful.

[Methos]

To wade in before this thread loses all semblance of order. I can understand why people want this mode, and I can understand why it seems attractive. I also understand (and share) many of the counter-arguments made. In particular, you would not really do anything except watch a season unfold. But, everyone wants a different thing, so each to their own. I do not think this kind of mode will be incorporated into FM any time soon.

From what I have read, people who want to play in this manner either do not have the time to devote to the game as they wish. I know this feeling, the older I get the less time I have to play, but conversely the more I have enjoyed it because I now have the time to do things properly and not rush headlong all the time. They also seem to not actually enjoy playing matches, for whatever reason. I am generalising what I have read in this thread, so I am not suggesting this is true of everyone.

Anyway, it seems to me you can essentially do all this in the game currently. Sure, you cannot hire Mourinho, or Wenger, or Van Gaal or whoever as manager, you cannot decide when to expand a stadium (although to be honest how often is this going to be relevant. Once in a game, if you are lucky). Obviously there is none of this, or any of the new features. However, try this:

You can choose to hire an Assman based on his stats, and his preferred formation and style of play. You can then delegate all tactical decision to him, and leave all training and anything else like that to him. If you are playing full FM, you probably will want to set a style similar to what he plays for familiarity sake. But I digress. You are then free to focus on buying and selling players, make sure young players develop, making sure the game is played as you wish. If you have access to the in game editor you can even set things like transfer budget and wage budget to your liking (changing balance would be cheating, of course, and frowned upon in my vision). You would holiday the matches, and leave the assistant to take charge or selection and tactics. Or maybe you are interfering and want him to play a certain way, or play a certain player, in which case you can make him play your tactics or pick your player using the options in the holiday menu. You play no games, you have much of the control you wish, and seasons will go much faster than if you play matches.

Evidently, this is not ideal for people who want a new game. And people who do not want to play like this will find it stupid and think it is not worth their time. Which is fine. I rarely play this way, and when I do it is usually because I am testing an editor file where winning is less important than stability and balance. But I offer a vision of how to play the game in an approximation to the way many in this thread wish. And thus I hope it was useful.

A sensible post. Let me outline that we are not *such* a minority as people think we are.

If you go to a popular fm forum, outside of the official ones, you will find out that a topic about a godmode tactic, simplyfing the burden of creating your own was *extremely* widespread.

1,2m views more than 6k replies.

If anything I believe that proves there is a significant group of people that would do with either a no-tactics game or an alternative one.

Personally I don't care much if SI decides to never implement such a variation. What infuriates me is the passion and the arrogance the know-it-all doombringers show to discredit the variance.

[Chinook2000]

This is my last post commenting you. Your sense of logic frightens me as in non-existant.

It's easy for an established developer. Not for me a poor salesman.

And it still hasn't been done why?Because no wants it.

The 249950 members out of the 250000 are not even aware of this topic.

And only 13 of that 50 want it and many more have gone against as they reappear every now and then.What about the 20 Million purchasers?

But you do care and you lie. You say "If you hate this side of the game what the **** are you doing playing a Football game?. "

You are trying to enforce a take it or leave it mentality. You believe your way is the righteous one and everyone else's way should burn. Thats plainly and simply wrong. No debate.

It's correct one as 20 years of games have shown how long has the games with a Chairman mode lasted?

..... priceless

... keep ranting

there is no evidence this mode would wreck the game.

there is no evedence 99% do not want it

you gave that massive 13 number of people for it even the poll-wrecked by your mate-was at 90% against during a World Cup Semi Final. Your a Salesman your doing a pretty poor Job of convincing anyone.

have you played the game? Effectively the game was more of a business sim than a manager game.

I play FM I am reading ''FM Stole My Life'' CM didn't cut for me it did not have enough Football it got better when it increased it's Footballing side.Turning it into Football Chairman would have seen fewer sales More sales mean better product!!

Answers in Bold

[Antonin]

I've been a member of this forum for a very long time, and I've never understood why it is such a rude place. Why do the moderators allow discussions to degenerate into insults and name calling?

I personally don't want to play FM as an owner, but the OP's idea is an interesting one, and perhaps some of the things he describes could be incorporated into the full game. I don't understand why any FM player would be so passionately against some other FM player living thousands of miles away having the option to play the game using options that appeal to him.

Years ago I suggested that FM include a "no sacking" option--or, as we Americans call it, a "can't be fired" option. As I described it, such an option would appeal to those of us who like to manage our favorite team, and only our favorite team. It's fun to develop your own team in your own way, and take your time about doing so. This is a game, after all. It's a way to escape from the problems of real life, if only for a few hours.

Each time I suggested a "no sacking" option on this forum, I was flamed and ridiculed. Some of the surprisingly emotional criticism was expressed in the same way I've seen in this thread. It was as if some FM players felt their very way of life was being threatened by some guy thousands of miles away who merely proposed a new option for their favorite game.

Years ago I also proposed that SI offer a simpler, stripped down version of the game, for those of us who had given up on the full game because it was too top-heavy with minutae. I got flamed for that, too.

But here we are today, and we have FMC.

The introduction of FMC did not cause the sun to fall out of the sky. People who want the full version of FM can still enjoy their favorite game, and people like me who want a soccer management sim with a smaller footprint and a "can't be fired" option have a game we can enjoy. FMC brought me back into the FM circle, and it's given me a reason to come to this forum again.

As I write this I am sitting at my desk in the city of South Euclid in the US state of Ohio. As soon as I post this I will resume my FMC "no sacking" game as Rochdale. I'm looking out the window and yes indeed, the sky is blue and the world has not yet come to an end.

[HUNT3R]

As I said in an earlier post, you can't compare FMC to Chairman mode. It uses most of the existing modules, streamlines others and the rest are completely cut from FM. The reason? You're still the manager of a football club so the core hasn't changed at all. It also makes testing etc easier, because it's still the same game in essence.

Chairman Mode will use most (all?) of the existing modules and would still need massive expansion in terms of interaction. Sponsors would need to be added, given some logic/AI and balanced. All of that done at no extra cost? It's a good idea, but as a separate game.

[sosasoser]

The more I think about it, the more I think SI should just give an option in the staff responsibilities to have the assistant manager handle matches and tactics. That would stop a lot of the calls for chairman mode.

A large part of the fan base for the game just doesn't enjoy handling the tactical side of the game. They never have. This should be obvious from the large communities of users online who just want to download a tactic, plug it in and have it work forever. While it could be said they have always been playing the game the wrong way, it could also be said that they are playing the game in the way that gives them the most enjoyment, which also happens to be the way that keeps them buying the game year after year.

SI has left that portion of the fan base in the back seat. It has become more and more important to carefully manage tactics and make appropriate adjustments when things start going south. That does bring the game closer to what a real football manager has to do. At the same time, it leaves a lot of users having to focus on parts of the game they don't enjoy so much. It changes the franchise for them in a way they don't like.

This very small change shouldn't be that difficult to code in. We already know that the assistant can be made to manage a match due to holiday or manager suspension. We already know that you can choose to have someone else manage youth squad matches. The framework is there. Just code in the options for players to more easily take advantage of it. A lot of it would just be copying and pasting from other code already in the game.

That would just be a small change that would satisfy a portion of the fanbase that find FM Classic a bit too limiting but full FM a bit too much. I don't think I'd use it except for after a rare computer crash when I don't feel like replaying a match, but it wouldn't hurt my game in the slightest. Now, a full, fleshed out chairman mode? No. It really wouldn't be used very much I think and the above minor change would handle most requester's issues with the current game.

[Zanman777]

The more I think about it, the more I think SI should just give an option in the staff responsibilities to have the assistant manager handle matches and tactics. That would stop a lot of the calls for chairman mode.

A large part of the fan base for the game just doesn't enjoy handling the tactical side of the game. They never have. This should be obvious from the large communities of users online who just want to download a tactic, plug it in and have it work forever. While it could be said they have always been playing the game the wrong way, it could also be said that they are playing the game in the way that gives them the most enjoyment, which also happens to be the way that keeps them buying the game year after year.

SI has left that portion of the fan base in the back seat. It has become more and more important to carefully manage tactics and make appropriate adjustments when things start going south. That does bring the game closer to what a real football manager has to do. At the same time, it leaves a lot of users having to focus on parts of the game they don't enjoy so much. It changes the franchise for them in a way they don't like.

This very small change shouldn't be that difficult to code in. We already know that the assistant can be made to manage a match due to holiday or manager suspension. We already know that you can choose to have someone else manage youth squad matches. The framework is there. Just code in the options for players to more easily take advantage of it. A lot of it would just be copying and pasting from other code already in the game.

That would just be a small change that would satisfy a portion of the fanbase that find FM Classic a bit too limiting but full FM a bit too much. I don't think I'd use it except for after a rare computer crash when I don't feel like replaying a match, but it wouldn't hurt my game in the slightest. Now, a full, fleshed out chairman mode? No. It really wouldn't be used very much I think and the above minor change would handle most requester's issues with the current game.

^This. I couldn't agree more with sosasoser.

[Kenco]

You claim little with actual football, I claim the majority. The game I picture is different than the game you picture.

There is nothing to ruin, there is only gain from variation and expansion. That is exactly the attitude the doomsayers were saying to nokia executives when they dominated the cell market and refused to invest in smartphone technology. Then iphone happened.

They would have to assign a lot of resources to set this up, where would these resources come from? From developing the management side of the game.

[Kenco]

A sensible post. Let me outline that we are not *such* a minority as people think we are.

If you go to a popular fm forum, outside of the official ones, you will find out that a topic about a godmode tactic, simplyfing the burden of creating your own was *extremely* widespread.

1,2m views more than 6k replies.

If anything I believe that proves there is a significant group of people that would do with either a no-tactics game or an alternative one.

Personally I don't care much if SI decides to never implement such a variation. What infuriates me is the passion and the arrogance the know-it-all doombringers show to discredit the variance.

How many of those 6k replies actually supported the idea? I'm guessing it went similar to this thread in that the majority were against it.

[Kenco]

The more I think about it, the more I think SI should just give an option in the staff responsibilities to have the assistant manager handle matches and tactics. That would stop a lot of the calls for chairman mode.

This is a great idea.

[HUNT3R]

Agreed. It's a decent idea, well worded and quite practical. Basically staff personalities that has an addition: manage games/tactical side.

This may not make it to the main version, but it could for FMC possibly? The main opposition to this is that this is a key component to being a manager. Taking that away loses the point of Football Manager, doesn't it?

[Lawlore]

I think sosasoser has made an important point- there is a stark difference between those who want the mode so they can manage ticket prices etc. and those who simply want to play the current game without dealing with tactics and matchday. I see no quarrel with something along the lines proposed- changing the emphasis within the existing game, putting you more in a DoF role, rather than some of the proposals involving things like sponsors, ticketprices, stadium development etc. which are essentially a different game, not a different mode.

[forameuss]

It's easy for an established developer. Not for me a poor salesman.

Aaaaaand that's the sound of you losing the argument spectacularly. Hate to see it, but it happens.

[Ackter]

There is nothing to ruin, there is only gain from variation and expansion. That is exactly the attitude the doomsayers were saying to nokia executives when they dominated the cell market and refused to invest in smartphone technology. Then iphone happened.

Not true.

What SI have to lose is a lot of investment of time and money into a feature that, realistically, only a small percentage of the user base will actually care about. Will the addition of this feature really increase sales enough to justify the time and money spent on creating it?

I doubt it.

[Lord Rowell]

Agreed. It's a decent idea, well worded and quite practical. Basically staff personalities that has an addition: manage games/tactical side.

This may not make it to the main version, but it could for FMC possibly? The main opposition to this is that this is a key component to being a manager. Taking that away loses the point of Football Manager, doesn't it?

I also agree its a good idea.

With respect to your point about delegating tactics taking away a key component of management I'm not sure about that. Some managers are more hands-on than others. I wonder how much time SAF really spent on the minutae of tactics, especially during the period that he had Carlos Quieroz at his side?

[HUNT3R]

With respect to your point about delegating tactics taking away a key component of management I'm not sure about that. Some managers are more hands-on than others. I wonder how much time SAF really spent on the minutae of tactics, especially during the period that he had Carlos Quieroz at his side?

That's why I brought it up. How realistic is it? If examples can be found, I'm sure we're more likely to see it added to FM in this simple form.

[Lord Rowell]

That's why I brought it up. How realistic is it? If examples can be found, I'm sure we're more likely to see it added to FM in this simple form.

A way this could be done which I think would be realistic, would be via the conversation you have with your AM when you start a job.

The effectiveness at which this was done would be based on the strengths, weaknesses and overall ability of the AM.

A sample conversation could be as follows.

AM: Would you like any help with tactics?

Human: Yes

AM: Do you have a philosophy in mind you'd like your team to follow?

Human: Yes, I want us to play in a very fluid style

AM: Would you like to play an attacking style of football, defensive, or somewhere inbetween?

Human: I'd like us to play a counter-attacking style

AM: Would you like me to select a formation based on the player's strengths and weaknesses?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to select specific roles and duties for each team in the formation?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to set individual player instructions that would help get the best out of our players?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to implement OIs?

Human: No

AM: Would you like me to tweak tactics during the match itself (minor e.g. just using shouts and changing player / OI instructions)

Human: Yes

On the last one, SAF used to sit and chew his gum while his assistant prowled the technical area barking instructions.

As aforementioned, this is just a sample conversation.

It would be particularly good for FMC.

There is an argument to say that the human should still set philosophy, mentality, but the AM could then deal with the following finer details.

EDIT: I have made a post in the wishlist thread

[fabioke]

Not true.

What SI have to lose is a lot of investment of time and money into a feature that, realistically, only a small percentage of the user base will actually care about. Will the addition of this feature really increase sales enough to justify the time and money spent on creating it?

I doubt it.

I agree 100%. There are so many areas in the game that need to be improved...

[Methos]

How many of those 6k replies actually supported the idea? I'm guessing it went similar to this thread in that the majority were against it.

Don't guess. Read.

to make it easier i was referring to a post about a godmode tactic that someone else also commented about: "This should be obvious from the large communities of users online who just want to download a tactic, plug it in and have it work forever."

1.2m views and 6k replies about a plug and play tactic makes us something more than a minority.

[Chinook2000]

That's why I brought it up. How realistic is it? If examples can be found, I'm sure we're more likely to see it added to FM in this simple form.

The whole point of FM is to recreate as accurately as a Computer can the role of Managing a Football Club.

There are plenty of variations on the Managers role in the Club which the player can pick and choose how they want to play a game.From full control of all aspects to do with the Playing side and often more than a RL Manager would ever have with the infrastructure and Building side-to as little as possible,-if you have little interest in Football you can have the option too delegate all tasks out to someone else,holiday whole seasons without seeing a match or take notice of results if you wish.

How much work has been diverted from improving full FM into FMC only SI knows?But they have obviously seen a benefit otherwise it would be scrapped or never happened in the First place.

I don't think any for it really understand how much work would go into developing a Chairman's Mode or have any idea what a Chairman is.You couldn't do it accurately without adding Staff for all the other roles at a Club who do you get their attributes?research every Club's policy and accounts.

Or would you have one model ''fit's all''? whose do you use?.I doubt there is two Club's in the World with the same Board and management structure.

But my Final point's on the subject.

If theirs a big enough market why haven't EA or the big developers bothered?

If it's a quick and simple add on Why haven't SI bothered?

If it's easy why hasn't anyone else?

CM started when Computer technology was expensive basic with few who understood it.

There is probably more technology on a Smart phone than what they had to work with and possibly a Billion people who can work a Computer and yet not one has worked it out or bothered to make Chairman yet .

[Chinook2000]

A way this could be done which I think would be realistic, would be via the conversation you have with your AM when you start a job.

The effectiveness at which this was done would be based on the strengths, weaknesses and overall ability of the AM.

A sample conversation could be as follows.

AM: Would you like any help with tactics?

Human: Yes

AM: Do you have a philosophy in mind you'd like your team to follow?

Human: Yes, I want us to play in a very fluid style

AM: Would you like to play an attacking style of football, defensive, or somewhere inbetween?

Human: I'd like us to play a counter-attacking style

AM: Would you like me to select a formation based on the player's strengths and weaknesses?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to select specific roles and duties for each team in the formation?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to set individual player instructions that would help get the best out of our players?

Human: Yes

AM: Would you like me to implement OIs?

Human: No

AM: Would you like me to tweak tactics during the match itself (minor e.g. just using shouts and changing player / OI instructions)

Human: Yes

On the last one, SAF used to sit and chew his gum while his assistant prowled the technical area barking instructions.

As aforementioned, this is just a sample conversation.

It would be particularly good for FMC.

There is an argument to say that the human should still set philosophy, mentality, but the AM could then deal with the following finer details.

EDIT: I have made a post in the wishlist thread

He also sat and watched the match and often went along to Wrexham,Peterborough and future opponents games some advocating Chairman mode dont even want too watch their own team

[Methos]

Not true.

What SI have to lose is a lot of investment of time and money into a feature that, realistically, only a small percentage of the user base will actually care about. Will the addition of this feature really increase sales enough to justify the time and money spent on creating it?

I doubt it.

The user base is bigger than a small percentage. Also the majority of the features are already in the game as it stands now. What we are debating is a "poor" wording of a few of us including myself are describing, which sosasoser worded a lot better, to what the haters read,imagine or guess we want. Except for those who are unable to reason beyond a basic level.

[Methos]

Aaaaaand that's the sound of you losing the argument spectacularly. Hate to see it, but it happens.

So if I was wealthy enough to make my own game I would win the argument?!?!

[Chinook2000]

So if I was wealthy enough to make my own game I would win the argument?!?!

So you need vast sums of money to make this game do you?I thought it was a simple add on?If it's such a great idea i'm sure SI would dig deep to make sure it got made they have not.Do you think they were Billionaires making CM?

[forameuss]

So if I was wealthy enough to make my own game I would win the argument?!?!

No, you lose it because despite admitting you know nothing about it, you still claim it's easy enough to do. Shows spectacular short-sightedness, and why SI can never win with some people.

[Methos]

No, you lose it because despite admitting you know nothing about it, you still claim it's easy enough to do.

Where did I admit I know nothing about it? And where do you make out that everyone against the suggestion knows everything about it?

[Kenco]

The user base is bigger than a small percentage.

What are you basing this on?

[Methos]

What are you basing this on?

already explained. do you read what I write or do you argue just for the lols?

[Chinook2000]

Where did I admit I know nothing about it? And where do you make out that everyone against the suggestion knows everything about it?

Your posts go some way in indicating you don't.

Few know anything about how a Chairman Mode. The experts making Football games who know considerably more than you or I are not making them why?

Instead of proving you don't know much about it,Support your views by adding something at least do some research into how much work an add on like this will entail.I'll help you start Look at five Football Club's?How many Boardroom,Directors,Shareholders and Secretary's each Club has then find there Business policy,management structure and accounts.When you've done that count the amount of Club's are in FM and X's it too see how much work SI would need to do.Then only if your 100% happy with the current game and it's ME or think it doesn't need improving think how much resources will be taken away to add a Chairman mode.

You haven't given any proof other than minute figure's in a vast pool of players who play it,so your own stat's are proving it's not wanted other than by a very small % even this thread itself who would attract those for it proves it's not wanted by the majority.

[forameuss]

Where did I admit I know nothing about it? And where do you make out that everyone against the suggestion knows everything about it?

It's easy for an established developer. Not for me a poor salesman.

good enough?

And I don't say that anyone else knows everything about it, but then they haven't proclaimed how easy it would all be. Because they're sensible. And it seems your whole argument is just a rehash of hackneyed, sepia-toned variations on man landing on the moon, or creating fire, or whatever. I don't think I've seen you actually discuss the feature, just endlessly argue against anyone who has the temerity not to want it.

[Chinook2000]

already explained. do you read what I write or do you argue just for the lols?

Are you a Poor Salesman in wealth or at your Job sell the idea to SI?Trademark it and use the income for Chairman Manager 2

[Kenco]

already explained. do you read what I write or do you argue just for the lols?

You have nothing to prove it. You mentioned a thread with 6k replies but that says nothing about whether these people support the idea. If anything it says the opposite - bad ideas get more replies whilst good ideas just get a quick thumbs up and nobody has reason to reply because there is no debate.

[Methos]

good enough?

And I don't say that anyone else knows everything about it, but then they haven't proclaimed how easy it would all be. Because they're sensible.

not good enough.

So a poor salesman can't be into into computers, computer games and all their related news, including their development for 2 full decades?

So a poor salesman can't be undergraduate student at OU in computing?

but then they haven't proclaimed how easy it would all be. Because they're sensible.

They have proclaimed how hard it would be:

What SI have to lose is a lot of investment of time and money into a feature

They would have to assign a lot of resources to set this up

It looks like to me you are picking sides, doing a lot of guessing and nit-picking in convenience to your beliefs.

As I have said plenty of times, most of the features of such a mode already exist in the current game.

Are you familiar with the terms of object oriented programming and code reusability?

I believe it's a lot easier to be done, especially by experienced developers, than doombringers make it out to be.

And to end this once and for all. What authority any of the doombringers or haters has to critisize how us *paying customers* enjoy our purchase? Don't you think there is a lot of arrogance in the dismissing of our likings?

[Methos]

You have nothing to prove it. You mentioned a thread with 6k replies but that says nothing about whether these people support the idea. If anything it says the opposite - bad ideas get more replies whilst good ideas just get a quick thumbs up and nobody has reason to reply because there is no debate.

If I have nothing to prove that we are bigger than a minority, then you have nothing to prove that we are a minority.

The major point against you and your reasoning is that after 2 successive explanations of what the 6k replies are about, you still think it is about some idea:

If anything it says the opposite - bad ideas get more replies whilst good ideas just get a quick thumbs up and nobody has reason to reply because there is no debate.

[forameuss]

What a mess.

not good enough.

So a poor salesman can't be into into computers, computer games and all their related news, including their development for 2 full decades?

So a poor salesman can't be undergraduate student at OU in computing?

First, whether you're a salesman or not or whatever you do in your spare time is pretty irrelevant. I took issue with your claim that it would be so easy, which is the sort of rubbish and damaging argument that annoys me, and probably any developer.

They have proclaimed how hard it would be:

And where have those quotes come from? The devs? No? Then it's irrelevant.

It looks like to me you are picking sides, doing a lot of guessing and nit-picking in convenience to your beliefs.

As I have said plenty of times, most of the features of such a mode already exist in the current game.

Are you familiar with the terms of object oriented programming and code reusability?

I believe it's a lot easier to be done, especially by experienced developers, than doombringers make it out to be.

And to end this once and for all. What authority any of the doombringers or haters has to critisize how us *paying customers* enjoy our purchase? Don't you think there is a lot of arrogance in the dismissing of our likings?

You know, funnily enough, yes I am, since that's what I do for a living. Otherwise I wouldn't have touched the subject with a bargepole. I don't go onto car forums and claim that fixing a car would be so easy just because I know it's possible, so if I didn't know something about that, I wouldn't wade into this argument either. Have you done a full design plan on this feature then? A full testing plan? Thoughts on implementation? I'm guessing the answer to all three is yes since it's all so easy. I'm surprised you can't knock it up in an afternoon. You had me worried when you still haven't actually named any of the features you want from this (instead just spouting rhetoric) but I'm sure it's in capable hands.

And to your tired "arrogance" argument, I'll only say that it's no more or less arrogant than you for demanding the feature that other people don't want. No-one will care how either people play the game, but if they're taking resources off of the main game to code something useless like this, then it starts to affect everyone else.

And there you go with "doombringers" again. Have you been at the Nostradamus again? Do you post from a pulpit by any chance?

[sosasoser]

That's why I brought it up. How realistic is it? If examples can be found, I'm sure we're more likely to see it added to FM in this simple form.

To be honest, I doubt that an example can be found of a real life manager who has no involvement at all in tactics. Really in every sport managers and head coaches differ greatly in how much of that they delegate to others. I'm struggling to come up with an example in football, probably because I'm an American, but I can think of numerous examples in other sports where the head coach brings in a tactical guru as an assistant. I'm sure there are plenty of examples in football.

I don't think it really matters though. We're talking about a game that already lets you fob off real manger responsibilities. Is there a manager who never addresses his team in the locker room? I doubt it, but we can have the assistant do them all. Is there a manager who never attends a press conference? Doubtful. The assistant can attend them all if you want. Pretty much every single thing in the game can be made the responsibility of someone else except tactics and managing the matches.

I think we can divide the fan base into roughly 3 general groups:

1) Those who think the core of the game is the transfer system and building a team by buying the best players they can find and selling off those who don't pan out. They love doing this, but don't particularly enjoy the tactical side of the game.

2) Those who are the exact opposite and love dealing with tactics, but find the other stuff a bit tedious.

3) Those who really love all aspects of the game.

Groups 2 or 3 are all set. They can get everything they want out of the game. People in group 2 can assign every single aspect of the transfer system to someone else. It's probably not the greatest idea, but it can be done. Group 1, however, which I bet is much larger than group 2 can't really just play the game the way they want. They still try of course. These are the people who download so-called OP tactic after OP tactic hoping that it will somehow really be the new Kimz. SI have made it very easy for them to try playing the game that way, even going so far as to host a tactic sharing forum and installing tactics from the Steam Workshop. SI haven't made it easy for them to have long-term success in the game doing that, which in my mind is driving a lot of their frustration with the game. Thus, I'm suggesting that realistic or not SI should make it easy to delegate the one part of the game that you cannot currently as it shouldn't be that difficult to code and wouldn't have an effect on the game for other players.

[Kriss]

Group 1 can play FMC or download the custom skin for the full game which gives instant results and therefore doesn't require them to touch tactics or team talks if they don't want to.

So that's all three groups happy then

[Methos]

What a mess.

First, whether you're a salesman or not or whatever you do in your spare time is pretty irrelevant. I took issue with your claim that it would be so easy, which is the sort of rubbish and damaging argument that annoys me, and probably any developer.

And where have those quotes come from? The devs? No? Then it's irrelevant.

You know, funnily enough, yes I am, since that's what I do for a living. Otherwise I wouldn't have touched the subject with a bargepole. I don't go onto car forums and claim that fixing a car would be so easy just because I know it's possible, so if I didn't know something about that, I wouldn't wade into this argument either. Have you done a full design plan on this feature then? A full testing plan? Thoughts on implementation? I'm guessing the answer to all three is yes since it's all so easy. I'm surprised you can't knock it up in an afternoon. You had me worried when you still haven't actually named any of the features you want from this (instead just spouting rhetoric) but I'm sure it's in capable hands.

And to your tired "arrogance" argument, I'll only say that it's no more or less arrogant than you for demanding the feature that other people don't want. No-one will care how either people play the game, but if they're taking resources off of the main game to code something useless like this, then it starts to affect everyone else.

And there you go with "doombringers" again. Have you been at the Nostradamus again? Do you post from a pulpit by any chance?

There is a saying "the sky's the limit" and despite the meaning of the phrase literellly people have gone beyond that decades ago with computers less powerful than our ordinary cellphone.

The problem is not about me, your or random developers. The issue is about proven developers that have achieved success and know their workarounds. I claimed it would be easy for them. I would not make such a claim regarding Bioware or Mythic.

[sosasoser]

Group 1 can play FMC or download the custom skin for the full game which gives instant results and therefore doesn't require them to touch tactics or team talks if they don't want to.

So that's all three groups happy then

Does instant result allow them to have the assistant manager do all the tactics, or is it still going to use the player's tactics? I really don't know. If it's the latter, then they really don't get what they are looking for.

I honestly don't believe that FMC is the best solution. It was a good idea, but not a great one. It's an either/or solution about what will be in the game. It would have been much better to have one game and allow players to pick what options they want at game setup. However, I realize that the game's code may have developed over the years in a way that makes that impractical.

[Methos]

then it starts to affect everyone else.

There is a saying that if you don't put out the fire in the neighbour's house, next it will burn yours. Game development as in any business should be collective not exclusive (for the most part;exceptions apply).