Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community
Fired

Got fired by new chairman

Recommended Posts

Press conferences - indeed any "talks" are examples of realistic features that ends up feeling wrong because they can't be executed in a manner that is believable. I would like to have them gone too. Preset questions and answers can never be made to feel real, no matter how many options you are given. Simple as that. And if a feature can't be made to feel - at least somewhat - real, don't do it. "Talks" are only terribly good at breaking the illusion and remind me I'm only playing a game. Not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if you enjoy winning, and you lose a game on FM you are being pushed away from it?

If you want to win the champions league on FM, but you aren't able to you are being pushed away from it?

This isn't a game on rails where if you spend enough time playing it you will get to the end and be all-conquering, victorious and get a happy-ever-after cutscene.

Does anyone actually enjoy losing a match on FM? Does anyone enjoy losing a play-off final? Does anyone enjoy going out on away goals in cups? Does anyone enjoy their top player handing a transfer request? Does anyone enjoy an AI club rejecting their transfer bid? Does anyone enjoy a player choosing to sign for another club over them?

If your argument boils down to purely being one of enjoyment, then none of these things should happen either. Now if you happen to agree, then by all means push for that and make the compelling arguments for SI to develop these areas for you.

And what does this have to do with being sacked after a turnover sorry? One answer for your multiple questions: for me enjoyment is not winning. It is for you maybe, I don't know. Surely winning helps, as much as being sacked for unknown reasons doesn't.

If you want guarantees that you're not sacked, you can use the editor(s). If SI wants to include a "no sacking" button in future FM's, it is fine by me. I won't use it, but if you do, that's no concern for anyone. But there isn't one at the present, so ... just live with it, or use other means to get around it.

Nobody wants guarantees to not be sacked. Being sacked after a turnover is surely something that doesn't add any good to the game. So ok, unfortunately terrible things happen to players, we read all sort of things on newspaper everyday, and I don't want to get too much deep. Should they include these things "because it's realistic"? If you want realism, you gotta take it all.

As I said, there are parts of real life SI wants to replicate and some they don't. This happens to be one of them. Again as devs they are allowed to make choices and choose the kind of game they want to make.

A part of the job being dev is making choices they want if they got a good feedback from customers. If not, there wont be any devs anymore.

So how many times have you seen this happen in your game? How often has it personally happened to you? If we can find it's happening too much then it's something we can perhaps lower the frequency of.

The frequency seems very low Neil. I myself have experienced 3-4 turnovers playing FM16 along a 40 years career and never been sacked (and if that would happened after 30 years of career... ok I let you imagine...). But it happened and a guy stopped playing. And I'm on his side this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what does this have to do with being sacked after a turnover sorry? One answer for your multiple questions: for me enjoyment is not winning. It is for you maybe, I don't know. Surely winning helps, as much as being sacked for unknown reasons doesn't.

A part of the job being dev is making choices they want if they got a good feedback from customers. If not, there wont be any devs anymore.

The frequency seems very low Neil. I myself have experienced 3-4 turnovers playing FM16 along a 40 years career and never been sacked (and if that would happened after 30 years of career... ok I let you imagine...). But it happened and a guy stopped playing. And I'm on his side this time.

First point, if you don't see how elements of football management relate to a football management game then I can't help you with that I'm afraid. You don't ever get sacked for unknown reasons in this game either, that would be a bug, and if it ever happens I would suggest you should promptly log it in the bug area. Getting sacked because a new chairman wants his own manager isn't an unknown reason.

For the second and third point, surely therefore, if two people in the thread who don't mind or quite like the feature decide that if SI remove it they will stop playing then surely SI have to keep it in the game because if they don't do the things that get a good feedback, there won't be any devs anymore following your argument.

I don't mind reasoning that perhaps something like this should be included in FMT at baseline. It certainly makes sense that the side of the game that is more streamlined and less bogged down in the majority of managerial aspects could have something like this as well but there's no reason for it in the main game. However, if your argument for or against something basically starts coming down to some sort of threat-to-quit count which your post essentially has done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok probably I haven't made my point clear since your reply is so out of lines. I have to re-consider my knowledge of the language then :)

One thing I can say: the "go playing something else" was not from me, so don't point me to "threat-to-quit" ok :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the "realism" of the game is affected by different aspects, not for sure by the fact you can sign player and ask for improvement of facilities. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the second and third point, surely therefore, if two people in the thread who don't mind or quite like the feature decide that if SI remove it they will stop playing then surely SI have to keep it in the game because if they don't do the things that get a good feedback, there won't be any devs anymore following your argument.

I have a hard time imagining anyone deciding not to play an otherwise fun game because they can't be sacked during a takeover, however I can easily imagine the opposite. SI must strike the right balance between allowing people to live out their "power fantasy" of football management and being a brutal simulator, and for the most part they do an excellent job at it. However, when it comes to board takeovers it feels too much like a coin flip in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be enough to set the game so that if you reach achieve the results and meet expectation of the team, you will not be sacked, even by a new board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be enough to set the game so that if you reach achieve the results and meet expectation of the team, you will not be sacked, even by a new board.

This is sort of how it's set now - if you're vastly overachieving when the takeover happens (in terms based on current expectations, not what you've done in previous years) then it's highly unlikely you'll be removed. If you're just meeting expectations (ala Sean Dyche at Watford) there is a chance you could be in trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is sort of how it's set now - if you're vastly overachieving when the takeover happens (in terms based on current expectations, not what you've done in previous years) then it's highly unlikely you'll be removed. If you're just meeting expectations (ala Sean Dyche at Watford) there is a chance you could be in trouble.

To me it sounds right, maybe for some users is better if you tune the things so that new board will not fire the manager even if he's just meeting the expectations, not overachieving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a hard time imagining anyone deciding not to play an otherwise fun game because they can't be sacked during a takeover, however I can easily imagine the opposite. SI must strike the right balance between allowing people to live out their "power fantasy" of football management and being a brutal simulator, and for the most part they do an excellent job at it. However, when it comes to board takeovers it feels too much like a coin flip in my opinion.

My point is that if you subscribe to the idea that features should be added or removed under the threat of quitting as was mentioned before then it quickly becomes silly and just basically who shouts about quitting the loudest as though that should be the development path SI ought to follow going forward. Which is stupid when you think about it. Furthermore, if the criteria for removing features is not enjoying them, then there's just as valid an argument to be made for removing the ability to even lose a game. Ultimately "my enjoyment is harmed by this" isn't a valid reason to request the removal of something that is actually a part of football.

As for the flip of a coin, its been in FM for a number of years now, to the point that I'm confident my total number of takeovers is closer to triple figures than it is closer to 0. I've never once been sacked by a new chairman after takeover, even when struggling to keep teams in a league. Obviously there's a degree of fortune there, but at the same time I'm sure its down to the chairman attributes as well. With the right (or rather wrong for the player) mixture of attributes, then it should be that almost nothing you produce is actually good enough to sate them. They will just want their own man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This feature could be improved by visible chairman histories and attributes. I realise this is impossible to properly replicate current owners for fear that Assem Allam types would release the hounds, but it could be implemented much better for newgen owners and such. At the moment each chairman is essentially just a random name, it's impossible to know the difference between a Cellino and a Steve Gibson other than type of takeover (tycoon, consortium etc). If owners could be seen to be more eccentric, megalomaniac, whatever, the takeover sackings would seem less unfair, and could even be followed up with supporter discontent at the board. As it stands board interaction is not as good as it could be, and improvements in this area would make takeover sackings, or any sacking for that matter, more understandable and less of an enjoyment killer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me it sounds right, maybe for some users is better if you tune the things so that new board will not fire the manager even if he's just meeting the expectations, not overachieving.

Just spoke to the coder who implemented it, and he's said that if you're meeting expectations you shouldn't be sacked (if you are it's a bug, so if someone has an example do please raise it). He even said if you're not meeting expectations, if you're in a good current run, the incoming chairman is likely to give you time before they make a decision. Also it's made even more unlikely if it's the users first club (so if it's the club they began managing at the start of the save, rather than say the third club during a career).

So as you can see, there's a lot of safeguarding for this and for it to happen in a users game is extremely rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just spoke to the coder who implemented it, and he's said that if you're meeting expectations you shouldn't be sacked (if you are it's a bug, so if someone has an example do please raise it). He even said if you're not meeting expectations, if you're in a good current run, the incoming chairman is likely to give you time before they make a decision. Also it's made even more unlikely if it's the users first club (so if it's the club they began managing at the start of the save, rather than say the third club during a career).

So as you can see, there's a lot of safeguarding for this and for it to happen in a users game is extremely rare.

It sounds great, thank you for the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just spoke to the coder who implemented it, and he's said that if you're meeting expectations you shouldn't be sacked (if you are it's a bug, so if someone has an example do please raise it). He even said if you're not meeting expectations, if you're in a good current run, the incoming chairman is likely to give you time before they make a decision. Also it's made even more unlikely if it's the users first club (so if it's the club they began managing at the start of the save, rather than say the third club during a career).

So as you can see, there's a lot of safeguarding for this and for it to happen in a users game is extremely rare.

It's actually somewhat disappointing to me if being at your first club affects it. There doesn't seem to be any footballing reason for this and it goes against the ethos of the game that there is no distuinguishment at all between the user and the AI. If an AI manager would be sacked in a situation and this is deemed realistic and balanced rather than a bug, it should equally apply to a human manager.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that if you subscribe to the idea that features should be added or removed under the threat of quitting as was mentioned before then it quickly becomes silly and just basically who shouts about quitting the loudest as though that should be the development path SI ought to follow going forward. Which is stupid when you think about it. Furthermore, if the criteria for removing features is not enjoying them, then there's just as valid an argument to be made for removing the ability to even lose a game. Ultimately "my enjoyment is harmed by this" isn't a valid reason to request the removal of something that is actually a part of football.

Nobody is threating to quit, nobody is shouting the loudest possible. I remember you the "go playing something else" statement was from someone who wants this feature to be kept. No reason to make low populism, it's not me against you or we all against you all. Stop inventing stuff. I made my point as a lot, and not "two people" only as you unrespectfully stated, did in a manner which I consider civil enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nobody is threating to quit, nobody is shouting the loudest possible. I remember you the "go playing something else" statement was from someone who wants this feature to be kept. No reason to make low populism, it's not me against you or we all against you all. Stop inventing stuff. I made my point as a lot, and not "two people" only as you unrespectfully stated, did in a manner which I consider civil enough.

This is from a previous post:

But it happened and a guy stopped playing. And I'm on his side this time.

Now I'm a relatively simple guy, you make reference to the guy who says he stopped playing because this happened to him and it should be removed. You then say you're on his side. Now that seems to portray a case of being more than happy of using quitting as a means to justify a change.

My example then was deliberately being asinine about it to point out the failing logic that if the impetus to change something in the game should come from one person saying they will quit because they dislike it, surely the only way to bring everyone back onside and agree with it is to have 2 people say they will quit if it gets removed. Furthermore, within that post you quoted where I realise what the actual driving force behind the 'quitting' sentiment was, and pointed out it's not really a valid thing to request because of an individuals personal enjoyment.

As I also mentioned before, the right way is to make well thought out posts that people at SI can work with. Look at the post from Danchinaski, he touches upon a few things that could certainly refine and make this element of the game feeling less jarring. While also referencing another point that could possibly be an additional bonus to gameplay, knowing the personality and references to the history of a chairman in terms of how they treated their previous managers could well be a beneficial thing for a number of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, by saying I'm on his side I just wanted to state that this feature can potentially ruin the enjoyement of the game and I partake his disappointment. I thought it was clear to understand, I was probably wrong since you haven't understood that.

This has nothing to do with wins, bids, players and all that stuff "football related". And surely has nothing to do with "threat-to-quit", which honestly made me laugh.

I think along these years I tried to be the more helpful I could in the bugs forum and many here can confirm this. I'm not one of those who watches the world as black or white, yet I think this feature brings nothing good to the game and I stand on my position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what Neil said, I think this feature is already perfectly balanced for both "realism" and gameplay.

I think that "realism" and gameplay would benefit much more if developers will focus on other aspects: ME, tactics, transfer market and AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just spoke to the coder who implemented it, and he's said that if you're meeting expectations you shouldn't be sacked (if you are it's a bug, so if someone has an example do please raise it). He even said if you're not meeting expectations, if you're in a good current run, the incoming chairman is likely to give you time before they make a decision. Also it's made even more unlikely if it's the users first club (so if it's the club they began managing at the start of the save, rather than say the third club during a career).

So as you can see, there's a lot of safeguarding for this and for it to happen in a users game is extremely rare.

It s good to here that there is these sefagaurds in the game. Thank you for sharing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for me its similar to the complaint over injuries. Statements get made without looking at real life. If anything the game should be commended for trying to align to real life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive been playing this game for over a decade, also have well over 4,000 hours logged in fm16 (according to steam) and ive never been replaced by a takeover. Not to mention that i make tycoon saves for people so ive seen well over 100 takeovers in this version alone. Leads me to believe he had a low rep for the level he was in, which to me is very unrealistic  and could see getting booted for a  person they felt was more prepared for the EPL.  Is it fair, no but not suppose to be. Start taking out everything that someone deems "unfair, You have a arcadish game.  You can go to FMT for that and use the unlockables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has tried Out of the Park Baseball, there's an option where you simply tick a box that says "cannot be fired".  This is a simple change/fix, is it not?  I'd hate to set out on a save with the intention of building a small club into a dynasty, only to get replaced as manager somewhere along the way purely because of a takeover.  I get that it's realistic, but this is still gaming, and that scenario would completely undermine the entire point of the user's gaming experience in that situation.  

Edited by Analog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Analog said:

If anyone has tried Out of the Park Baseball, there's an option where you simply tick a box that says "cannot be fired".  This is a simple change/fix, is it not?  I'd hate to set out on a save with the intention of building a small club into a dynasty, only to get replaced as manager somewhere along the way purely because of a takeover.  I get that it's realistic, but this is still gaming, and that scenario would completely undermine the entire point of the user's gaming experience in that situation.  

ive played it and the in game editor in fm has that also , if you have it 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ross Ingersoll said:

ive played it and the in game editor in fm has that also , if you have it 

Ah, I've never used the editor.  Good to know, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to look up some stuff on the editor.  I think I'm actually going to purchase it.  I'm super late to the game with this, but there's tons of non-exploit stuff in here that could really make the game more immersive.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D-RSu8ZfBI

Edited by Analog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Manager doing a good job and being fired is rare but it happens.

2 seasons ago on Portuguese top division, Lito Vidigal was Belenenses manager, he was doing great job putting them on top 5 and they get qualified for Europe League, when normally they fight to avoid relegation. He was fired because he doesn't agree with some board decisions, a shocking decision.

Currently Lito Vidigal is Arouca manger, north of Portugal team. They made their debut on top division about 4 seasons ago, they only try to avoid relegation, but with him Arouca finish 5th and is playing Europe League. Lito Vidigal seems to be a manager with a high potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the board didn't agree that he was doing a good job when he disagreed with them, so his faith wasn't completely out of his own hands. You have that same mechanic in FM when you make an ultimatum out of a request to the board. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 July 2016 at 08:32, Neil Brock said:

The thing here though is that it wouldn't have been a huge surprise had Jacket been sacked anyway regardless of takeover. Even in the Leeds / Forest examples, neither side was hardly setting the world on fire. 

I don't think an FM user could complain too much having been sacked in the game under these circumstances. As long as the game has safeguards in place to stop it happening randomly with no logic then fine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar situation happens to José Mourinho when he start as manager at Benfica. Vale e Azevedo was the President, he was doing a good job, the fans like him, but there were elections. José Vilarinho won, during campaign he always said that he want another manager.

José Mourinho had only contract until end of season, he was performing well. He demands a new contract to have proof that the new President count with him, they refuse and he resigns. Probably one the major mistakes of Benfica history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2016 at 02:13, Fired said:

Hi

I got fired by new Chairman without a reason. I was training Wolves.

1st season i got 2nd in sky bet championship and got direct promotion.

2nd season i was in december when Wolves got a new chairman and he fired me. I was in a fantastic 4th place with a untouchable job security before the guy bought the club.

In real life this would never happened.

So i just retired and made a new head coach, i don't like cheating but in this case was a must lol.

We're not discussing if this happens in real life, because this clearly happens.

We're discussing if this feature brings any benefit to the game, and it has nothing to do with being unsackable forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...