"Unsackable" Option?

[miktay811]

Is it just me or should there be an option you can select where you could play through a game and never get sacked? Don't get me wrong, I'm very competitive and I play like it, but having to start over with a new team every time you get sacked sort of sucks for those managers out there who just want to have a go at one particular team. My suggestion is to include such a 'Can't Be Sacked' option so that you can play feeling assured that you don't have to start over if you make a huge error or your team goes awry in the table. Sometimes people (or again, is it just me?) want to play for the fun of it, doing what they want to and trying to live a fantasy life of being a manager without all the pressure of having to start over. Sort of a sandbox mode if you will.

I'll give you an example: In last year's version I was playing Bognor Regis. In two seasons I had them promoted into the Conference Premier and not only gotten them out of the red, but also made them a few hundred grand. I got great players and received no complaints from the players or the Board. During those two seasons I wasn't expected by the Board to do anything other than mid-table mediocraty in the league farther down (can't remember if it was North or South). BUT...instead of getting a new contract they decided to go with someone else. I absolutely did not get that. I poured a lot into just those two seasons and I felt extremely jipped that with all the positive headway I made, I still had to start over. Incredibly lame. I was so mad that I abandoned the 2008 version for the last 6 months before purchasing 2009.

I would think it not very difficult to include a No-Sacking option in the game. All you'd have to do select a checkbox to disable the board from sacking you and instead offering you a new contract every spring. That's it, that's all, no harm no foul. Everything else could remain the same. Suggestions/comments?

[Hershie]

A big kick in the teeth for realism. Imagine the damage you could do to a team, knowing you'd never be sacked.

[Ackter]

I see no problems in adding this to the game (from a user point of view that is, I can imagine loads of problems from a programming point of view).

[Blanchflower1]

I see no problems in adding this to the game (from a user point of view that is, I can imagine loads of problems from a programming point of view).

That is quite right. I wonder how SI will implement this......

[La Furia Roja]

A big kick in the teeth for realism. Imagine the damage you could do to a team, knowing you'd never be sacked.

Dont see that being a problem as he isnt saying no one should ever be sacked, just that there should be an option if you choose, so your taking realism out of your game, no one can complain about it if they do it themselves sort of thing, i like it!

[Hershie]

Dont see that being a problem as he isnt saying no one should ever be sacked, just that there should be an option if you choose, so your taking realism out of your game, no one can complain about it if they do it themselves sort of thing, i like it!

Yeah, but what's to stop you thinking "this is a bit tricky; time to take over my rivals"?

[Ackter]

It would have to be an at-game-start-only thing which can be turned off at any time but not turned back on.

Who cares if someone uses it to destroy a rival? It's their game and it's easily possible to do that without an unsackable option.

[La Furia Roja]

yer and what does it matter to anyone what anyone else does in their game? if it was an option and you didnt want to use it you wouldnt choose it

[White Flag]

I'm generally all for keeping FM pure and realistic, but I reckon this would be a good idea. Personally, I'm a one team manager. I never take up other offers, and being ten years in only to be sacked following a board take over is very annoying.

[GillsMan]

This has been discussed a few times, and often the debates get heated:

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=26059

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=38287

http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=26621

So let's keep it clean this time folks.

Also, fwiw, while I'm not a fan of the idea, I don't see how it would affect your game if you didn't want to use it. If included, it should be one of the options you tick before you start the game, so you have to choose before you load up whether you want to be sacked. That would solve the problem for all the players, like me, who don't want the option.

[backpackant]

Oh not this again.

No, it's a silly idea.

Not just the prinicple of it, but the programming issues would be a nightmare. Fans reactions, board patience for cosmetic reasons, but more importanly, look at how morale drops when you go on a 6-week lean streak. Can you imagine how low your team's performances would drop if you were the unsackable manager of Chelsea or Man U and were finishing bottom half of the table year after year? It would snowball and you'd never get out of it, having to sell your stars and only able to buy promising youngsters or mediocre top flighters.

Or would the unsackable option rewrite this entire section of the game, thus having a knock-on to the AI teams too, making their managers less likely to be sacked? Or would the unsackable option magically rewrite the code ONLY for the human user? Which is nigh-on impossible because the players do not "know" whether they are being managed by a human or an AI manager.

So, in principle, I don't think it is advisable for SI to go down this route; it might not affect *MY* game if others did this, but it's a bit like an "unkillable" option on some shoot 'em up where you could stand still while the zombies bounce off you. Yes, I prefer knowing I'm under pressure, and can appreciate other gamers do not. But in practical terms it would require a second set of programming codes, so a simple tick-box is unlikely to solve the problem - unless you just ignore the knock-on implications which would make the game virtually unplayable (not often I use that word).

Perhaps - PERHAPS - one way to implement it would be for boards to be programmed NEVER to sack the manager for at least 18 months, although the Gus Hiddinks and Sam Allardyces would probably have a thing or two to contribute. But a "never" sackable option ... I can't see it.

[BenArsenal]

While there are instances where managers would never be sacked (Fergie), I don't think this is workable.

The only reason that you shouldn't be sacked is because you are good. If your results are poor then you are vulnerable.

[backpackant]

Fergie would probably be sacked if he finished outside the CL. If he finished outside the Uefa cup places, it'd be a dead cert.

[russ the womble]

I'm all for this - ESPECIALLY for network games.

The majority of network games always let you rejoin if you get sacked. It would be a lot easier if players could not be sacked and saves setting up shortlists/training/etc. Also if you're on a long term game the game is a little harsh (ie you've built your club up to be challenging for Europe over man years and have one mid-table season, out you go..)

[mattant250]

Fergie would probably be sacked if he finished outside the CL. If he finished outside the Uefa cup places, it'd be a dead cert.

Actually, I disagree. I don't think he'd be sacked, as such, because he's a man utd legend, but he would probably asked or convinced to leave and call it a day

On topic, I can't see any reason why this shouldn't be implemented, I wouldn't use it, but some people would and I can see why they would want to.

[backpackant]

Before the Glazers, I'd agree, but now they are in debt up to the eyeballs I think he'd be quietly shown the door. In public, yes, he'd stand down, but if he refused he'd be pushed out.

And also back on topic, this unsackable option would cause so many knock-on issues programming-wise I can't see it happening.

[aiston]

Should never add that sort of option. It seems pointless.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

Is it just me or should there be an option you can select where you could play through a game and never get sacked? Don't get me wrong, I'm very competitive and I play like it, but having to start over with a new team every time you get sacked sort of sucks for those managers out there who just want to have a go at one particular team. My suggestion is to include such a 'Can't Be Sacked' option so that you can play feeling assured that you don't have to start over if you make a huge error or your team goes awry in the table. Sometimes people (or again, is it just me?) want to play for the fun of it, doing what they want to and trying to live a fantasy life of being a manager without all the pressure of having to start over. Sort of a sandbox mode if you will.

I'll give you an example: In last year's version I was playing Bognor Regis. In two seasons I had them promoted into the Conference Premier and not only gotten them out of the red, but also made them a few hundred grand. I got great players and received no complaints from the players or the Board. During those two seasons I wasn't expected by the Board to do anything other than mid-table mediocraty in the league farther down (can't remember if it was North or South). BUT...instead of getting a new contract they decided to go with someone else. I absolutely did not get that. I poured a lot into just those two seasons and I felt extremely jipped that with all the positive headway I made, I still had to start over. Incredibly lame. I was so mad that I abandoned the 2008 version for the last 6 months before purchasing 2009.

I would think it not very difficult to include a No-Sacking option in the game. All you'd have to do select a checkbox to disable the board from sacking you and instead offering you a new contract every spring. That's it, that's all, no harm no foul. Everything else could remain the same. Suggestions/comments?

Totally agree though as been pointed out before, the moral levels of the staff/players would muck everying up but maybe ther could be an option to re-set that too, how about "get a friend within the game with high respect to back you in public"!. e.g. if Mark Hughes was at another club (not a Utd rival) and he was under pressure to be sacked if he called on Sour Alex to back him in public his position would become less untenable - for a bit!

[reddevil0728]

If you got sacked, ain't it a sign to start a new game?

[backpackant]

Personally, even if it was possible to implement (which I doubt), I would see this as a bit of a cheat. For those who would not feel this way, there are a multitude of 3rd party cheat options out there that can engineer you an unsackable option - morale, favoured staff, etc. Wouldn't you rather SI worked on the current in-game issues, such as AI transfer policy, better player interraction, etc?

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

If you got sacked, ain't it a sign to start a new game?

Ahem! We paid for the game, should we not be able to enjoy it our own way?

[jkae]

Yeah if it did come in i would be the manager of liverpool and see how far i could get them relagated.

[jkae]

what a bad idea. Whats the point in the game then

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

what a bad idea. Whats the point in the game then

How about "enjoyment"? Is a game not entertainment? See my previous Post.

PS. As long as these game mechanics tweaks for the less experienced are optional and not selected by default, then no one should object - try to understand others and their ability levels.

[jkae]

Fair point. i suppose you could be a chairman/manager. You would'nt sack yourself. Niall Quinn done it with the black cats for a bit.

[russ the womble]

Personally, even if it was possible to implement (which I doubt), I would see this as a bit of a cheat. For those who would not feel this way, there are a multitude of 3rd party cheat options out there that can engineer you an unsackable option - morale, favoured staff, etc. Wouldn't you rather SI worked on the current in-game issues, such as AI transfer policy, better player interraction, etc?

Currently though people will just reappoint themselves as mmanager by creating a new user so in effect can already make themselves 'unsackable'. However this is very frustrating if you're playing a network game - one of the other managers gets sacked and subsequently reappointed and you then have to wait whilst they set up tactics, training, scouting, shortlists again. Wouldn't it be easier if there was a way around this? Even if reputation of the manager was reset but it kept all the other settings then it would be a nice improvement. In theory this would be a 'new' manager but would keep all the other stuff in place and save a lot of time.

[jkae]

In general if you get sacked you need a drastic change of your tactics and training anyway.

[peter-evo]

I completely agree that there should be an option. Because, after all, it is an option and it need never be used by the customer. No argument is really valid as you can easily pretend it is not there.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

I completely agree that there should be an option. Because, after all, it is an option and it need never be used by the customer. No argument is really valid as you can easily pretend it is not there.

Agreed. And it should be remembered that some just enjoy playing, losing match after match for them is not a problem, but having to re-set so much stuff when signing back in as a new manager should be avoidable.

[Indi75]

Oh not this again.

No, it's a silly idea.

Not just the prinicple of it, but the programming issues would be a nightmare. Fans reactions, board patience for cosmetic reasons, but more importanly, look at how morale drops when you go on a 6-week lean streak. Can you imagine how low your team's performances would drop if you were the unsackable manager of Chelsea or Man U and were finishing bottom half of the table year after year? It would snowball and you'd never get out of it, having to sell your stars and only able to buy promising youngsters or mediocre top flighters.

Or would the unsackable option rewrite this entire section of the game, thus having a knock-on to the AI teams too, making their managers less likely to be sacked? Or would the unsackable option magically rewrite the code ONLY for the human user? Which is nigh-on impossible because the players do not "know" whether they are being managed by a human or an AI manager.

So, in principle, I don't think it is advisable for SI to go down this route; it might not affect *MY* game if others did this, but it's a bit like an "unkillable" option on some shoot 'em up where you could stand still while the zombies bounce off you. Yes, I prefer knowing I'm under pressure, and can appreciate other gamers do not. But in practical terms it would require a second set of programming codes, so a simple tick-box is unlikely to solve the problem - unless you just ignore the knock-on implications which would make the game virtually unplayable (not often I use that word).

Perhaps - PERHAPS - one way to implement it would be for boards to be programmed NEVER to sack the manager for at least 18 months, although the Gus Hiddinks and Sam Allardyces would probably have a thing or two to contribute. But a "never" sackable option ... I can't see it.

Ooh, another big sunday Amen!! to that.

I quite agree there are elements of the game that would simply turn upside down as a result of the manager being unsackable. There are so many aspects of the game that would not work well with his, and my fear is that time taken working out how to implement this would detract from overall development of the game.

Not to mention the number of times a small tweak here can have an effect on parts of the game elsewhere, this little option, however innocuous in terms of an option, is in fact a potential game wrecker once you start trying to recode large parts of the fabric of the game to cope with it.

Non starter imo tbf.

[pdbravo]

This wouldn't be hard to code in at all. It is a simple on/off switch

if unsackable=on then skip next bit

next bit: check to see if player gets sacked or not

The check is of course already coded, all you are adding is one more variable, a simple check box on the option page would be quite sufficient.

[backpackant]

This wouldn't be hard to code in at all. It is a simple on/off switch

if unsackable=on then skip next bit

next bit: check to see if player gets sacked or not

The check is of course already coded, all you are adding is one more variable, a simple check box on the option page would be quite sufficient.

It's not that simple. As has been discussed many, many times, every alteration has massive knock-on effects to the rest of the game - you only have to look at the reasons for not fixing last year's "corner bug" to understand that. It hasn't just been discussed today in this thread, but it comes up every couple of months. Mainly, 3 types of posts:

1) people saying "don't implement it; it would ruin the game."

2) people saying "why does it bother you? If you don't like it, don't use it."

3) people explaining WHY it wouldn't work.

In the 2nd category it's a fair point, but I doubt it will happen for some time because of point 3). EG, if you are unsackable, and not doing too well, you won't ever win again because player morale remains rock-bottom, and that's just one reason.

[jack_man]

It used to be in a FM game IIRC.

[dafuge]

In the 2nd category it's a fair point, but I doubt it will happen for some time because of point 3). EG, if you are unsackable, and not doing too well, you won't ever win again because player morale remains rock-bottom, and that's just one reason.

It would be interesting to see how difficult it would be to manage the club once you've gone beyond the usual 'sacking point'. Would the sorts of people who would use this option have the patience to turn things around?

[theres only one ALI DIA!]

Bad idea i think, its too ''gamey'' the reason we all love FM is because of its realism.

Simple remedy though, if you don't mind the lack of realism, when you get sacked just retire and add new manager and take over same club

[sWo97]

Well, take this into consideration. If anyone can use the database editor to alter a team to have prestige and money then why not add an option to manage that team forever.

It could be a user created team. I do this often.

Or more of a Chairman approach. I know its called Football "Manager" but some people might like to not do so much managing.

Maybe have it so you can only sim the game with no or very little control throughout each game.

[michaeltmurrayuk]

I see no problems in adding this to the game (from a user point of view that is, I can imagine loads of problems from a programming point of view).

It was (still is?) an unlockable option on FMHandheld, I'm not sure how scaled back that is from FM09 or how well it worked, but it should be possible, if the time and desire to have that feature is there.

[Simbazz]

I think personally its how responsible a gamer you are.

If you'd use the option properly, then you'd get the full benefit of it. If you mis-used it, you wouldn't, therefore it'd be the users own fault.

I don't think such additions could hurt the game, only enhance it for lots of people, the majority i'd say.

[lovingthegreen]

EG, if you are unsackable, and not doing too well, you won't ever win again because player morale remains rock-bottom, and that's just one reason.

This is like saying that when you hit the opposite - i.e. top of the league - you won't ever lose again because player morale is soaring. That is simply not true, in either scenario.

[reddevil0728]

Ahem! We paid for the game, should we not be able to enjoy it our own way?

yea. then cheat.

[tigerhgrrrrrr]

yea. then cheat.

Yes, if we want to. But a lot dont want to cheat they just want the "game" element enhanced. Too many Fun Police Officers want this to be a test or a trial, a lot want it to be a game.

By the way if you had read and understood the Posts in here you would have realised that those in favour of this option would not necessarily be wanting 100% success but just save game longevity. The word cheat implies gaining an unfair advantage which is not relevant to unsackability, as being sacked (or not) is only and indicator of success or failure to those who want it to be so, to those that just want to play the game it is just an annoyance. Successful managers get sacked (check our Real Madrid's History) & unsuccessful managers can keep their jobs for years - as success can be relevant. So although we are asking for something that stretches the notion of "realism" of the Management Sim ethos, it is proposed as an option and it would enhance may players (note CONSUMERS) enjoyment of the product.

[muncherdave]

Yeah, but what's to stop you thinking "this is a bit tricky; time to take over my rivals"?

What is to stop you from doing that anyway if you so desired?

[GillsMan]

Bad idea i think, its too ''gamey'' the reason we all love FM is because of its realism.

Simple remedy though, if you don't mind the lack of realism, when you get sacked just retire and add new manager and take over same club

If you couple that with an option to import the settings (tactics, shortlists, training, etc), from another human manager (i.e. the one who just got sacked), it could be an alternative to the "unsackable" option.

[eaglealan64]

If you couple that with an option to import the settings (tactics, shortlists, training, etc), from another human manager (i.e. the one who just got sacked), it could be an alternative to the "unsackable" option.

Great idea!

[Pricey85]

I would call myself a long term user of FM and i do love it for the realism. However i could definately see myself using this feature at some point if it was implemented. It would go some way to easing the problems with difficulty that a lot of people are having and could add a new element to career play. All for it.