Time To Change The Reputation System, Particularly Pre-Match Odds & Media?

As the title suggests, I'm of the opinion that it might be time for a change in the reputation system. Nothing major, but perhaps to take player and squad quality into account rather than being based on current club reputation. Perhaps a link to overall player CA either instead of or including club reputation. Another possibility is more of a link based upon current form.

Correct me if I'm wrong of course (if I'm wrong, I don't mind being told so at all ), but as far as I'm aware, the bookies odds are based purely on club reputation, with no consideration of the playing squads involved?

As an example of this being the case, I would refer to my current save playing as Altrincham.

I started in the BSP and was expected by the media to be relegated. For the first half of the season (until club reputation had increased to equal or exceed those of the other teams in my division), my team were always the underdogs. This took no account of the fact I had actually cleared my entire squad and brought in 7-star rated players who via coach and scout reports, were rated League 1 or League 2 standard. In my second season it's the same thing until about halfway through the season when my club reputation is more on a par with the other clubs in the division.

Also, throughout the season, the media expectations influenced the press conference questions I was asked. As my team was performing above all the media expectations, when asked if I expected my runs of form to continue, who I thought would win the league, etc... my obvious confidence in my squad was often rewarded negatively (drops in morale because players weren' happy with my answers, when realistically they too would be more aware of the squad's "actual" strength), because the game still considered me to be an underdog.

Now this is not a particular problem for me and how I play FM, because I'm well aware of this "flaw" in the game, but it is somewhat of a frustration at times. I always ignore the pre-match odds and compare my own squad to that of my opponents, home or away. At this moment in time I know my squad is better than 90% or so of the other teams in my division, therefore in my own mind, I'm actually confident that my team "should" be favorites.

What is of concern to me is how other FM'ers approach games based on the pre-match odds. I'm well aware that in the Tactics and Training forum, people are often advised to make tactical sets for home and away, along with changes based upon if your team is the underdog, evens or favorite in the pre-match odds. What this draws me to believe is that realistically, the pre-match odds have very little "actual" bearing on a game and there are some FM'ers who might actually do better if they too ignored the odds.

My concern is that I am aware that there's a great many FM'ers who base what tactics they chose to employ based upon what the match odds are and therefore are being completely mislead if they're in the same situation as I am in my current save.

Thoughts and opinions please! - but no rants as I would prefer this thread to be civil and constructive and a gauge of others thoughts about this issue.

I know nothing of the facts and figures, but genuine point indeed. Obvoiulsy having these small things improved will make the game seem

more real, hence much better gaming experience for all.

HOWEVER, wont this get moved to the wishlist?

I posted this on another thread yesterday:

"The bigger picture is this: the whole reputation area is too rigid. Where it comes to managers', clubs', and leagues' reputations, change comes too slowly. This needs to be tweaked - slightly and delicately since there are many knock-on effects. It would be a big job to get right and require a heck of a lot of testing, but I hope SI put it high enough up their priority list to fix it for FM10."

Here is the thread: http://community.sigames.com/showthread.php?t=114942

It seems to be a widespread frustration, so I hope SI do find time to work on it.

Good point well made, I agree

Another thing I find with reputation is that if you’re a ‘big’ club playing against a small club then you’re automatically expected to win by at least three goals and if you don’t you get the ‘not good enough for fans’ message.

The problem with this is it doesn’t take your squad on the day into account. I often play a second string side or youngsters in early rounds of the FA and League cups and while I’m happy enough with a 2-0 win and the fans should be as well, it still frustrates me to get the message that 2-0 is not good enough.

The odds in the game are ridiculous.

I am a regular punter with football gambling markets. It bewilders me to see, in a Championship league game, someone with odds of 8-1 to win. On their day, anyone can beat anyone in that league and 8-1 would cripple the bookies.

phnompenhandy - simple or great minds think alike eh!

Seriously though, I do fully understand what you're saying about the implications of making sweeping changes to the game. As I've said before, it doesn't actually have a significant bearing on my own game, as I'm happy I understand the problem well enough to work around it successfully. My main concern though is for the broader FM audience, as it is possibly one of the most central factors on how the users approach matches. You only need to look at the concept of people using tactical "sets" to see where my point comes from.

This could in effect suggest that anyone using tactical sets of one form or another and chosing options based on the match odds, is doing so on clearly flawed information. What's especially of concern is that of those who might be struggling with tactics anyway, this is an additional problem or confusion they might be completely aware of.

I would definately like to see some changes made, but as long as they're well implemented, I and I'm sure many others, will be happy. If it's a very long-term project to incorporate over a number of releases, then so be it. I trust SI's judgement when it comes to making improvements to the series, so it would be nice to hear their take on things perhaps.

i could swear that sometimes the odds change throughout the season depending on how teams are doing? for example in one of my saves i think liverpool werent doing well at all. well united played them at home, usual odds would be liverpool to win 6-2 etc something like that. but it was about 3 or 4-1? so i think it does change already. obviously it could be tweaked with though.

The stats do change later on in the season, which I have noticed myself in my current Altrincham save. This however is purely down to the fact that after about the halfway stage in the season, my club reputation has risen to be about average to the other teams in my division.

The problem is that let's say you managed a club that's considered an underdog in the EPL. Regardless of how good your squad is, it's likely to take several seasons and multiple major trophies before your club reputation is on a par with the biggest clubs. So in effect you could be conquerors on all front's yet still be classed as the underdog against teams like Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool, simply because your club reputation is still lower.

Additionally I could point to problems that some people have experienced in that regardless of how many competitions they've won, they might have players who still "wants to move to a bigger club".

So this "flaw" in the game spreads far and deep. Again, this is not intended as a rant, but a constructive criticism of an issue that affects literally every club in the game and at every level.

I find it incredibly silly that the game uses bookie odds to begin with. It doesn't make one bit of sense. Betting odds are for the fans, not the manager. I seriously doubt any manager worth its salt would determine squad, tactics and plans for a particular match day by checking with the bookies.

Managers use their own football knowledge, with the assistance of squad players and club scouts. I'd say keep the odds as something purely cosmetic. Sure, it adds to the feeling and that's fine. But for these kinds of odds to actually matter in game it's borderline ridiculous.

Time for a revamp.

I was just thinking about this today. Because I am playing a Bolton save (in my first season 18 games in)and I am performing pretty well in the leage anyway I was about to play Tottenham away and I found it pretty amusing that the bookies would have picked my team as fav in that game.

Also I was about to play West Brom in the cup and the fans are a confident of a big win..WHAT am I chelsea all of the sudden?

And Tottenham have higher rep then Bolton.

Re. Bookies' odds: In earlier incarnations of the game when it was first introduced, those odds were fixed for the season. In the last 2 or 3 editions they are re-calculated periodically - every few months. I'm not sure exactly when and how often. This does mean that if you start the season favourites for relegation but are pushing for promotion, your odds will narrow.

When this happens there is an important knock-on effect. Your opposition will rethink their tactics against you depending on those odds. Thus at the start of the season when you were 50-1 the oppo came out gung-ho and you ripped them apart. Once you've got off to your flying start and you meet that team again but this time you are favourite, they will be far more defensive and you won't get the same success.

This is where some games post in and rage about the cheating AI cracking their tactics. It's nothing of the sort; it's well-programmed intelligent AI responding toy our changed situation. What you have to do is notice the changing behaviour of your opponents and adjust your tactics accordingly. This is where the single-tactic, bomb-through-a-season-in-an-evening crowd come a cropper.

I think there should be a differnece between reputation and quality of the squad.

Reputation should apply to signing well known players. They should not sign contracts to some just promoted teams. This is working pretty well in the current version.

The quality of the squat should be another criterium of mesurement and should apply to media predictions and related stuff.

Hopefully SI will develop that for next release.

i could swear that sometimes the odds change throughout the season depending on how teams are doing? for example in one of my saves i think liverpool werent doing well at all. well united played them at home, usual odds would be liverpool to win 6-2 etc something like that. but it was about 3 or 4-1? so i think it does change already. obviously it could be tweaked with though.

6-2 is 3-1

Definitely agree with this. Been playing as Bradford Park Avenue in the Blue Square South and even towards the end of the season when I was in the play-offs playing teams near the top of the league I was 6-1 away from home. It certainly needs to be a bit more fluid and change as your circumstances change in the league.

Well done Heath - a good point, and well presented (gold star)

Forgot this thread was even still around TBH

I still ignore the match odds and trust my own judgement though.

I can verify the premise - I'm in a similar situation, with a revamped team and now (after a season in which we struggled a bit as my new squad gelled), I fully expect the side to win every time out. There isn't a club in the BSP which can compete with us on strength-of-players, and we're well gelled.

However, when asked who I thought would win the BSP, my answer of "Us" went over very poorly when instead I'd thought it could really help motivate the squad.

We may not be favored every time out. If I listen to the odds and select a tactic by them, we invariably struggle. If I ignore the odds and start out in a TT&F-style "Control" formation, we do well.

I just wish my team-talks, etc, could match what I thought we were capable of, perhaps engendering an "Us against the world", "Nobody gives us any respect", "We love being the underdogs" type of squad mentality.

Yeah - I've posted about the odds in this game before - it's really annoying. The odds do take into account whether or not a team is on a good run of form, in addition to reputation. But the odds don't really reflect the quality of the players at all.

It's possible the odds may have some effect on the game in that an AI team might attack the #$&* of you if you're an underdog. And the AI attacking tactic is pretty strong. The odds have needed changing for a while. They should either change the system or just eliminate the odds altogether (no one's betting on the games anyway).

Reputation is not an accurate reflection of squad strength. It is currently used as a slowly changing reflection of your current status, regional, national, continental etc based on your movement through the leagues, with some smaller factors high signings, cup wins and whatnot.

The problem is not reputation itself, but how it's used. It's used in calculating match odds. It is also used to calculate results of media interaction, tactics, and team talks, and in signing players.

And here is how it effects the actual game itself, in real terms:

I can start a game as a newly promoted club into the BSS or BSN, give them say, a million bucks, this is just for purposes, you could do the same easily enough with the usual starting money, simply by going above what the board will allow you to pay people by offering them "Key Player", almost regardless of the wage budget.

Sign up the best free transfers and have a better squad than pretty much the entire league.

Pre-Season - I'll get called $201 outsiders in promotion odds. My media prediction will be 24th.

Match Odds - Squad strength won't matter, because I will still get called $12 long shots in pre-match against the current highest rep teams.

Media Interaction - I say we will win, players go "lolwtf you moron, our team fails at lyfe" and get annoyed and think I'm an idiot.

Team Talk - If I tell my team I expect a win, based on the fact my squad is League 2 standard minimum, players will play like crap because they look at the reputation/odds instead of squad strength, and go "Um, those guys are like media prediction 1st, we are 24th, are you nuts?".

Tactics - The other team will play, when looking at relative squad strength, a ridiculous attacking mentality, and get constantly caught on the break, this will happen to team after team, because the match odds are heavily in their favour, even though they are based on reputation and not squad strength or form.

Player signing - This is pretty obvious. You miss players because your rep isn't good enough for them, despite your actual results being great. This also causes major problems with "Wants to leave to a bigger club".

The problem with that is it's not right. Reputation is a good idea. It's a good way of showing your progress in the huge world. It's not something the game should be using to calculate based on tactics.

Classic example of this: my team have drawn Wrexham in the F.A. Cup. The last six results between us are:

08-08-12 York    2-0 Wrexham (BSP)
08-10-27 Wrexham 1-1 York    (BSP)
09-02-21 Wrexham 1-2 York    (Cup)

09-11-11 York    1-0 Wrexham (BSP)
10-03-27 Wrexham 1-3 York    (BSP)

10-09-15 York    4-1 Wrexham (BSP)
10-10-23 York        Wrexham (Cup)

In 08/09, I finished the season 10th to their 13th. In 09/10, I finished 4th with Wrexham 14th. This season they are doing well, admittedly, like my side a top-five club.

For the October 23rd rematch, I am listed as 13-8 to win, with Wrexham as 6-4 favorites.

Really?

We beat them 4-1 at home a month ago, our last six encounters with them have been 5 wins and 1 draw, man for man we have a better side, we finished ten places above them last season, and we're at home for this match.

Sure, having said all that, now I'm going to lose the match in question but I really can't see why we should be considered underdogs for it - especially when that calculation is used in as many places as heathxxx anddavidbowie have outlined above.

Well said, DavidBowie!! I hope SI looks at your post.

davidbowie & Amaroq - Very good posts and analysis. The proof in the pudding is in the eating.

Reputation certainly has many far reaching implications in the game as a whole and at the moment I just don't think things are balanced. That's both for the AI and the user in fairness.

As you both pretty much pointed out, you know you have a superior squad, you know you've a better record, league position, etc, but the AI doesn't realise that fully, thus when in favourable odds for a match, they attack and your team will invariably punish them.

It's a tough call to make as to what the best way forwards would be with regards to suggestions how to balance things more with the reputation system to be honest. On the one hand it could be left as is and be something we're all aware of, accept and can take full advantage of. On the other hand, it would require a very large undertaking to re-write the reputation system, taking it away from being based mostly on club reputation and moreso on current player ability (CA) or player reputation. The biggest downside I could see with the latter would be if a fairly average team with a balanced set of CA or reputation makes a single high CA or reputation signing that tips the averages.

Very difficult to suggest a perfect solution. I do like the idea of match odds, media questions on "who will win the title" (yes Amaroq, that one frustrates me too, even moreso if I'm also a title contender and the squad becomes upset ), but would wish for something a little more balanced.

PS: I like the fact this thread is actually discussing the matter discussed in the OP constructively.

One thought I'd had about it was to separate "Reputation" as follows:

Long-term reputation - basically, clubs with a massive history, such as Manchester United, Real Madrid, etc., with a hundred-year history, etc. This would change, but would do so very slowly. Would impact players' willingness to sign with you, regens created with club as their Favorite Club, etc.

Medium-term reputation - based on performance over the last three to five years, maybe in a slight decay function so that last year's performance is more important than that of four years back. This would impact things like pre-season odds, board expectations, players willingness to sign with you, supporter's happiness with results, etc.

Short-term reputation - maybe your last 15 to 18 matches; no more than half a season. This would be used for match odds, AI tactics against, player interpretation of team-talks, etc.

It isn't a massive overhaul - just enough to separate those items from each other a bit. They each have their place, certainly. I think you'd be well-served to add a few things into the various reputations, such as the club's financial situation adding (or detracting) from the medium-term reputation. (Think, hype around Man City this summer, or the reduced expectations of a club in administration.)

I think this would wind up addressing most of the complaints in this thread.

I am very lost but does this affect stuff like;

I am playing Liverpool and its a cup game against Cambridge University for example, so I put out mostly youngsters and my lowered end players. The computer gives me odds of winning by alot, however it doesnt take into account my players are crap right? Or like if I was to lose the confidence would be very very bad right? The system doesnt take this into account right now right, this is the kind of thing we want to change right? Cheers!

Confused,

ReeNah

That's a subtly different point, but quite valid, well spotted!

And thus, I did open Pandoras Box...

There's lot's of areas of the game linked to the reputation system. I did like your thoughts about long, medium and short term reputation though Amaroq. This would certainly help quite a lot of areas.

The hardest area to pin down would be example as quoted by ReeNah. I think we all do what he suggested from time to time as a big club verses a minnow. There is a way to work this in with the current system, to your favour I've found works quite well sometimes.

In the pre-match press conferences before you play said minnow, I usually answer the "will you be making changes" question along the lines of "definately, lots of changes" type answer, along with perhaps not over-stating your confidence in the answers to other questions. This is in a way lessening expectations. If you do lose, I think it's fair to say that even with the reserves fielded, the fans might be unhappy or embarrassed if their Liverpool or Manchester United lost to your Bognor Regis or Bath City. If you only win by a narrow margin, then usually it's forgotten within a few matches, so no real impact.