When does reputation update?

Hi!

I'm managing a former lower-league club that's now been enjoying some successes in Polish top division. On January of my first top division season I had a reputation of ~4200. I won the league and after a couple of games into a second season my reputation was at ~4675. Now it's march of the same season and I've been very successful in the Champions League having eliminated AC Milan in the first knockout round. Soon I will be playing in the quarter-finals. You can imagine my shock when I checked my reputation and it was at 4625, so decreased slightly.

Is this really supposed to happen? Or does the reputation update later into the season and I will get my hopefully substantial boost later on?

I am asking because it's been a pain to hire good players for some time now.

Thanks in advance,

r.

Reputation of your club is related to the reputation of the league. You got a boost going into the Champions league and winning the leauge, but it evens itself out.

As more of the teams within your league compete in Europe the league reputation increases. And the more you win in the european games, and keep qualifying for Europe, and doing well in Europe, the more your reputation goes up.

I mean, you won't be recognised as the best team in the world if you win the Champions League, it takes years to build that sort of reputation.

I reckon your Rep went down as a result of other teams in your league getting knocked out of the european games.

I mean, you won't be recognised as the best team in the world if you win the Champions League, it takes years to build that sort of reputation.

That is true. But then again, wouldn't it make sense to be at least the most reputable team in the country? I'm currently ranked at two stars, with two teams having two and a half and another two having three stars. I have a very substantial transfer budget for my league because of all the money from CL appearances, but also find it really hard to sign players that match the ones already currently on my team, and almost impossible to sign anyone even a little better.

Again, just because a team wins a league for the first time in a while, they don't excel past the already great teams in the league.

Look at Valencia they won the league in 2003/2004 - but it didn't instantly raise their reputation to that of Real and Barca.

If they continued to win - then maybe.

It takes continued success to build reputation.

I mean, you won't be recognised as the best team in the world if you win the Champions League, it takes years to build that sort of reputation.

LoL

The team that wins the CL has the best argument to call itself the best team in the world for that season.

I reckon your Rep went down as a result of other teams in your league getting knocked out of the european games.

How could what other clubs do possibly affect the reputation of his specific club? If this counter-intuitive nonsense is true the game needs to be fixed.

Yeh best for that season, but not overall.

Greece won the European Championships, that gave them a trophy for that tournament, but they were by far not the best team in Europe overall, nor were they favourites for the next tournament.

And the 2nd point isn't nonsense.

It might not be exactly how the game operates. Notice I said "I reckon..."

Greece won the European Championships, that gave them a trophy for that tournament, but they were by far not the best team in Europe overall, nor were they favourites for the next tournament.

Greece certainly were the best team in Europe in 2004. They *hint hint* won the tournament and beat Portugal twice; France, the Czechs and drew with Spain. What other nation can make as convincing a case?

They were not the best team. They won. But they weren't the best.

There's a difference between an underdog winning and being the best.

If you don't understand that then this conversation is over.

They were not the best team. They won. But they weren't the best.

There's a difference between an underdog winning and being the best.

If you don't understand that then this conversation is over.

What you write might apply to a single match. Greece won an extended tourney beating out the best Euro nations. Being the best means you won on the field. Maybe you need to look up what 'best' means.

This got out of hand fast

Thanks for the replies, guys!

What you write might apply to a single match. Greece won an extended tourney beating out the best Euro nations. Being the best means you won on the field. Maybe you need to look up what 'best' means.

Not at all.

Cardiff got to the Carling Cup Final - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

Liverpool got to the Final of the FA CUP - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

Man United finished 2nd in the League - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

Chelsea won the Champions League but came 6th in the League - that makes them the Best in Europe, but the 6th best in England!

Real Madrid won LA LIGA but they didn't get anywhere in the Champions League - so they're the Best in Spain - but the 6th best in Europe?

Reputation is based on the amount of times you win something, regularly, not a one off.

Every dog can have their day.

I think the game is a little too slow to adjust reputation. Nevertheless, this is a preferable problem to the alternative where reputation is too strongly tied to recent form.

Not at all. Cardiff got to the Carling Cup Final - that make them the 2nd best team in England?Liverpool got to the Final of the FA CUP - that make them the 2nd best team in England?Man United finished 2nd in the League - that make them the 2nd best team in England?Chelsea won the Champions League but came 6th in the League - that makes them the Best in Europe, but the 6th best in England!Real Madrid won LA LIGA but they didn't get anywhere in the Champions League - so they're the Best in Spain - but the 6th best in Europe?Reputation is based on the amount of times you win something, regularly, not a one off. Every dog can have their day.

Real Madrid got to the semi-finals of the CL. How is that 'not getting anywhere'? They lost on penalties to Bayern.

My Sheriff team has won 4 CL titles in a row and I'm still 11-1 to win it again. The game doesn't follow real logic, it uses reputation to decide who "should" win.

Not at all.

Cardiff got to the Carling Cup Final - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

Apples and Oranges. World and Euro Cup winners need to win qualifying and first round group stages to advance.

Liverpool got to the Final of the FA CUP - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

See above.

Man United finished 2nd in the League - that make them the 2nd best team in England?

Yes it does. They are second best with 38 matches played to prove they were better.

Chelsea won the Champions League but came 6th in the League - that makes them the Best in Europe, but the 6th best in England!

They are certainly the best club to play in the 2011-12 Champions League and have the silverware to prove it.

Real Madrid won LA LIGA but they didn't get anywhere in the Champions League - so they're the Best in Spain - but the 6th best in Europe?

See Thomasmc post above

Reputation is based on the amount of times you win something, regularly, not a one off.

Every dog can have their day.

Based on this tidbit maybe Liverpool is the second best team in England.

Also, using Mr Tysons logic, we should cancel Euro 2012 and just say Germany are the winners because of their track record. Any other country to win just wouldnt be the best.

I'll go along with "team that wins the league over a full season is the best team", but not "team that wins a knock out competition is the best team". The former requires a season's worth of performances that tend to even out a minor blip or unlucky result here or there; the latter simply fails to take lucky wins or refereeing errors into account, which may see an excellent team get knocked out and/or a poor team progress. Argentina WC '90 and Italy WC '94 spring immediately to mind here; in comparison to them, the Greek Euro-winning team played amazingly well. Plus there's also the luck of the draw: if the "best team" and the "second best team" (using whatever criteria) meet in the first knockout round, it's obvious that they can't both progress to the final. In other words, there's no way you can say with conviction that the winner and runner must be the best and second best teams in the tournament.

There's a fair amount of luck involved in winning a knock out competition - less so in a league, where it's all swings and roundabouts.

Greece were not the best team in Europe in 2004, and Chelsea were not the best team in the Champions League.

In all honesty I think you're arguing for the sake of it.

Back on topic, I'm sure there was a 'Mechanics of Reputation' thread a while back explaining everything you've just asked, I did a quick search but couldn't find it. It might still be around somewhere though.

Is stadium size affecting reputation? If a club expands its stadium - will it affect its reputation?

Greece were not the best team in Europe in 2004, and Chelsea were not the best team in the Champions League.

In all honesty I think you're arguing for the sake of it.

Exactly what is happening

Apples and Oranges. World and Euro Cup winners need to win qualifying and first round group stages to advance.

See above.

Yes it does. They are second best with 38 matches played to prove they were better.

They are certainly the best club to play in the 2011-12 Champions League and have the silverware to prove it.

See Thomasmc post above

Based on this tidbit maybe Liverpool is the second best team in England.

Also, using Mr Tysons logic, we should cancel Euro 2012 and just say Germany are the winners because of their track record. Any other country to win just wouldnt be the best.

And winning ONCE does not constitute instant reputation above everyone.