Reputation destroying the media/confidence?

This post was orginally going to be about annoying confidence incidents and not very realistic media. However I think I've found a link between all the things that annoyd me in this area, which is kinda destroying some of the good feeling about the game. I'm not sure if my theories are correct, but I'm quite confident that I'm touching some near areas. I don't know if it could be called bugs, as I'm sure the game is intended to be this way, but it's just not very realistic. At the end I'm also hoping to get some answers to my questions regarding this.

My theory is that a club or players reputation is having too much influence on all confidence/media-issues. An example happend to the end of my last season, where I, whom at that time were number 7 in the league, where playing league leaders Everton away (who also won the league). Pre-Game I was the favourite, despite having underachieved all season, so at the press conference media expected me to win the game. I lost the game and afterwards media called it a "shock result", while the press was asking me how this could happend? The round after I played Newcastle which was second, and the same thing applied. Surely this can't be right (not Everton nor Newcastle at the top of the table either, but that is another story). If a club is topping the table at the end of the season, no team, no matter if you're called Liverpool, Chelsea or United should be expected to win that game. Both United and Chelsea were behind me at the table, and almost everytime they lost it was still a shock result. If the media can't take this into consideration, as I guess it is the club reputations that are making these results shocking, than the whole thing becomes wrong. I could have understood it at the beginning of the season but not now. The problem is also that the same thing will happend at the start of next season. As far as I can see it doesn't matter that Everton won the leage last season or how many players thay bought, they will still beunderdogs. In this matter I therefore wonder if this changes after some seasons, if the game is intended to be like this or whether I can expect some changes in the build up?

An area that is quite connected to this is the message, "Expected to beat by a far bigger margin". I don't know how many times I've seen this sentence, but it might be the dumbest one in the whole FM09. In 2009, your first of all at most times happy just to win matches (just look at EC/WC quialifiers), so unless your're playing as Brazil against San Marino, you're never expected to trash a team. When playing in PL, you're definitly never expected to win by big margins, still I'm getting this message playing away against mid-table teams. Extra annoying at press conferences where there's no alternative response such as "we're happy about the 3 points" or "I wouldn't agree that we were big favourites". You have to agree or diagree to whether your should have sweeped the field with your opponent. Basically it seems like it is the reputation of the club that is dictating this also, but in this case that's kind of ok, if it weren't for reputation seeming to be way to static. Also, no matter how its decided, only the really really crappy teams should be expected to be beaten by a big margin.

I don't know if similar things could be applied to players as well, but I'm also fed up with fan/board-confidece being ****ed at my "bad signings". If they were bad ok, but when I buy a 17 year old kid, that I want to train for future seasons, they still would be dissapointed that he hasn't played to many games for the club. Often my board then will say that he was a particulary poor signing. That's just stupid and not realistic at all. Of course the fans (and board) would understand to which purpose a player has been bought. As to training matches they shouldn't even be bothered, as that don't see the difference if you're playing with your youth team or your best players. For some mediocre players I get the same feeling that they might have a higher reputation that skills, meaning they your fans becomes dissapointed if they're not playing any games, even though they might be far from the first eleven in terms of quality.

These are just a few examples of the problems I feel exist within the confidence/media-part, but more than complaining, I'm wondering if anyone else sees this the same way. Or for instance could convince me that the game is actually being correct. Please don't make this a "I hate SI-thread", rather than a discussion to whether the expectations/questions/angles made by the board/media is realistic, and to which extent reputation has too much influence.

Reputation has always had too much of an effect in FM though. Well, I'll correct that. It's just far too static. It should be adjusted during the season, perhaps monthly, based on results and position in the table. Whereas as far as my preliminary testing can ascertain it changes after the end of each competition, and that's about it.

The media should be even more variable and recalculate based on form. Perhaps we need two reputations. One for general club rep that adjusts how it normally does and one that adjusts wildly based on form.

As for the player signing confidence, it's a widely known issue to which I've offered a fix thread that was largely ignored (perhaps I was verbose and didn't rant enough, which is roughly why I expect this thread to not get a hundred replies either). It's definitely wrong though.

VB

Reputation has always had too much of an effect in FM though. Well, I'll correct that. It's just far too static. It should be adjusted during the season, perhaps monthly, based on results and position in the table. Whereas as far as my preliminary testing can ascertain it changes after the end of each competition, and that's about it.

The media should be even more variable and recalculate based on form. Perhaps we need two reputations. One for general club rep that adjusts how it normally does and one that adjusts wildly based on form.

As for the player signing confidence, it's a widely known issue to which I've offered a fix thread that was largely ignored (perhaps I was verbose and didn't rant enough, which is roughly why I expect this thread to not get a hundred replies either). It's definitely wrong though.

VB

I think those are very good suggestions, and I totally agree with reputation beeing to static. Hopefully there will be more good suggestions, even though I might not have ranted enough

I didnt read ALL the OP its a bit of a wall but...

im pretty sure i dont get these problems at all. Being Huddersfield and getting them promoted from league 1, my media prediction is 22nd, and i was underdog for most of my games at the start, now being in the playoff places after 17 games, im the favourite for a lot, i always get it will be a clos game

I didnt read ALL the OP its a bit of a wall but...

I often wonder how people manage to pass their exams these days. "Well I would have got my GCSE in English Literature, but that Macbeth was just a wall of text".

Jesus wept, to listen to a lot of people moaning you'd think a McDonalds menu counted as a wall of text.

Perhaps that explains why nobody reads the manual. "My God. It was more than two lines. I just couldn't get through it in one sitting!".

Sigh.

Its a good post, tmolvik, well written and I agree that it can surface feeling "unrealistic".

Von Blade, I think the reputation thing does change match-to-match, but the problem is that the end-of-season adjustment is much larger than the individual matches along the way. (Somebody was watching this with the memory editor back around FM'07, and reported that the jump for winning the Championship often put the just-promoted team square in the middle of the EPL clubs, rather than near the bottom tier.)

I like your idea of short-term and long-term reputation, and that giving the media a way to "understand" dips in form, etc. I'd find it particularly useful for situations like "Man U have suffered a shock relegation".

My FM'05 save-game, I saw Man U drop out of European competition due to particularly incompetent management. Sacked manager halfway through the second season while 10th or 11th, and hired an AI manager whom I'd previously noted as an outstanding performer, an up-and-coming manager. He lifted them to 7th by season's end, and qualified for the UEFA Cup by winning the F.A. Cup - the club's first silverware in four or five years. The second season, he had the club second behind a rampant Chelsea .. and got the sack around Christmas.

I really wish that the board had seen that he was out-performing the short-term reputation, rather than under-performing the long-term reputation.

Amaroq is right - club's reputation does change match by match - my game with West Ham, at the end of the 4th season, my rep was 7604. Now after 3 wins to start the league in season 5, plus a League Cup 2nd round win, it has gone up to 7673. However Man Utd (9042) and Arsenal (9365) are still miles ahead.

Even if things are very straighforward - eg my 69 point increase in 4 games meaning that each league game won increases it by 20 (and presumably then decreases rep if you lose a game). That would mean that if I won EVERY game this season, my rep would go up another 700 points, to 8373. Given that Arsenal are 1000 points more than this (and likely to increase further as they win yet another title!), logically I should still then be considered an underdog to them.

I just look at the odds as a way of determining how the opposition are going to play against me rather than actual real life odds - if they are faves, they will generally attack me, if I'm fave, then they will generally defend - so I do (roughly) the opposite. This of course is balanced by the manager's style of play - Keegan will attack no matter what, while your stereotypical Italian manager will defend even if his side are faves.

Amaroq is right - club's reputation does change match by match - my game with West Ham, at the end of the 4th season, my rep was 7604. Now after 3 wins to start the league in season 5, plus a League Cup 2nd round win, it has gone up to 7673. However Man Utd (9042) and Arsenal (9365) are still miles ahead.

Even if things are very straighforward - eg my 69 point increase in 4 games meaning that each league game won increases it by 20 (and presumably then decreases rep if you lose a game). That would mean that if I won EVERY game this season, my rep would go up another 700 points, to 8373. Given that Arsenal are 1000 points more than this (and likely to increase further as they win yet another title!), logically I should still then be considered an underdog to them.

I just look at the odds as a way of determining how the opposition are going to play against me rather than actual real life odds - if they are faves, they will generally attack me, if I'm fave, then they will generally defend - so I do (roughly) the opposite. This of course is balanced by the manager's style of play - Keegan will attack no matter what, while your stereotypical Italian manager will defend even if his side are faves.

It's interesting to see that you have actually checked this, that mean that at least there is a reputatio-change during the season also. However if it is like you descibe it, then it will take seasons with winning the league (and the top clubs consistently underperforming a lot), befor you will be regarded as a favourite towards them. As it is unlikely than any club wins all the games and another one, especially the big ones, loose everyone, it's kind of a lost battle. I'm not saying that because of some good results in one season, that a normally mediocre team should have a better rep than the big clubs, but there should not be more than 2-3 seasons before such a thing could happend either. Just look at Chelsea. Also, this is still about the long-term rep, but if United is at 17th place in a season and West Ham is at the top, WH should be favourites in that individual game. Even though both teams might just be having a great/crappy season that year. It was mentioned earlier that rep also changed after the season, which could maybe make the gap smaller, but it's still not going to fix the short term challenges.

I have a feeling that it might be more complicated than we think, but I would really like a response from someonw within the SI-team to tell me how it works, because surely it can't be ment to be this way. The example with the AI-United manager (although in 05) is another good example.