The Dynamic League Reputation Discussion (with poll)

[ANDEHLSON]

Dumb question, but do the number of CL/Europa League spots available to a minor league change with continued success at the very least? ie if Northern Irish teams win the CL consistently somehow, with other NI teams also doing ok, will the no. of spots increase to two or three?

Yes they change.

[BaYa]

they just don't know how to change the game system, only thing they do since CM versions is reselling the same thing, each time they try to edit sth they cause millions of bugs which they can't repair anymore

[RBKalle]

See, the fact a smaller country can actually get MORE spots in European Cups leads to awful situations if paired with the static league reputation.

I can end up with two Slovenian sides in Champions League Group Stage, but with at least one (assuming the human user is in charge of the other one, thus leading to a rise in Slovenia's ranking through constant good results) being everyone's bitch in the Group.

Ditto for Europa League.

So, if a nation can get more CL/EL spots thanks to good results over several years, why should the reputation of the league be the same, because the runner-ups in the league still can sign decent players?

It's not rocket science... Players have dynamic reputation (3 different ones), Clubs have dynamic reputation, Nations have dynamic reputation (or at least ranking), who why must League have 2010-reputation set in stone forever and ever and ever?

No matter how many Champions League I win with Rosenborg or with Midtjylland, after years of difficult way to the top, my Star Players will STILL moan because they want to move, and will drool at the mere sight of an offer from Saint-Etienne or Portsmouth...

It's like selling your nice little house to move in a toolshed in the fanciest neighbourhood... Sure, the people living next door are rich, and the area is cool, but you still are a blue collar living in a toolshed

It's funny... We claim it's fine when the game cuts some corners in order to "keep it enjoyable" (even when the game acts against the very sense of realism), yet in this case it's somewhat ok basically castrating the enjoyment of the long-term game to all the fans who want (dare?) not to play in EPL, La Liga or Serie A (and maybe Bundesliga or Ligue 1, but I'm not sure 'bout that).

I can start a game with a Pub Team in England and lead it to European Glory, and I'll be able to sign the Rooneys and the Ronaldos of the time, while after some years of European overachievements at Big Club in a Small League, I'll be barely able to keep mediocre EPL-level players.

[Dekker2]

For some reason, I was under the impression that League Rep was dynamic in FM10. :confused:

If its not, I'll be very disappointed. In my FM08 save, I'm in 2051 in N. Ireland, and despite losing about 50 games over the last 30 seasons, (in all comps) - I still can't attract world class players.

This is why they'll be reluctant to ever implement it.

You shouldn't be able to attract world-class players - you're in the NI league. You'd be at best a place that good players went once their careers were winding down, or after they flopped at a big club (Turkey sometimes plays a similar role nowadays).

IRL you'd leave for a different league if you wanted to work with world-class players: Mourinho didn't stay at Porto (far better league) thinking he could do it again next year - as soon as a team IRL over-performs, it gets stripped of all its players. It happened to Porto, it happened to Leverkusen before them, it happened to Zenit. And they can't replace them with equal quality.

In order to be a league with a high reputation, you need to be rich. If players were amateurs, no one would think twice before leaving Hull City for European nights with Celtic or Rangers, but players aren't amateurs.

A league can become attractive to players pretty much through cash alone, though a high standard of football would be needed for it to stay attractive. eg. MLS' plan: throw money at ageing European stars, their arrival raises the standard in the league, raises popularity and thus income from fans >> the combo of higher standards and money then allows better players of a normal age to be bought (if anyone can name a counter-example, I'd like to hear it), so this is really a discussion about dynamic cash flow, TV money and sponsorship, which would then feed into league reputation.

The relevant issues, then, in no order, are

1. exchange rates. It would be ridiculous if FM tried to create such economic projections, but IRL it has a notable effect (especially now that the pound has slumped).

2. Tycoons. The Italian league (which actually has lower attendances than the English championship), during its years of success and dominance, owed a lot to chairmen's cash (remember when clubs like Lazio, were a big deal alongside the Milans) : when they all hit the wall, the Italian league slumped, and now is a long way behind the top two.

In a league like Russia, if your team started doing well ,and your national team started doing well, you would probably see some tycoons poring into your league, as has happened in recent years. There could be a bit of chicken-and-egg about which comes first, but if you were lucky, you'd get a snowball effect, and more tv money, tycoon money and sponsorship would result in better football which would result in more money and so onward.

This would be extremely unlikely in NI, which is just too small to have a load of eager millionaires floating about with cash on their hands - same for Malta or any other little league.

3. TV Money. The English league's success is built on TV money, for the Spanish clubs, which negotiate their own independent agreements, even more so - Real and Barca make pretty much all the TV money in Spain.

If you were China, and you took a team to consistent glory, and put together an impressive team that dominated Asia, while the Chinese national team benefited by qualifying for major tournaments, you could see interest in football rising.

In a country that big, that would translate to a ton of extra attendance and tv money in the league, more sponsorship, and hopefully some tycoons too - with that money, other teams in the league could improve also, and you'd once again hopefully be able to turn that into increased league reputation as you brought in better players.

If you were NI, you just wouldn't have the TV market to tap into. The country's too small

It'd be nice to be able to turn back the tide, but the fact is that clubs who once won European cups (Benfica, Celtic, Ajax) are now happy with a good run in the UEFA cup because small nations don't function as good business propositions. And every time they get a good side together, they get raped: Zenit pays v.good wages, but still lost players to the likes of Tottenham, despite surpassing them in the UEFA Cup.

That's why people are always suggesting Atlantic leagues and the like: unless they pool their TV audiences, there is no way that small countries will challenge at the top table ever again.

One team alone won't boost a league's rep.

If they can decently model the dynamic finances, It'd be great, but unless they really got it right before putting it in the game, it would ruin that year's FM.

I'd like to see league reputation place slightly less limitation on team reputation, though - to tweak it slightly in favour of people who pull off unrealistically impressive feats in little leagues.

[JamesB]

This is why they'll be reluctant to ever implement it.

You shouldn't be able to attract world-class players - you're in the NI league. You'd be at best a place that good players went once their careers were winding down, or after they flopped at a big club (Turkey sometimes plays a similar role nowadays).

IRL you'd leave for a different league if you wanted to work with world-class players: Mourinho didn't stay at Porto (far better league) thinking he could do it again next year - as soon as a team IRL over-performs, it gets stripped of all its players. It happened to Porto, it happened to Leverkusen before them, it happened to Zenit. And they can't replace them with equal quality.

In order to be a league with a high reputation, you need to be rich. If players were amateurs, no one would think twice before leaving Hull City for European nights with Celtic or Rangers, but players aren't amateurs.

A league can become attractive to players pretty much through cash alone, though a high standard of football would be needed for it to stay attractive. eg. MLS' plan: throw money at ageing European stars, their arrival raises the standard in the league, raises popularity and thus income from fans >> the combo of higher standards and money then allows better players of a normal age to be bought (if anyone can name a counter-example, I'd like to hear it), so this is really a discussion about dynamic cash flow, TV money and sponsorship, which would then feed into league reputation.

The relevant issues, then, in no order, are

1. exchange rates. It would be ridiculous if FM tried to create such economic projections, but IRL it has a notable effect (especially now that the pound has slumped).

2. Tycoons. The Italian league (which actually has lower attendances than the English championship), during its years of success and dominance, owed a lot to chairmen's cash (remember when clubs like Lazio, were a big deal alongside the Milans) : when they all hit the wall, the Italian league slumped, and now is a long way behind the top two.

In a league like Russia, if your team started doing well ,and your national team started doing well, you would probably see some tycoons poring into your league, as has happened in recent years. There could be a bit of chicken-and-egg about which comes first, but if you were lucky, you'd get a snowball effect, and more tv money, tycoon money and sponsorship would result in better football which would result in more money and so onward.

This would be extremely unlikely in NI, which is just too small to have a load of eager millionaires floating about with cash on their hands - same for Malta or any other little league.

3. TV Money. The English league's success is built on TV money, for the Spanish clubs, which negotiate their own independent agreements, even more so - Real and Barca make pretty much all the TV money in Spain.

If you were China, and you took a team to consistent glory, and put together an impressive team that dominated Asia, while the Chinese national team benefited by qualifying for major tournaments, you could see interest in football rising.

In a country that big, that would translate to a ton of extra attendance and tv money in the league, more sponsorship, and hopefully some tycoons too - with that money, other teams in the league could improve also, and you'd once again hopefully be able to turn that into increased league reputation as you brought in better players.

If you were NI, you just wouldn't have the TV market to tap into. The country's too small

It'd be nice to be able to turn back the tide, but the fact is that clubs who once won European cups (Benfica, Celtic, Ajax) are now happy with a good run in the UEFA cup because small nations don't function as good business propositions. And every time they get a good side together, they get raped: Zenit pays v.good wages, but still lost players to the likes of Tottenham, despite surpassing them in the UEFA Cup.

That's why people are always suggesting Atlantic leagues and the like: unless they pool their TV audiences, there is no way that small countries will challenge at the top table ever again.

One team alone won't boost a league's rep.

If they can decently model the dynamic finances, It'd be great, but unless they really got it right before putting it in the game, it would ruin that year's FM.

I'd like to see league reputation place slightly less limitation on team reputation, though - to tweak it slightly in favour of people who pull off unrealistically impressive feats in little leagues.

I'm glad you went to the trouble of typing this, it is exactly what I was thinking. It would be lovely if one could nurture a country into becoming a footballing powerhouse but it simply isn't feasable in most cases - footballing performance is not even close to being the primary factor in determining league attractiveness.

[dylan73]

Reading all the above, I still vote for dynamic league rep. - even a 1-2 point "move" of it through time can be exciting...

So a Hungarian league could move up to the level of Denmark or Switzerland, e.g.

[Jam_Man]

I understand why people ask for this but I question to what extent it should have an effect.

Lets say for example a Northern Ireland team won the Champions League, that would give that club a massive boost, but would players from Serie A really move to that club? Even if the NI club won it 3 years in a row there would still be players not willing to play in a poor league.

Just because one team from the Northern Irish league had success shouldnt make the other clubs much more attractive so I dont see that the league would become that much more attractive as a result.

Yes there should be some increase, but not a major one.

[RBKalle]

We're NOT advocating a league's reputation going through the roof after just a couple of seasons, or just before a club reached a semi-final.

We're speaking of LONG-TERM games, and in long term games the dynamics of the simulated world could as well change. Not dramatically, meaning Malta or Iceland won't EVER attract topclass players, not even if Abramovich left Chelsea to back up Birkirkara or IA, but just enough not to frustrate the human player.

I know IRL plenty of players would leave a successful domestic club to join a mediocre club in a better league, but let's not forget FM is a game.

So as I said earlier, taking some small liberties in order to make the game enjoyable to more people won't hurt much.

P.S. a huge part of La Liga's recent success is due to the taxation of players' wages. Lower taxes for the clubs/the players mean a club can offer a much higher wage

[Luckz]

IMO FM10 pays too much attention to league reputation when it comes to transfer willingness - it's very hierarchical, you can get anybody from the Russian/Ukrainian/.. league into the German one. Highly professional leader types like Ignashevich or Srna will only too gladly give up on champions league football just to play in a better league. Radoi will only too gladly leave Al-Hilal (I think?) to play somewhere else for less money. It should be less about reputation and a healthy bit more based on actual player personality, and more based on who has the cash to afford them. IRL, B-level stars like Radoi, Sobis, Rivaldo will play somewhere far outside the traditional European game just because of the cash there. A related problem affected Man City in FM09 - lots of cash, but without some "reputation tweaking", you couldn't sign the kind of players they did actually get.

[SCIAG]

P.S. a huge part of La Liga's recent success is due to the taxation of players' wages.

With respect, it isn't. One or two people have mentioned the lower tax rate, but it really has had a minimal impact.

I can only image you're talking about the resurgence of Perez, and Barcelona winning the CL, because I see no other reason to talk of "La Liga's recent success".

Ronaldo- Madrid fan

Kaka- Madrid fan

Benzema- I think he turned down a move to United for a reason other than wages

Alonso- forced out by Benitez

Ibrahimovic- not wanted in England, only Barcelona could offer Eto'o in a swap

In fact, let's look at Barca's whole XI:

Valdes- Catalan

Alves- you might have a point here

Puyol- Catalan

Pique- Catalan, not good enough for United, who wouldn't let him go to an English club

Abidal- not wanted/needed for the big three, Liverpool couldn't afford the transfer fee

Toure- again, you may have a point. However, Liverpool have Mascherano, Chelsea have Essien, United have Hargreaves/Carrick, and he doesn't fit with Arsenal's transfer policy

Iniesta- Catalan

Xavi- Catalan

Messi- been with Barca since he was twoosh, effectively Catalan

Henry- not wanted by a bigger club

Eto'o- not needed/wanted, quite loyal to Barca (certainly under Rijikard)

Ibrahimovic- see above

[Masterstroke]

I think as a short term measure, teams who qualify for continental competition should be immediately disqualified from their respective league caps and be allowed to increase as far as the cup competitions cap (if its not bigger than the league then this can be disregarded) whilst they remain in continental competition every season.

Then for every season they do not qualify their rep steadily decreases as normal (including other factors such as league performance) and once it falls below the league cap and they are still haven't qualified for the continental comp cap then they can go no higher.

the rules of the league will make this work anyway

[Dekker2]

I think as a short term measure, teams who qualify for continental competition should be immediately disqualified from their respective league caps and be allowed to increase as far as the cup competitions cap (if its not bigger than the league then this can be disregarded) whilst they remain in continental competition every season.

Then for every season they do not qualify their rep steadily decreases as normal (including other factors such as league performance) and once it falls below the league cap and they are still haven't qualified for the continental comp cap then they can go no higher.

the rules of the league will make this work anyway

I disagree.

Celtic is a less attractive proposition than a London club that isn't qualifying for the Champion's league every year.

Celtic fans are all delighted at the mo, because they managed to sign a reserve player from a UEFA cup side in England.

Celtic's reputation is not at the level of other regular Champion's League sides, because they're in a poor league, both in quality and in cash.

In your idea, a side could go on one good European run, and suddenly have a rep high enough to bring in players above the standard of their league, and to hold onto their current players.

IRL a club that punches above its weight loses all its players, since the players' rep inreases hugely, but the club's doesn't. (Porto, Leverkusen, Zenit etc.)

[RBKalle]

With respect, it isn't. One or two people have mentioned the lower tax rate, but it really has had a minimal impact.

I can only image you're talking about the resurgence of Perez, and Barcelona winning the CL, because I see no other reason to talk of "La Liga's recent success".

I meant La Liga being able to offer high wages and thus to acquire World Class players, which in past decades/years used to end up in Italy (80s-90s) and in England [00s]

The taxation has indeed a part in that success, not even counting Perez'es shady businesses allowing him to spend millions like peanuts.

Ronaldo- Madrid fan

Kaka- Madrid fan

Benzema- I think he turned down a move to United for a reason other than wages

Alonso- forced out by Benitez

Ibrahimovic- not wanted in England, only Barcelona could offer Eto'o in a swap

Sorry but I don't buy for a second Ronaldo or Kaka being Madrid fans... Not more than they were fans of their previous club...

Loyalty and fandom can be created or forgotten with the right amount of 0s on a cheque.

Alonso was forced out by Benitez, but had offers from Italy as well... unsurprisingly he decided to be be part of Galacticos pt 2

Ibrahimovic was "unwanted" because he's a notorious troublemaker, but mostly because he asked for wages only Madrid, Barca and possibly Man City could afford.

Or do we have to think Zlatan was "unwanted" for technical reasons?

[SCIAG]

Again, you're just going on the media without looking at it. Saying "world class players were here and here at this time" is just naive. In the 00s, most "world class" players probably played in Spain. Zidane, Figo, Ronaldinho, Messi, Eto'o, Cannavaro, Carlos, Beckham, Ronaldo, Owen...

Ronaldo wanted to go to Madrid for years. He was a boyhood Madrid fan, his mother said she wanted to see him play for them before she died. He was able to use the return of Perez, his shady money and love of big names to secure a larger wage than at United. Wages didn't come into it.

Kaka was at a club who were failing, and wanted to go somewhere he could win trophies. Chelsea ultimately didn't want him, I can't remember why, but it wasn't wages. Possibly climate, like Ribery?

When it came down to it, the only offer Liverpool actually accepted was Madrid's, not Juve's.

Chelsea have Drogba and Anelka. United have Rooney and Berbatov. Liverpool have Torres. Arsenal have Van Persie. So, yes, I'd say a large part of Ibra not going to England was that he wasn't good enough. I'd take him ahead of Van Persie, and Berbatov, but only just. I'd also take Eto'o ahead of him.

Listing five world class players, when many more play in England still (we have the best strikers in the world, the best left backs, the best centre backs, the best defensive midfielder), is not enough to say "Spain's tax rate has been a major part of their attracting players!". But don't let that get in your way.

[Les Girondins]

Given the unfortunate way SI plays whack-a-mole with the game parameters as we lurch from extreme to extreme with each new patch, I'd shudder to imagine what manner of horror dynamic league reps would have on career games ..

And yes, I am off my cat nip today. Garrrrr!

[RBKalle]

Again, you're just going on the media without looking at it. Saying "world class players were here and here at this time" is just naive. In the 00s, most "world class" players probably played in Spain. Zidane, Figo, Ronaldinho, Messi, Eto'o, Cannavaro, Carlos, Beckham, Ronaldo, Owen...

I daresay half of those Stars moved to Spain thanks to fatass contract offers rather than for the standard of the League.

Especially those who were already "made", and were looking for a final stint of (well paid) excellence.

Only Messi, Dinho, Eto'o and Carlos can be considered true "Spanish" top stars, among those you named.

Ronaldo wanted to go to Madrid for years. He was a boyhood Madrid fan, his mother said she wanted to see him play for them before she died. He was able to use the return of Perez, his shady money and love of big names to secure a larger wage than at United. Wages didn't come into it.

I have yet to hear a player say "heh, I support ____ [insert rival club], but I'm glad to be here nonetheless"

Kaka was at a club who were failing, and wanted to go somewhere he could win trophies. Chelsea ultimately didn't want him, I can't remember why, but it wasn't wages. Possibly climate, like Ribery?

It was trophies, money AND prestige. Real could give him all three, Chelsea money for sure, proabably some trophies, but in terms of prestige... no dice.

When it came down to it, the only offer Liverpool actually accepted was Madrid's, not Juve's.

Indeed. Juve were too cheap, and the contract offer would have been no match for Real's anyway.

So, yes, I'd say a large part of Ibra not going to England was that he wasn't good enough. I'd take him ahead of Van Persie, and Berbatov, but only just. I'd also take Eto'o ahead of him.

I strongly disagree here...

Ibra is moody, selfish and often lazy, but he can win you a game, ANY game, with a crafty trick out of nothing. He's not a team player, so building a tactical project around him is wasted time and effort, but I'd rather have him on my side even if it means sacrificing a bit of tactical planning.

Eto'o is a better striker, but he has less "genius".

Van Persie is a different kind of player, and good God, Berbatov shouldn't even be named in the same sentence of Ibrahimovic...

The Bulgarian is Europa League-material, AT BEST...

Listing five world class players, when many more play in England still (we have the best strikers in the world, the best left backs, the best centre backs, the best defensive midfielder), is not enough to say "Spain's tax rate has been a major part of their attracting players!". But don't let that get in your way.

I just "listed" those who were listed to me in the first place...

Spain has lower taxation [beckam Law nonwithstanding], England has Sky's money and tycoons' bottomless wallets... the result is still the same: those two leagues are mauling the rest of Europe thanks to "outside" factors.

[baker.simon]

Reading all the above, I still vote for dynamic league rep. - even a 1-2 point "move" of it through time can be exciting...

So a Hungarian league could move up to the level of Denmark or Switzerland, e.g.

That's probably the soundest way og achieveing this. So all leagues have ability to 'float' in reputation.

[ac13]

i'm not sure changes are that static. In 10 years Italy has gone from being the number 1 league in Europe to arguably being the number 5 league (uefa coefficients for last 2 years have seen Germany and France close the gap on them quite a bit) and this year it looks like it may well be the same with possibly 0 teams in CL 1/4f and just the 1 team left in the euro cup wheras france/germany look like they may well have more. Looking at the big players moving to italy there have been very few in the last couple of season. Most of the top players there are now home grown or players who have been at clubs for a while. I would think the leagues rep has probably gone from about a 19 to a 15 in pretty quick time.

on the Scottish league front if teams like Aberdeen, Hearts etc made a decent run of things in the UEFA cup then more players would want to move to the league. But with them getting hammered more often than not by fairly obscure teams the fact that Celtic and Rangers get some European games is just not enough. On the other hand if they won the champions league 4/5 times in 10 years and the other teams were still rubbish some big players would probably go just for the cash and glory.

[Muhtesem]

I think it's a great idea and that it should be totally uncapped. Yes, it may not be very likely that Malta becomes the top league in Europe, and it should be VERY hard for it to become that in the game - but not impossible. If you win the Champions Leauge with Valetta several years in a row, and Malta get more European spots as a result, and the other Maltese teams, who get to play in Europe, are succesful as well, then of course Malta as a whole should get a better reputation as a league. This could be based on the European co-efficients and world rankings to some degree - and I'm surprised, that it's not already like that?

FM is a simulation, and simulations need to be able to evolve in different and sometimes unpredictable directions. Realism is not equal predictability.

totally agree.

[Speedy.Martini]

I agree that the reputations should dynamic but they should also be capped. For example Lyon/Bordeaux have performed well in the CL recent years, but they still can't attract a top player from abroad. So I guess the France is now at the maximum of his reputation.

Maybe, in combination to the dynamic reputation, a clubs reputation could also rise above the league repution (don't know if this is already in te game), so a club could buy better players after succes, but these players get "bored" after a season because of the lower leaugue reputation

[Juan]

I'm actually disappointed that FM10 doesn't have this (I haven't had a save long enough to check). I vote yes.

Another reason to have dynamic league reputation, which may be less than completely realistic. In one of my long-term/journeyman saves back in FM07, I regularily made the Champions League quarterfinals with Shakhtar, even winning it occasionally. With a team of such caliber, my challenges in the domestic league were things like "can I keep breaking my own record for goals scored each season?" or even "can I go an entire year without dropping a single point?". With dynamic league reputation, one could keep a degree of difficulty in the domestic league under these situations.

BTW, If I were to try to establish dynamic league rep by myself using editors, what would I need to edit?

[Dar2000]

I would certainly be in favour of league reps being able to change to a realistic degree as has already been mentioned.

I think the higher the rep the quicker it can change both ways.

For example:

I imagine the top leagues in Germany, Portugal, France and Netherlands for example would be a rating between 15 - 17 or something similar at the mo. (Don't have FM on this PC to check). These leagues should be able to move up towards the 18-20 zone quite quickly with continued success in European competetions. TV revenue would therefore increase and stadia would fill up more often on match days.

It would also be possible for these teams to scale back down towards 15 just as quickly, but would stop there and take years of financial trouble and lack of future success to head into the 10-14 zone, simply because of the history of some of the teams competing in those leagues.

Obscure leagues with single figure ratings would have to slowly increase their reputation, maybe 1 point every 5 years or so. If they could increase at the same speed as wealthier leagues then you would have a completely unrealistic rise in finances.

Either the game will become a wash with superpower leagues from all across the world or we could have some of our favourite top leagues falling into obscurity!

I can see this being a very tricky thing to balance

[Arkim]

I agree that the reputations should dynamic but they should also be capped. For example Lyon/Bordeaux have performed well in the CL recent years, but they still can't attract a top player from abroad. So I guess the France is now at the maximum of his reputation.

Keep in mind that the success of a couple of teams doesn't represent the league as a whole. Just because a couple of clubs have been doing well doesn't mean the league has improved. As for a cap, in terms of numbers, the cap is at 20 out of a scale of 1 to 20. This is already included in the game and is fine, however the potential of a league's reputation going and up down isn't and the mechanism is what's needed.

[Scath]

Keep in mind that the success of a couple of teams doesn't represent the league as a whole. Just because a couple of clubs have been doing well doesn't mean the league has improved. As for a cap, in terms of numbers, the cap is at 20 out of a scale of 1 to 20. This is already included in the game and is fine, however the potential of a league's reputation going and up down isn't and the mechanism is what's needed.

Well...

Players are now willing to go to English clubs like Wigan, Hull, etc because of what Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, et al have achieved.

It can work that way.

[Speedy.Martini]

Well...

Players are now willing to go to English clubs like Wigan, Hull, etc because of what Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, et al have achieved.

It can work that way.

I guess players willing to go to clubs like Wigan and Hull has more to do with money then reputation. For example Ajax has a bigger reputation then Wigan (I think), but Wigan can pay a higher salary, thus the player goes to Wigan. I agree that this isn't a good example because the PL is a higher profile league. But if you want dynamic league reputions, you should also adjust tv-money, sponsorships etc.

[Blacksquare]

Just make it a box you tick at the start of the game? "Use dynamic league reputation".

Thank you! I hate being denied a feature because someone doesn't like it.

[Luckz]

I agree that the reputations should dynamic but they should also be capped. For example Lyon/Bordeaux have performed well in the CL recent years, but they still can't attract a top player from abroad. So I guess the France is now at the maximum of his reputation.

Maybe, in combination to the dynamic reputation, a clubs reputation could also rise above the league repution (don't know if this is already in te game), so a club could buy better players after succes, but these players get "bored" after a season because of the lower leaugue reputation

I don't know about you, but as far as I'm concerned a good bunch of Top Players went to France this season. Lucho Gonzalez, Lisandro Lopez, etc. I guess I'm not gonna pretend Heinze still was a brightly shining star on the football skies anymore.

BTW, If I were to try to establish dynamic league rep by myself using editors, what would I need to edit?

Start FM & FMRTE, load your game, click Load Game in FMRTE, navigate to the league you want to edit in FM10, click Current Screen in FMRTE, fiddle with the Reputation field on a 1-20 scale, click Save Changes at the top, voila.

Keep in mind that the success of a couple of teams doesn't represent the league as a whole. Just because a couple of clubs have been doing well doesn't mean the league has improved. As for a cap, in terms of numbers, the cap is at 20 out of a scale of 1 to 20. This is already included in the game and is fine, however the potential of a league's reputation going and up down isn't and the mechanism is what's needed.

With 'capping', people here mean putting a cap on the possible divergence in reputation from the starting reputation of a league. So that Malta can't be as cool as La Liga, ultimately, no matter how cute your Maltese team is at winning the CL 20x in a row.

[callum-douglas]

I definitely see where you're coming from baker.simon, but I would probably sway on the side on 'no' for the simple reason that one team does not define a league.

Why are the top European Leagues of Spain/Italy/England recognised as superior: because of a deep rooted quality in many of their teams, not just one. Regardless of the success you could command with a team in any traditional 'minor' league, who is to say that the other teams would progress in a like minded fashion? If you had an entire league's reputation being dependent on the success of just 1 team then the idea seems to shoot itself in the foot somewhat. Although the Barcelona's and the Manchester United's of the world have consistent success, they are always being pressured and jostling with other teams of inarguable quality in their leagues.

Although as you say, a career game can lead you to any number of teams, FM still remains essentially a '1 team at a time' game: even in a career game your focus at any one time would be 100% rooted in a specific team obviously. Therfore, it would always be impossible to escape from the idea that a league's 'dynamic reputation' would forever be dependent on the success of an individual team, and this is not what crafts a top league in my opinion.

I would be interested to see what people feel about this?

[Serdar]

Yes but the change must be very very slow. Rankings should not be upside down in 5 years regardless to winners of international cups.

It is true that some nations such as Russia are raising its level and maybe some can say that Italian league is not as good as it used to be 10 years ago but still if you can compare the overall ranking of current situation with lets say 1990, there will be only couple of nations which has changed its position noticeably. So I'm in for very slow paced changes.

Also IRL whenever these sort of changes happens, it is usually due to events which are not directly related footboll events. Such as Russians are doing better because now they have chairmans investing heavily into football, Italian football was hit by Juve/Milan court case.....

[Arkim]

With 'capping', people here mean putting a cap on the possible divergence in reputation from the starting reputation of a league. So that Malta can't be as cool as La Liga, ultimately, no matter how cute your Maltese team is at winning the CL 20x in a row.

If you make it even more limiting then the 1-20 ranking already in place, what's the point of having the dynamic reputation? The example you gave is extreme and something like that to occur would take many years in the game, not to mention it has to be more than just 1 team winning everything. The league as a whole has to have competitive teams, several of them, participating in major European/Continental tournaments each season. One team should definitely have an effect, however it shouldn't be such a dramatic and definitely not the only one.

[nine_iron]

If i was asked to code it i would cry

[heathxxx]

Dumb question, but do the number of CL/Europa League spots available to a minor league change with continued success at the very least? ie if Northern Irish teams win the CL consistently somehow, with other NI teams also doing ok, will the no. of spots increase to two or three?

That would be more to do with the European coefficient rating for the country. If teams from a particular country do well in European football, the coefficient rating will grow. Eventually, even a small country could gain more places in European competition.

It would take a considerable amount of time to equal or surpass the coefficient ratings of countries like England, Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Portugal though. A small nation would need it's teams competing in European competition to be reaching the semi-finals or better every year for a good number of years.

Hope that clarifies that aspect of things more

As for dynamic league reputations, I was at one time in favour(ish) with the concept. Having given it thought over a few releases, it's only really going to be beneficial over very long-term saves.

I believe the current system is more realistic and suited to the game. Even with a dynamic league reputation, unless all the teams in Iceland (for example), received huge cash injections (to enable "better" signings), all their teams consistently rose in reputation through repeated continental success, thus theoretically raising league reputation, it's still going to take a long time for the league reputation to raise.

To my mind, "dynamic" league reputations is something that's best left to user edited db games.

[backpackant]

It would take decades for the Ukraine to catch up with France, never mind England. If you're talking many many years then fine, but leagues don't fluctuate that much at all, so I don't think it should be a priority.

[barka_legend]

Fantastic idea, is a MUST.

[jld123]

Is this being looked at by SI? I can't find any official word on it.

For me, implementing this would give the game a bit more purpose for those that like a challenge, or enjoy playing in obscure leagues. It would also massively enhance long-term playability. It's what FM is all about for me: lots of realism but also the potential to do something a little bit fantastic.

[Luckz]

I find doing it manually in FMRTE an acceptable workaround.

[dafuge]

I voted yes, but only if it was done really well. This is the sort of thing that if it is slightly out would cause chaos with our long term save games.

[ArsenalFan7]

Yes.

-------

[Klapp]

I think dynamic league reputation should only be introduced if done properly. I'm afraid it will be too difficult to model successfully and, even if SI is able to pull it of, I'm not sure it would solve the main problem with long term games in smaller nations: players becoming unsettled and wanting to move to "bigger" clubs, no matter how successful your club is.

For example, if the in-game reputation of the Northern Irish Premier League rises from 6 to 10 after 30 seasons, I think many players would still want to leave. Dynamic league reputation alone won't solve the main problem.

Instead, I think it might be safer to stop the league's reputation from capping the club's reputation too severely. This way, if your club is consistently performing in Europe (winning the Europa League, reaching the knockout stages of the Champions League, etc) its reputation won't be slashed at every league reset date and players will be less likely to want to leave.

I think this way the gaming experience will be balanced. You still wouldn't be able to sign the top players from Barcelona, Real Madrid, etc, but you would be able to buy young promising players from around the world and develop a formidable team. NepentheZ's Knockbreda career is a great example: he was able to sign a lot of promising young players but it was hard to get them to sign new deals once they became top players. If SI is able to make players willingness to re-sign with clubs from low reputation leagues more dependent on the club's performance (with special emphasis on international competitions) and reputation, instead of league reputation, I think the results can be satisfying. You wouldn't have to rely on other teams' performances to keep your own players from wanting to leave. If you win the Champions League several times in a row with a Northern Irish team it wouldn't make sense if players wanted to move to a mid-table EPL club solely because of the league reputation (however it would be understandable if they wanted you to accept an offer from Manchester United, because their club reputation is consistently "worldwide").

The value of players should be dealt in a similar way: if you win the Champions League with a team from a low reputation league, player values should increase accordingly, because in real life they would be sold for hefty fees (FC Porto is a good example). League reputation keeps players' values too low. Again, the league's reputation shouldn't cap player values too severely: for balancing purposes, the performance in european competitions should have much more influence in the valuation of a player than domestic competitions when it comes to low reputation leagues (the valuation in bigger leagues should remain unchanged, because their domestic competitions are more significant). Of course the low stature of the domestic competitions would still have a negative effect on player values, but it would be much less than it currently is. Overall I think the game would become more enjoyable and it would probably be easier to implement than dynamic league reputation.

[DanTheMan999]

To be quite honest, with nearly 90% of the vote, this has to be at least looked into properly.

The TV money used to change in 01/02 if clubs from smaller countries won the CL. A game I played with Anderlecht, their TV money eventually tripled after about 10 years of massive success.

[Brian Shanahan]

I previously outlined a system (with the proviso of me not knowing how hard it would be to code) which would put a work-around on the reputations working too quickly. Using a statistical analysis of the level of change in average team ratings over the leagues selected over a number of years (I used 3 in my example but it can be lengthened for a more long term perspective), and using the standard deviation of a particular league's change relative to overall change, you get the positioning for leagues. The rep scale would have to be changed massively but a change to the scale of 0-10,000 as used for clubs should be sufficient.

Most changes would be pretty small and would only accumulate over time. This would also mitigate a human team from a small league distorting the result severely if they manage to pull off numerous continental and world titles over the course of a save, while also allowing that small league to grow.

[muncherdave]

I voted yes, but only if it was done really well. This is the sort of thing that if it is slightly out would cause chaos with our long term save games.

Sure, it could have some teething problems in the first couple of years of it being introduced, but the damage could be minimized by having it as an option in the editor and letting people change it as they see fit. Or as heath suggested, only allowing it for edited databases, so people can add it if they wish. I do think it wouldn't be easy assessing every country to decide just what sort of cap they could theoretically have though.

I really think any negative effects it caused in the short term would ultimately be worth it in the end. There is plenty of frustration in longterm saves whilst managing clubs from nations outside the current top 5 like RBKalle said and it's one of those suggestions that could get more people into playing longterm saves at the end of the day. Anything that helps to increase longevity for its users can only be a good thing for Football Manager and really needs looking into imo.

[flipo lotti]

Good idea definitely. I used to think this was in the game just because it makes sense.

[The Eagle]

This is a great idea IMO. Turkey and Greece are very good examples. In 80's, even early 90's Turkish national team and club teams are considered to be very easy teams to beat. However in 2002 Turkey were 3rd in World Cup, and attended last 2 Euro Cups out of 3. Again Greece won Euro Cup. No-one were expecting to make finals for Greece in 80's 90's.

Bulgaria is another great example. When they were very good in mid 90's they were able to export players abroad such as Stoichkov, Kostadinov, Letchkov. And most of theri strong players are targeted and played in strong European tams. Nowadays they dropped back again. It is impossible without the Dynamic League Reputation to bounce up and down for Nations like Bulgaria. It is happening IRL, why shouldn't it happen in FM? Of course as baker said with a limited amount of range.

[dafuge]

It is happening IRL, why shouldn't it happen in FM? Of course as baker said with a limited amount of range.

I think that is the key, the extent to which it can happen. I may be wrong but I think there is already a little bit of fluctuation with league reputation in the game, but not a lot, and not enough to make the difference that people want.

As much as I'd like to take a country like Northern Ireland and make them a force in European club competition, it would be pushing the boundaries of reality for me. However, taking Italy back to being the major force in Europe would be lot more acceptable and I'm wondering if this is currently possible in the game?

[Praczy]

I think that is the key, the extent to which it can happen. I may be wrong but I think there is already a little bit of fluctuation with league reputation in the game, but not a lot, and not enough to make the difference that people want.

No, there isn't any at the moment (there are changes to club reputation, but IIRC these are capped/tied to the league and league itself is a limiting factor also).

[dafuge]

No, there isn't any at the moment (there are changes to club reputation, but IIRC these are capped/tied to the league and league itself is a limiting factor also).

Ah right, I could have sworn I'd read about league reputations making tiny moves. I'm probably getting mixed up with changes between FM versions.

[The Eagle]

I think that is the key, the extent to which it can happen. I may be wrong but I think there is already a little bit of fluctuation with league reputation in the game, but not a lot, and not enough to make the difference that people want.

As much as I'd like to take a country like Northern Ireland and make them a force in European club competition, it would be pushing the boundaries of reality for me. However, taking Italy back to being the major force in Europe would be lot more acceptable and I'm wondering if this is currently possible in the game?

I think it should relate to the stability on team management as well. I am nor sure whether it can be implemented or not. The best example I could give is Turkey since I am Turkish. We tend to loose 5 out of 7 games in National team in 80's and early 90's. However National team stick with Sepp Piontek, and with his assistant Fatih Terim. With Terim we were able to make our first Euro-Cup. The team which were the 3rd in World Cup is again the team Fatih Terim created back 90's. Then again Galatasaray stick with Fatih Terim for 4 years and they won Euro-Cup (of course with George Hagi's big help). However when Terim brought Hagi to Galatasaray; Hagi were worn out by European clubs. Sticking to him brings the success.

Nowadays if I say Finland , Austria or Hungary will become 3rd in World Cup in year 2025, most people will say that is impossible. Moreover with the League Reputation system in Game it is impossible IMO. It is the same thing someone saying that Turkey will become 3rd in World Cup in 1985 or 1990. Or someone saying Galatasaray would win Euro-Cup in 1990. Also check the TV Revenue Action that took place in Turkey this year. All together the auction closed with around 270 mil$. It was impossible to guess this in 90's or 80's.

[Marquez]

I am totally in favour of this.

[Brian Shanahan]

Ah right, I could have sworn I'd read about league reputations making tiny moves. I'm probably getting mixed up with changes between FM versions.

They get moved from game to game by the researchers, an example being that i heard the Dutch rep went form 16 to 14 between last year and this year. However anything I've heard about it says that within the game the reps are static.