Club History Attribute

[Nomis07]

I'm not even sure if I like this idea, but i'll give it a shot anyway

Should the clubs in FM have a history attribute as well as a reputation attribute? I assume that all clubs lose and gain reputation at a similar rate based on a variety of circumstances, correct me if i'm wrong (and if I am this idea really is pointless).

So in theory, it could be 2016 and Liverpool and Aston Villa are struggling in the prem and end up getting relegated, they enter the Championship with identical reputation scores and over the next 5 seasons have identical runs of form in league and cup competitions. As I see it (and again correct me if i'm wrong), because they started with the same rep and have identical histories over those 5 seasons, they should both continue to have identical reputations. That means they are on level playing field re: attracting players etc, but in reality we all know Liverpool would still have the upper hand in that respect, because of their history rather than their current reputation.

So should clubs include a history attribute that plays a part in their appeal to players/managers? That way the current reputation of the club remains, but their historical appeal maintains that extra little bit of prestige certain clubs have.

[glamdring]

Mebee...

Nottingham Forest come to mind (and Leeds to a lesser extent), although I guess in Leeds' case it's more just a "big club" attribute rather than historical, although they obviously do have a more successful history than other League 1 clubs! I'm a Derby County fan though so I would object to anything that bumped Nottingham F****t's reputation up any further than is natural

[ssestig]

good idea though it might come with added pressure on the manager to succeed. was thinking of forest as well while posting.

[Nomis07]

Mebee...

Nottingham Forest come to mind (and Leeds to a lesser extent), although I guess in Leeds' case it's more just a "big club" attribute rather than historical, although they obviously do have a more successful history than other League 1 clubs! I'm a Derby County fan though so I would object to anything that bumped Nottingham F****t's reputation up any further than is natural

Yeah, i'm not convinced either, and it's the Leeds thing that's putting me off

ssestig, the added pressure should probably be in the game anyway.

[dankrzyz]

Are you saying that there should be a short- and a long-term "reputation" given to each club? "Reputation" being the past several years, "history" being over a number of decades. For example: over the long-term, a team like Liverpool has a top reputation, but in recent years their reputation is probably second level. It would give credit to you if you took a previously-unknown team to a number of big league and continental wins, but would still honor those traditional powerhouses.

If that is what you meant... ideas on how these two variables would work together in different aspects of the game?

[Nomis07]

Not necessarily short and long term, but static and non-static. Reputation is how the club is perceived re: their current ability so obviously the amount would fluxuate, whereas their standing in a historical sense wouldn't fluxuate and would remain static. It means that two teams could have an identical reputation, but their overall appeal may be different due to the history of the club.

[SCIAG]

As long as it is only used as a deciding factor. What I mean by that is, it should be more like the British medal table where silvers only matter if golds are tied than the American one where all the medals count equal. Reputation should 100 and history 1 should "beat" rep 99 and history 10000, if that makes sense.

I mean, surely for a player, Wigan>>>>>Forest, and even Hull>>>Forest and Reading>>>Forest.

[dankrzyz]

Reputation is how the club is perceived re: their current ability so obviously the amount would fluxuate, whereas their standing in a historical sense wouldn't fluxuate and would remain static.

Yes, yes, that's a better description of what I was trying to say. You put it better than I could. At first thought, this is an idea that appeals to me.

[rekluse]

I'm not too sure about this idea, doesn't look like you are either haha. The only thing I can see you are wanting to use this for is attracting players and the real life examples of this are far and few between. Players aren't really more likely to join Nottm Forest over Swansea based on 'history'. Most of the players would choose the team with the most performances or the one whose more financially sound.

Some of the teams with a history simply have a larger fan base because of this so have more income and/or larger grounds than their league counterparts, and so players opt for those reasons and just talk about 'joining a team with such a rich history', what they really mean is 'joining a team that's so rich'.

[SCIAG]

Surely history should move? If I won the CL 5 times in a row with Chimney Corner, that would mean that they'd have a history as strong as any English club?

[Arsenal_Fan_1986]

I think rep would be used to attract players, so in the Liverpool and villa example both should attract same players. But history I think could attract managers. A well known manager or even a former manager of the club wanting the challenge of returning the clubs to their former glory! So in the same mentioned case, Liverpool would attract the better managers.

Although after so many years this would have to wear off. After 40 years in league one no one will remember how the teams used to be and would be just another lower league team.

[Nomis07]

SCIAG, yes it should only become active if reputation is identical, but that is probably very hard to code.

Rekluse, I understand your concerns, and I probably share some of them, but this would only feature if Swansea and Forest were in a similar position and a similar rep. I wouldn't want a player signing for a league 1 Forest instead of a Championship Barnsley, just because of this attribute.

[Nomis07]

Surely history should move? If I won the CL 5 times in a row with Chimney Corner, that would mean that they'd have a history as strong as any English club?

Yes, and IMO deservedly. The likes of Ajax and Bayern Munich have a stronger history than Arsenal for isntance, even though their reputation probably isn't comparable in recent FM's.

[dankrzyz]

Surely history should move? If I won the CL 5 times in a row with Chimney Corner, that would mean that they'd have a history as strong as any English club?

Certainly that would increase your current reputation, but history... when I think about that, I think about the longer history of the club. I'm thinking 50 years or more. Liverpool, ManUtd, Ajax, Inter, Bayern Munich, Juventus... "storied" clubs like that.

Yes, and IMO deservedly. The likes of Ajax and Bayern Munich have a stronger history than Arsenal for isntance, even though their reputation probably isn't comparable in recent FM's.

Yes.

[PGB_SPURS_FM09]

Certainly that would increase your current reputation, but history... when I think about that, I think about the longer history of the club. I'm thinking 50 years or more. Liverpool, ManUtd, Ajax, Inter, Bayern Munich, Juventus... "storied" clubs like that.

Yes.

Could help teams like spurs to sign decent players like in real life maybe? Obviously lots will say spurs players are awful... But ingame for example Modric would never sign for tottenham over chelsea yet in real life he did! Many players/coaches look at tottenhams history and the fans!

Also Dos Santos

[glamdring]

History should just be some kind of moving average over a wide time scale (e.g. 50 or 100 years) so as you progress further into the game your own recent history starts to add to this and history from 101 years ago drops off as being too long ago to be relevant.

[Amaroq]

History should just be some kind of moving average over a wide time scale (e.g. 50 or 100 years) so as you progress further into the game your own recent history starts to add to this and history from 101 years ago drops off as being too long ago to be relevant.

I do like the idea - I agree that a "long-term reputation" would be a very nice addition - perhaps an influence on long-term goals (e.g., 5-year-plan), youth player movement, favorite player for newgens, and expected reputation for a manager to be hired.

However, I'm not 100% convinced that there isn't such a beast present already. As evidence, I'd ask that people who have seen Manchester United struggle detail their experience with the Man U. board's subsequent expectations.

The one time I saw Man U. in the Championship, the expectation was "Win the Championship."

Also, after seeing a still-in-the-EPL United limp to, I believe, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 10th in consecutive seasons (missing Europe in the second-to-last, and firing their manager halfway through each) .. the manager who took over in the fourth year was an AI manager who inherited a team struggling in 13th place. He managed to win the F.A. Cup, thus qualifying for Europe, while raising the team to 10th ... and the following year, was second behind a club that had been dominant (winning the EPL the previous four seasons.) He was sacked before the end of the season, presumably for not winning.

Now, that pre-dated the "pick your poison" board, where perhaps he might have selected a lower ambition than "Win the EPL" .. but it did seem to indicate to me that some aspect of the Man U reputation was pegged much higher than, say, Fulham, Southampton, or Sheffield United would have been had they just placed 7th and 10th.

[melevolence]

As a Forest fan I feel that after our decade of shame I am in a reasonably informed position to comment here.

The reality of the situation - as far as attracting players goes - is that club history has far, far less importance than current league standing. This is because a Premier League team will be able to offer much higher wages, and TV exposure to a far wider audience, even if the club doesn't qualify for European competition.

Forest, for all our glorious history failed repeatedly to attract many players during the Third Division horror show for these reasons, in addition to the fact that players are loathe to play at what they consider to be a level or more beneath their ability.

I'm sorry but based on direct experience I don't think this history attribute, at least for inducing player transfers, reflects the 'real world.'

[bl0u6344]

Well I suppose you could arguably look at Juventus a couple of seasons back, relegated (although a punishment) to Serie B. Very few players if any left, and they still had a high rep manager, and high rep players signing for them.

Although in this case current rep would still be high, but it would have took a hit and the fact is alot of very very good players were willing to go there or stay there.

[rekluse]

Well I suppose you could arguably look at Juventus a couple of seasons back, relegated (although a punishment) to Serie B. Very few players if any left, and they still had a high rep manager, and high rep players signing for them.

Although in this case current rep would still be high, but it would have took a hit and the fact is alot of very very good players were willing to go there or stay there.

I don't think that can really be used as an example, some players did leave (cannavaro) but I'm sure many would have left had they had an epic collapse and actually been relegated through play.

[bermybhoy]

I like this idea as well. I think this possibly works stronger in reverse though, whereby it's hard for 'new' big teams to establish a fan base and attract players than it is for ones with a long history.

What I'm saying is that, for example, although Wimbledon were in the top division for a good number of years, they were always ranked as outsiders, never had many fans and would always struggle to find players. In the same way (as I see it obviously) Chelsea are unlikely to be as big as Man Utd, Liverpool or the like for a good number of years in terms of worldwide appeal and fanbase, as they lack the same history as those clubs.

[Nomis07]

The reality of the situation - as far as attracting players goes - is that club history has far, far less importance than current league standing. This is because a Premier League team will be able to offer much higher wages, and TV exposure to a far wider audience, even if the club doesn't qualify for European competition.

You're missing the point of when this attribute would become active. If a team has a higher rep then the attribute is basically dorment, but if Forest and a team in a similar position to them and identical rep went in for a player, then the history attribute would take effect.

There's no way on earth a league 1 forest would get a player ahead of a Premier league Stoke, but if Stoke were to end up in league 1, along with Forest, and had an identical rep as Forest, Forest would become the more attractive proposition to a player because of their history attribute.