Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

*** Disclaimer*** First and foremost as always, I unfortunately feel the need to inform anybody that reads this that this isn't a rant or a flaming post. All of my posts are meant to foster discussion. Sometimes, sadly the community turns against one another. Secondly, since I discovered FM, I've had nothing but success at it... The first few versions I lucked into it and everything past that has been about applying real world tactics within the confines of the definitions of Football Manager. 

I would presume that it's wide spread knowledge that club and manager reputation is considered to be broken by most users. A user can win league, cup, and Champions League title year after year only to see their reputation barely increase and in some cases even drop. This has been observed by users playing in leagues with low reputations as well as users playing in leagues such as the EPL. 

The reason that this is an issue for most players is that reputation has been programmed such a far-reaching impact on the game. It affects sponsorship money, the level of player you're able to attract, transfer and contract fees (incoming and outgoing), etc. This is effectively shown here Football Manager Reputation Experiment . 

In this three part experiment, the user gives non-league side Halifax the maximum reputation in the game while dropping Arsenal's reputation to the lowest possible. An overview of the impact is that Arsenal were forced to sell a large majority of their starting players during the first three transfer windows while being unable to bring any player in. Over the course of four seasons they became a Euro Cup tier side. Meanwhile, Halifax stormed up the leagues and made a fair amount of money while doing it. 

But what's particularly of note for my point is that in four years, Arsenal went from a reputation of 1 (the lowest you can possibly have) to about 5500 (about three stars). That's a massive jump in a relatively short amount of time for a side that lost most of it's well-known players, staff, and only qualified for the Euro Cup here and there. I say massive relative to how a user-controlled team's reputation seems to work. Again, despite user's signing or developing some of the world's most renowned players, winning the biggest competitions in successive years, taking on big names in pre-season setups, the reputation never jumps that quickly in that amount of time. 

So the question becomes about if there are mechanics in play to artificially influence a user-controlled team's reputation. It would seem that there's a strong possibility that this is true and it would make sense. Many users become bored after they feel that they can buy any regen and basically plug and play. So it would make sense that if users can achieve unrealistic success with minnow clubs, perhaps the developers felt that having a more "realistic" reputation system would lead to a degraded challenge and experience. Basically, by having the AI team's reputation be more dynamic, it allows for a continued and varied challenge for the user over the course of a save. What are your thoughts on this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ktime156 said:

I would presume that it's wide spread knowledge that club and manager reputation is considered to be broken by most users

Sorry but you can't claim that, you can have your own opinion but you can't speak for "most" users.

Personally I wouldn't call it broken, sure it could be improved but it works fairly well as it is.

As I understand it there is nothing different between an AI or user controlled club, the reputation increases & decreases would be the same if two identical teams performed identically.

You seem to have two main issues:

A) The first is where club rep is limited by league rep - This is reflected in real life simply by looking at clubs like Celtic & Ajax.  Both play in lower rep leagues and as such their influence in World football has fallen over the last 20 years.

B) The second is based on a flawed experiment - Even though the user changed Arsenal's rep, he didn't change the facilities, money, quality of players that were at the club.  All these things play a part in the reputation so its no surprise Arsenal quickly regained a good chunk of it.  Its simply a case of unrealistic input = unrealistic output because a club of that size would never lose that much rep overnight in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Premier League club playing Premier League matches Arsenal's reputation would rise much quicker than a team playing in League Two. Their reputation is based in part on results, league status and players. 

There are no mechanics in-play to artificially boost well-known teams over less well known teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cougar2010 Allow me to clear that up. Each version of FM breeds several posts from users who can't seem to raise their reputation despite winning everything possible. And from my personal conversations and research, it seems that some users acknowledge but get on with it as I myself have done. But you're right not most. 

A) In this example, those clubs also haven't won the Champions League year after year. If those clubs were to make like PSG and become even Champions leagues Finals contenders each season, then their profile (reputation) would rise globally. We saw this IRL with Leicester when they won the EPL. While it's wearing off now, the stats show that there was a carryover affect last season despite them having a rough go. 

B) As stated, the experiment shows the affect of having a low reputation. If you'd watched the series you'd note that Arsenal had to sell a good chunk of their players over the first three seasons before getting okay players to come in finally in their fourth. That would mean that a lot of those players that should be making an impact on their reputation is no longer there. Also with Halifax FC, he also didn't change any of those factors. He isolated reputation specifically. It correlated with non-league side Halifax rising up fairly quickly. They didn't magically have the best facilities in the world. Also dismissing the experiment as unrealistic IRL (obviously) is odd because while FM does a fantastic job of being perhaps the most realistic sim on the market, it can't possibly reflect everything about football IRL. The surprise is how quickly Arsenal regained that status DESPITE being forced to sale so many players, being unable to bring in any players for three seasons, and falling to an upper-middle table side. 

Edited by ktime156

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Neil Brock Sorry I don't think that I explained what I was saying very well then. This much is obvious to anybody that follows FM or football IRL. What I'm saying is that Arsenal lost a large chunk of their players in the first few seasons (by force) in the video. Their results and league status dropped. I've never said that the question is about well-known teams being boosted over lesser known teams. 

What I pointed to was the fact that despite losing so much of what is supposed to go into reputation, Arsenal's rep recovered at a relatively quick rate. This was interesting when viewed against other user's who I've seen manage teams in the EPL, win the league title, Champions League, every cup, etc. for multiple successive years (let's say 5-10) and check on their rep to see it relatively the same or actually drop! If you're asking if I think it's perfectly reasonable that Arsenal would rebound in that manner while playing in the EPL and finishing on those positions than of course. That's what I'm saying. But greater success over a longer period of time doesn't appear to have the same affect on some user's teams. 

You did bring up where I eventually wanted this discussion to go which is how much do certain factors actually play into reputation based on this. For example, in year's past I'd pick up a Ronaldhino or other fallen and aged star with a high reputation each season to boost rep. I'd also do things like a few pre-season cups with larger reputation teams each pre-season. But if you have user managers that are winning their leagues, Champions League, etc. each season but having issues with their reputations going up, and you have AI Arsenal with many of their players sold, dropping in results, etc. having their reputation shoot up at a relatively realistic rate, I think that there can be questions over why that is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ktime156 said:

@Cougar2010 Allow me to clear that up. Each version of FM breeds several posts from users who can't seem to raise their reputation despite winning everything possible. And from my personal conversations and research, it seems that most users acknowledge but get on with it as I myself have done. 

A) In this example, those clubs also haven't won the Champions League year after year. If those clubs were to make like PSG and become even Champions leagues Finals contenders each season, then their profile (reputation) would rise globally. We saw this IRL with Leicester when they won the EPL. While it's wearing off now, the stats show that there was a carryover affect last season despite them having a rough go. 

B) As stated, the experiment shows the affect of having a low reputation. If you'd watched the series you'd note that Arsenal had to sell a good chunk of their players over the first three seasons before getting okay players to come in finally in their fourth. That would mean that a lot of those players that should be making an impact on their reputation is no longer there. Also with Halifax FC, he also didn't change any of those factors. He isolated reputation specifically. It correlated with non-league side Halifax rising up fairly quickly. They didn't magically have the best facilities in the world. Also dismissing the experiment as unrealistic IRL (obviously) is odd because while FM does a fantastic job of being perhaps the most realistic sim on the market, it can't possibly reflect everything about football IRL. The surprise is how quickly Arsenal regained that status DESPITE being forced to sale so many players, being unable to bring in any players for three seasons, and falling to an upper-middle table side. 

Again with the "most" users, your personal conversations & research is unlikely to count for even 1% of the user base never mind more.

A) Both PSG & Leicester play in a top five league and Champion's League winners from a top five league can normally attract top players.  The issues come when you take a club from outside of the top five and win multiple European titles.  Its a little unrealistic because if it happened IRL most of the players would leave for a club in a top five league (See Monaco for example this summer who lost a lot of players despite being in a top five league or the likes of Porto in the past).  The other side is you can drag the rest of the league along with you like what PSG have done but that takes time and you need other clubs in the nation to improve as well to raise the overall standard & reputation of the league.

B) The point is its not a surprise that Arsenal regained their rep quickly because they still had their top rated facilities, were still playing in the highest rep league in the game & were still doing ok.  Part of that is the high rep players they lost would have been replaced by players from their quality youth system who would also have gained rep quickly as a result of being afforded more game time than they would normally have got.  You really cannot do these sort of "experiments" and hold the result up as proof of anything.  The situation would never happen IRL and whatever the result in FM you can't expect SI to code for situations that don't happen IRL. 

Given your response and failure to acknowledge the obvious flaws I don't feel there is any point in discussing it further with you as you have stuck your head in the sand.

 

EDIT

Just to be clear I'll also add that if a human user had taken control of Arsenal and had similar results the club would have gained rep at much the same pace.

Edited by Cougar2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cougar2010 So the argument that you're weirdly hung up on is that somehow you have a superior understanding because your pov accounts for more than my pov. This is the issue with people like you in this community and why I made the disclaimer. This personally doesn't affect me as I like the challenge and I get a bit bored each year after winning so much. But it affects users who have taken the time to post about it each year. Rather than saying F off to those users and disenfranchising them, I figured that it'd be helpful to say more than what most people say in those forums which amounts to "sorry bruh, it's broken and it's been broken so you're screwed". 

Your response shows that you didn't comprehend anything about the original post which given your attitude should be embarrassing. Please explain where I asked SI to change their code which would be a pain (as somebody who's worked for a large game studio)? That a manager could take any club regardless of reputation and win the CL 20 years running which I've seen is unrealistic. As I've said previously now, this has be an issue put forth by managers that have managed to build up small sides in very lowly rated leagues and large sides in leagues such as EPL. 

To further simplify and clarify for you, as I've said already and as I'll have to say again, I'm not saying that it's surprising that Arsenal's reputation rose that quickly. I actually clearly stated verbatim that it's realistic that it would if it were IRL. 

52 minutes ago, ktime156 said:

If you're asking if I think it's perfectly reasonable that Arsenal would rebound in that manner while playing in the EPL and finishing on those positions than of course.

And again why are you dismissive when FM is A GAME that regularly sees people choose a team that they've never heard of in a division that they don't follow only to make them the most successful side ever to exist. 

And I hate to embarrass you yet again and again given your immediate combative attitude for no reason, but I can gladly point to users who have played as Arsenal, Tottenham, United, etc. the big clubs and that have retained their players, brought in or bleed in more better players on top of that, gotten better results, but not seen their reputation jump up. In fact the reason that I started this was because I saw a person discouraged by playing Football Manager any longer because he'd won everything but over the course of five years as an already top side but his reputation was going down. This despite maintaining the best facilities possible, having the best back room staff possible, etc.

Look person, the fact that you clearly didn't even read my original post, watch the video, or anything else that I said but still felt entitled to be rude for no other reason than to be rude means that you came into the topic with a preconceived notion and you can't let that go. Proven by the fact that your two arguments against me are literally things that I've agreed with you on multiple times. Do better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ktime156 said:

@Cougar2010 So the argument that you're weirdly hung up on is that somehow you have a superior understanding because your pov accounts for more than my pov. This is the issue with people like you in this community and why I made the disclaimer. This personally doesn't affect me as I like the challenge and I get a bit bored each year after winning so much. But it affects users who have taken the time to post about it each year. Rather than saying F off to those users and disenfranchising them, I figured that it'd be helpful to say more than what most people say in those forums which amounts to "sorry bruh, it's broken and it's been broken so you're screwed". 

What I am hung up on is your arrogant notion that you speak for "most" of the user base and that you claim that its "widespread knowledge" that a function is broken when it clearly isn't.

When its then explained to you instead of acknowledging & understanding it you continue to bang the same drum and imply there is a issue before twisting words to suit your own agenda :rolleyes:

I would post more but I would be wasting my time so this will be my final word on the subject.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Cougar2010 This is what a child does when they're caught in a lie. Please quote where I said that I have widespread knowledge of the coding of Football manager? And in fact I clarified my original post and agree with you about most. Yet you never read anything beyond that. 

What I've said and clarified multiple times now is that there are some users who perceive this to be a problem. With each version I've seen a lot of discussion about reputation. Therefore, it's worthy of a discussion. You've literally come with nothing but a rude attitude. Your counter-argument has been "Well but uh it wouldn't happen in real life so..." despite this being a game in which several things that wouldn't happen in real life regularly happen. When I clearly pointed you to a post that I'd made disproving another one of your points and showing that I agreed with what you're saying but not the spirit, you gave up talking about that point. 

I would say that you're twisting my words but you've made it clear that you didn't read my words. And what words did I twist of yours? That's a legitimate question. Please quote me and I'll clarify or apologize? You can't just throw out argument after argument and then drop it as soon as there's push back if you're going to be rude. YOU'VE made this an unproductive thread simply for attentions sake I suppose. Frankly again, this is embarrassing. 

A) What you've essentially explained is off topic and not conducive to the original discussion in the first place.

B) Your "explanation" literally is the definition of banging the same drum. Despite being presented with new information, you've kept the same line. After being proven guilty of not fully comprehending the subject you kept saying the same thing instead of asking for clarification and I'm assuming that you're afraid of proof otherwise you'd have asked for it. You "explanation" amounts to A GAME is programmed to be realistic in some parts but no others. Explain how users are able to then take clubs outside of the top 20 leagues and win five or more CL titles in a row? A big club winning that in today's world isn't realistic. Your first post added something to the conversation. I clarified. You I guess got embarrassed and instead of admitting that you were wrong as I did about using "most" in my first post, you can't admit that you were wrong. And you keep making it clear that you didn't read my posts but just came to be rude for no reason. 

For everybody else: The original intent for this thread was to discuss why some users feel that there are issues with the club reputation system. A user that isolated the incident did an inconclusive but very curious experiment when cross-referencing these user's posts about their saves. Despite similar or better setups (Success, Players, Facilities, etc) that are said to affect reputation by these users, there have been noted cases in which their reputation actually decreased. In many of these threads they noted that well-renowned teams that had fallen on hard times barely decreased in reputation which would be along the same lines as Halifax who only had a 1400 decrease in reputation despite spending multiple seasons in the non-league status - Football Championship. However, despite losing the majority of their players, having to wait for the reputation of their new squad members to build, and having lesser success than user teams in similar or better setups, Arsenal's reputation not only rose, but rose much quicker at a far more realistic rate. Therefore, I believe that there's something to be discussed. Where as the typical line in this threads is to say that reputation is "broken" or "bugged" I believe that after so many versions of that typical line, it's fair to examine reputation closer. 

That's all. Sorry if that ruffled some feathers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ktime156 said:

This was interesting when viewed against other user's who I've seen manage teams in the EPL, win the league title, Champions League, every cup, etc. for multiple successive years (let's say 5-10) and check on their rep to see it relatively the same or actually drop!

If I'd seen or experienced teams in the EPL winning multiple league & CL titles + cups and their rep had dropped (or remained largely the same), I'd upload a copy of my save game to the Bugs forum and ask SI to take a look.  But first I'd check to make sure nothing else screwy is going on such as using an edited database, 3rd party programs, a dodgy copy of the game and so on to eliminate other possible sources of weird behaviour.

Personally I've never experienced taking lower league teams into the EPL (or current EPL teams), winning multiple titles and not seeing my rep grow by much (or even drop).  In fact for me I'd actually argue rep can be too easy to increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ktime156 said:

I would presume that it's wide spread knowledge that club and manager reputation is considered to be broken by most users.

Not really interested in this thread but you did say this in your first post. I think this is what Cougar argued against. 

I never really thought much about the reputation and definitely didn't know this was supposed to be broken. So I am in the "not most users" social group? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ktime156 said:

For everybody else: The original intent for this thread was to discuss why some users feel that there are issues with the club reputation system. A user that isolated the incident did an inconclusive but very curious experiment when cross-referencing these user's posts about their saves. Despite similar or better setups (Success, Players, Facilities, etc) that are said to affect reputation by these users, there have been noted cases in which their reputation actually decreased. In many of these threads they noted that well-renowned teams that had fallen on hard times barely decreased in reputation which would be along the same lines as Halifax who only had a 1400 decrease in reputation despite spending multiple seasons in the non-league status - Football Championship. However, despite losing the majority of their players, having to wait for the reputation of their new squad members to build, and having lesser success than user teams in similar or better setups, Arsenal's reputation not only rose, but rose much quicker at a far more realistic rate. Therefore, I believe that there's something to be discussed. Where as the typical line in this threads is to say that reputation is "broken" or "bugged" I believe that after so many versions of that typical line, it's fair to examine reputation closer. 

That's all. Sorry if that ruffled some feathers.

The problem with this is you misunderstand how reputation works - reputation increases aren't linear in basic terms reputation is mainly affected by the league you are in, with good results against better teams also increasing your reputation. (basically anything that has a greater rep than you will increase it, and as your rep increases the gap decreases and their are less items that have a rep big enough to keep increasing your rep).

So whilst you have edited Arsenal to have a rep of 1 (which is something that would ever happen naturally in game) they are still in the Premier League (and possibly UCL) so their reputation will rise up as they play games and will increase faster as they beat teams with better reps (which at this point will be any team - they'll also get a boost from playing the League Cup and FA Cup games) they'll also get quick boosts from players - whilst they sell off their star players any player for them will be a reputation boost as they are bigger than the club. So whilst Arsenals rep is below the league rep it will quickly rise to the level of the smaller and then middle range teams. However as their rep increases it becomes harder to increase - when they are at 1rep a player of 1000rep and beating a non-league side in the FA Cup would bring a rise in rep as they are bigger than the club, so the club would quickly reach 1000rep but then to get the same rate of increase they'd now need 2000rep players and to beat 2000rep sides, and the higher you go the harder it gets to increase as there are less higher rep players to sign and teams to beat. Get to a level of say 5,000 and the League Cup is no longer important, nor is beating bottom half teams, get to 9,000 and you now need to be beating the top tier teams, winning the top comps and signing the best players to see an increase.

It's the same with Halifax but in their case their rep is massively above their level so they have no chance to improve their rep and it will be slowly dragged down by their players and the leagues they are in.

Exactly the same things would happen if you just swapped Halifax and Arsenal into each others leagues, same thing would also happen if over time Arsenal fell down the leagues and Halifax rose and it does happen in the game I've seen a couple of big sides nose dive over the years - in my FM16 game Bolton got themselves relegated into the Northern League and spent a good 10 years floating around the non-league levels.

The Halifax issue is also similar to what happens to big teams in smaller leagues - the rep of the league they are in and that of the other teams isn't enough to see them become a big club regardless of their success - you just need to look at the likes of Celtic and Ajax or even Rosenberg all of them have punched above their weight but it just saw their players get poached by mid-level teams in bigger leagues, even Porto winning the Champions League didn't give them a big boost it just resulted in their players being poached, similar thing with the likes of Monaco and Dortmund.

Also one of these teams from smaller countries winning the Champions League 10 years in a row is unrealistic as when one of these teams does well for real not only are the players poached but the manager is as well (so if you wanted the game to be realistic you should really move on ;)) so it is no wonder that the game can struggle to process sustained success from a team in a smaller league, also this isn't a user bias if an AI team did the same the exact same thing would happen to them (and I wonder how many people would be moaning it's not realistic if Celtic under Rodgers dominated the Champions League for 10 years?), however more recent versions of the game do alleviate this problem a little by introducing dynamic league rep so sustained success can drag your league rep up but it takes time and needs the AI clubs to do well also (though I'm sure their as a thread in the updates forum about someone turning the Welsh league I think into a top league). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RandomGuy. said:

Sounds like you're absolutely desperate to find something to moan about, to be honest. 

If the criticism is valid why try to devalue it with posts like this? If there's a problem then it's good he's raised it, if not then he'll be clarified.

9 hours ago, tyro said:

Not really interested in this thread but you did say this in your first post. I think this is what Cougar argued against. 

I never really thought much about the reputation and definitely didn't know this was supposed to be broken. So I am in the "not most users" social group? :)

He then went on to clarify that:

 

21 hours ago, ktime156 said:

Allow me to clear that up. Each version of FM breeds several posts from users who can't seem to raise their reputation despite winning everything possible. And from my personal conversations and research, it seems that some users acknowledge but get on with it as I myself have done. But you're right not most.

So you shouldn't be hung up on the original terminology. No need to be hostile to someone who thinks there might be a problem and he's taken time out his day to raise it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not seen any issue with this, as mentioned by someone above people are trying to break out of unpopular leagues and countries, reputation gain is expected to be slow in those instances because the appeal is just not there.

Just look at the Premier league, clubs that probably no one across the world would have known about 10 years ago are attracting high level players and players are moving from higher clubs in lesser leagues to mid table clubs in the PL because of the reputation and money of the league.  If I use my club Southampton as an example, this summer they have signed players who were squad rotation players from Juventus and Lazio, clubs historically much much bigger and such a thing would not have happened 20 years ago. 

We have also regularly signed players from Celtic with ease, so these players go from a traditionally 'big' club, playing in front of 60k people, playing in the Champions league most years, winning titles to a mid table club in the PL playing in front of 32k people. 

If you are playing a in minor European league then slow reputation gain makes sense because that makes sense in real life, many players and fans would not care about a club from say Cyprus or something doing really well because the league reputation is rubbish. 

Conversely, in the big leagues IMO it doesn't take very long to build reputation. I took Southampton to the biggest club in the world in under 10 seasons on FM17. I also saw that in flipped league experiments conference clubs thrust into the premier league could still attract decent players despite conference reps and set ups. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to resurrect an old thread but I've found this fairly relevant to the situation I'm in at the moment, let me first say that MichaelMurray gave an excellent response to this thread which deserves some credit. 

I'm now in the situation where I've gone from:-

season

19/20 - Vanarama South 18th

20/21 - Vanarama South 1st

21/22 - Vanarama National 2nd

22/23 - League 2 9th

23/24 - League 2 5th

24/25 - League 1 1st

And now I am currently in the Championship and it seems apparent to me that my lack of reputation in certain areas is starting to be really noticeable in terms of many aspects such as player valuations, contract negotiations, transfers etc.

Here are a few screenshots of my game which are relevant to this thread:

1067621170_LeagueRep.thumb.png.ba29b1d41a63dca0a5a113bd76edb63f.png459702247_ClubRep.thumb.png.95909f98d947e08a053da03be86cf51c.png

One specific problem I'm having which I'm finding a bit annoying is signing new staff as a lot of people who show up who are I assume are interested in joining me ask for wages that I am unable to give even though I have £3m in the bank and have healthy finances. I've also requested on many occasions for the board to increase staff wages to no avail.

In the next images it shows a staff member who has a reputation of one star, really I believe I should be able to sign him but his demands far exceed even my highest maximum wage allowance.

847766865_SingleStar.thumb.png.58a4dd2acdab522f06379cc8dc80d3dd.png1046813816_Contractnego.thumb.png.d9cad5e7e07d7148c84ec8fd0088dd15.png

I do kind of think that club repuations and player reputations should grow a lot faster, I reached the quarter final of the Carabao Cup whilst I was in League one but the reputation increases weren't really noticeable. After that run and the success we had I'd really expect not only my players values to rise but also AI clubs should be poaching my players as they are really good in terms of attributes and the board should be forcing these sales through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reputation will catch up, Kuchiki.  I'd have to dig out the post, but it was one of the moderators or testers that said something about a three-year period having a lot to do with the gain and stabilization of reputation.  Seeing as how you've gotten 4 promotions in six seasons, I don't think the engine has had time to "catch up" from your insane rise in reputation.  

I'm going to go hunt down that thread and will come back and share it... should only take me a few minutes to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

"There was a new system put in for FM17 to counter low starting rep'd managers at big clubs. Essentially the users starting rep would dramatically increase the first three years if they remained in the high profile job to enable them to be of a suitable reputation for said club.

What would happen is every year the user remains in charge they would increase by a percentage of the teams reputation.

So say Sunday league user with a reputation of 1000 (out of 10000) takes over Man City who have a reputation of 9000. After the first season, the difference between Man City's score and the user's is used as a total and then added to the users reputation (on top of any reputation boosts they'd get generally, so for winning titles, big matches, manager awards etc). That means at the end of the season the user has a minimum reputation of 4000. 

Starting the second season with 4000 and we'll assume Man City retain their 9000 reputation. At the end of the second season, because of the difference of 5000, 2500 is added to the user's score taking them up to at least 6500.

At the end of the second season, with the user on 6500 and Man City on 9000, half the difference is 1250 so that's added on again leaving the user manager with a reputation of roughly 7750, which is the level of a top-level manager. No more additions are made from this point aside from the usual (so competition results etc).

If for some reason that isn't happening in your game it's a bug, but we'd need to see the saves at the end of each season to look at the reputation levels and find out what's going on."

 

This quote was taken from Neil Brock's post at the very end of this thread: 

which was about manager reputation.  It isn't exactly the same scenario, but the information is absolutely relevant with large increases in reputation seen by managers (and you'd have to assume clubs are extremely similar calculations while still playing in high reputation leagues.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In terms of manager reputation there's not really an issue for me as I've actually grown in line with the league I'm in, I have 3 gold stars the same as the Championship ranking.

What isn't really in line is the club reputation being so low for where we are (2 stars).

I can look past that due to the fast rise through the leagues but when I see the reputation affecting things like player valuation and not being able to afford a lot of 1 star reputation members of staff who are unemployed I can't help but feel it's a bit buggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the club reputation being low.

 

Let's assume Wrexham get consecutive promotions and get to the Championship in the next few years. Will they have the reputation of say Wigan? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kuchiki said:

In terms of manager reputation there's not really an issue for me as I've actually grown in line with the league I'm in, I have 3 gold stars the same as the Championship ranking.

What isn't really in line is the club reputation being so low for where we are (2 stars).

I can look past that due to the fast rise through the leagues but when I see the reputation affecting things like player valuation and not being able to afford a lot of 1 star reputation members of staff who are unemployed I can't help but feel it's a bit buggy.

What I am saying is that by the time you stabilize in the Championship, the club reputation should have reached that level.  

You've advanced too fast... and in a way, I'm guessing what you have seen is realistic.  Sheffield United, Bolton, and Millwall are going to have a tough time signing Championship-level players this season in real-life, and they aren't on a run of League 2 to Championship in three seasons.  

Try playing another season or two (hoping you don't get promoted, selfishly) and I think you'll see your club's reputation right where it should be.  Hell, do a test even, and go back to the save later?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo, the main problem i have seen with rep is about low level league rep gain vs starting rep differencies :

clubs in the same league can have huge ( more than 1000rep) rep difference. That's no big deal for premier league side, but when winning a low league net you around 300rep that's a problem.

An exemple i have experiencied in 2018 (i use Claasen Pack) is having my bhutanese team becoming top rep in the country only after winning the top league 5times in a row and reaching confederation cup final (and it only has only a rep a fraction better than the former best rated team) i had lower rep as a 3 times champion than newly promoted teams...When i reached the final of the french cup as a French N2 side, i checked the increase in rep. It was something like 150, when the difference between some N2 sides was more than 1000...

Sure a 150 rep increase is significant for mid-table French League rep (that's the difference between a team battling relegation and a middle of the pack team), and represent the right amount, but if a french N2 team reached the final, the amount of rep increase (irl) would be far bigger than that...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 05/11/2017 à 19:25, michaeltmurrayuk a dit :

The problem with this is you misunderstand how reputation works - reputation increases aren't linear in basic terms reputation is mainly affected by the league you are in, with good results against better teams also increasing your reputation. (basically anything that has a greater rep than you will increase it, and as your rep increases the gap decreases and their are less items that have a rep big enough to keep increasing your rep).

That isn't exactly the case : rep is modified by results in competition. Reward are given based on the competition rep. If i reach the quarter of a cup, i have the same rep increase wether i beat Arsenal and chelsea or 2 L2 side...but that isn't totally realistic. Winning against Arsenal should have a much bigger impact on rep in that case. For exemple, despite not being spanish, i know of Alcorcon because in 2009, while in third tier, they beat Real 4-0 in a copa del rey game...if they had let's say a random third tier team instead, i would never have known them.

In the same way, i'm pretty sure you have the same rep increase if you're a lower side reaching the final of the cup or say Arsenal and the rep increase for a cup final is generally very weak compared to any championship (and you would agree that a lower league team reaching a cup final would be a huge event and a huge rep increase)

Also rep rewards are heavily weighed toward winning titles, and for exemple, from a rep standpoint finishing 5th or 17th make no difference.  If i recall right, though, there is now a correction so that your rep converge to the mean rep of the teams in your division (if you don't win or lose anything significant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Le 22/07/2018 à 00:12, Kuchiki a dit :

And now I am currently in the Championship and it seems apparent to me that my lack of reputation in certain areas is starting to be really noticeable in terms of many aspects such as player valuations, contract negotiations, transfers etc.

Here are a few screenshots of my game which are relevant to this thread:

1067621170_LeagueRep.thumb.png.ba29b1d41a63dca0a5a113bd76edb63f.png459702247_ClubRep.thumb.png.95909f98d947e08a053da03be86cf51c.png

One specific problem I'm having which I'm finding a bit annoying is signing new staff as a lot of people who show up who are I assume are interested in joining me ask for wages that I am unable to give even though I have £3m in the bank and have healthy finances. I've also requested on many occasions for the board to increase staff wages to no avail.

In the next images it shows a staff member who has a reputation of one star, really I believe I should be able to sign him but his demands far exceed even my highest maximum wage allowance.

847766865_SingleStar.thumb.png.58a4dd2acdab522f06379cc8dc80d3dd.png1046813816_Contractnego.thumb.png.d9cad5e7e07d7148c84ec8fd0088dd15.png

I do kind of think that club repuations and player reputations should grow a lot faster, I reached the quarter final of the Carabao Cup whilst I was in League one but the reputation increases weren't really noticeable. After that run and the success we had I'd really expect not only my players values to rise but also AI clubs should be poaching my players as they are really good in terms of attributes and the board should be forcing these sales through.

I have the same experience. I also feel like Board decisions including a part of wage budget are based on club reputation and not on the league you're in. I also remember reading that for cups, you had no rep modification UNLESS you reached the final.

I had a team that i managed to have back to back to back championships from French N3 (5th lvl) to L2(2nd lvl) . Board was reluctant to reach Pro status in L2 (it is a Pro only division irl) and rep after winning L2 (so after reaching first division) was still around low-level National rep. And low rep make it very hard to get good players...

Imo rep system work kinda right for top flight team in good leagues, but for lower league teams, it can be very bad and not dynamic enough at all...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a boring and tedious game (well, more so anyway) it would be if after 10 seasons playing with a club from the bottom rung, you could have them 5 star rep and on a par with any other club in the world.  Wonder what the next thing to moan about would be once they changed that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a clear disconnect between what users who dislike reputation want to see, and what actually happens in the real world. Reputation is a long term thing, not a short term thing. You earn reputation by being consistently good for a long period of time. That means more than a couple of seasons of sustained success. There are not many examples of lower league teams obtaining a lot of promotions in a row in the real world, but Burton are as good an example as we have. They had two promotions in a row to go from L2 to Championship, finishing first and second. This gained them some notice, but it is hardly like everyone suddenly thought they were the next Manchester United. They were viewed as the weakest team in the Championship, even though their reputation had been enhanced by short term success. If they had proceeded to rack up high finishes in the championship for a couple of seasons, maybe gotten another promotion, then their rep would have increased more. They would still have been viewed as by far the weakest and least reputable teams in the Premier League, though, if they made it with 3 straight promotions. Or look at Huddersfield. When they got promoted their reputation was slightly enhanced, but still most people viewed them as absolute favourites to go down, and just beneficiaries of a lucky season.

This is pretty much what we see in FM right now. Taking a team from the conference to the premier league in 5 years is going to get you noticed, but it is short term success. You are not yet a force in the game, your success may vanish as quickly as it appeared. I do not see what is wrong with this, other than users wanting to have massive success like that on unrealistic time scales. I'm pretty sure having a good season in the Premier League would give you a decent rep boost, but it is not going to make you the number 1 team in a single year. Leicester won the league in spectacular fashion, for example. Nobody, and I mean nobody, suddenly believed they were one of the best teams in England. Nobody thought their reputation was now on a level with Manchester United, Chelsea et al. They gained a boost, but a modest one. If they had won again the following season, then they would get another boost, as more people took them seriously. As with so many things in FM, it is unrealistic expectations from users (we are all guilty of this).

For the reputation decrease, this also should and does happen slowly. Leeds are still a big deal despite being crap for over a decade, based entirely on their past reputation. Juventus did not fade into obscurity following a couple of seasons out of Serie A. I mean, Parma have folded, reformed, and risen back up the leagues and still maintain the reputation of the club they were before they reformed. Football has a long, long memory, and it means reputation takes a long time to fade. This also means, as I note above, it takes a long time to grow. It is not only being a great side that is remembered, it is playing non league football 3 years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, forameuss said:

What a boring and tedious game (well, more so anyway) it would be if after 10 seasons playing with a club from the bottom rung, you could have them 5 star rep and on a par with any other club in the world.  Wonder what the next thing to moan about would be once they changed that?

I don't really see what your post actually adds to the issue people are seeing with reputation other than you'd find it tedious and boring if it were to easier to gain reputation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, sporadicsmiles said:

There is a clear disconnect between what users who dislike reputation want to see, and what actually happens in the real world. Reputation is a long term thing, not a short term thing. You earn reputation by being consistently good for a long period of time. That means more than a couple of seasons of sustained success. There are not many examples of lower league teams obtaining a lot of promotions in a row in the real world, but Burton are as good an example as we have. They had two promotions in a row to go from L2 to Championship, finishing first and second. This gained them some notice, but it is hardly like everyone suddenly thought they were the next Manchester United. They were viewed as the weakest team in the Championship, even though their reputation had been enhanced by short term success. If they had proceeded to rack up high finishes in the championship for a couple of seasons, maybe gotten another promotion, then their rep would have increased more. They would still have been viewed as by far the weakest and least reputable teams in the Premier League, though, if they made it with 3 straight promotions. Or look at Huddersfield. When they got promoted their reputation was slightly enhanced, but still most people viewed them as absolute favourites to go down, and just beneficiaries of a lucky season.

This is pretty much what we see in FM right now. Taking a team from the conference to the premier league in 5 years is going to get you noticed, but it is short term success. You are not yet a force in the game, your success may vanish as quickly as it appeared. I do not see what is wrong with this, other than users wanting to have massive success like that on unrealistic time scales. I'm pretty sure having a good season in the Premier League would give you a decent rep boost, but it is not going to make you the number 1 team in a single year. Leicester won the league in spectacular fashion, for example. Nobody, and I mean nobody, suddenly believed they were one of the best teams in England. Nobody thought their reputation was now on a level with Manchester United, Chelsea et al. They gained a boost, but a modest one. If they had won again the following season, then they would get another boost, as more people took them seriously. As with so many things in FM, it is unrealistic expectations from users (we are all guilty of this).

For the reputation decrease, this also should and does happen slowly. Leeds are still a big deal despite being crap for over a decade, based entirely on their past reputation. Juventus did not fade into obscurity following a couple of seasons out of Serie A. I mean, Parma have folded, reformed, and risen back up the leagues and still maintain the reputation of the club they were before they reformed. Football has a long, long memory, and it means reputation takes a long time to fade. This also means, as I note above, it takes a long time to grow. It is not only being a great side that is remembered, it is playing non league football 3 years ago.

I agree with a lot of what you have said however I think the impact of club reputation and other types of reputation on what kind of players and staff would be interested in signing for the club doesn't work very well (At least not in my specific scenario).

I think in reality players of say for example League One caliber when given a choice between signing for a higher reputation club who are in League Two or a lower reputable club who are in League One I think the majority would choose the League One side which I don't think happens in FM2018. 

Another aspect of the issue I've been having with the reputation system is how they work with player valuation. In my scenario my players are of Championship/League One quality however their valuations calculated by the AI is generally a lot less compared to other teams of that division because of the impact of my low club reputation (at least that's my belief). I think there's just a huge mismatch between the valuation of my players due to my rise up the leagues when I would expect their valuations to be more in line with they're current ability or attributes or even form. 

I think it's hard to deny there isn't a flaw and it should be improved upon as the game should always strive to be better, that's my main reason for highlighting this thread.

I think the second screenshot I posted up highlights this possibly more than anything else where I've been promoted to the Championship yet there are 4 League two sides more reputable than myself and beyond that I think the whole of League one is also more reputable. It becomes an issue not when these clubs are more reputable but because the reputation directly affects so many things in the game and the game doesn't seem to take into account that I'm a Championship side.

Edited by Kuchiki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Kuchiki said:

I don't really see what your post actually adds to the issue people are seeing with reputation other than you'd find it tedious and boring if it were to easier to gain reputation.  

The main complaint seems to be that smaller clubs gain reputation far slower than larger clubs.  Presumably this stems from those that manage these clubs up the leagues.  Does that help?  It's not a huge stretch to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, forameuss said:

The main complaint seems to be that smaller clubs gain reputation far slower than larger clubs.  Presumably this stems from those that manage these clubs up the leagues.  Does that help?  It's not a huge stretch to make.

Does it help? Not in the slightest. Anybody reading the thread would have been able to deduce that. Your follow up reply still doesn't add anything to the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For context, I'm managing Sampedrense (previously unplayable club in 4th tier of Portugal) and we're now in the top league, with Champions League football in our third season in the Liga NOS (7th season overall).

To be honest, the only issue I've had with this in Fm18 has been that with the low reputation comes low value for players. This is fine in itself, but has the knock-on effect that agents will red-lock a ridiculously low minimum fee release clause - presumably because it's X times higher than the player's value. For example, the player below was valued at £35k for a long time, with the agent red-locking in a release fee clause of £220k to every single negotiation. Ultimately, I got lucky that in his youth contract, I'd added an optional two year extension by the club to allow us a bit more time (had my fingers burnt with an earlier prospect):

image.thumb.png.b0a82b9272f17f4174fe1ec823e50593.png

I do still think his value is ridiculously low, but I can understand the reasons why - still on first contract for low wages at a club that has a relatively low reputation (albeit playing CL football). It's the agents' responses to this that haven't quite kept up and can really hamstring negotiations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There does seem to be a problem with low values generally in Portugal, apart from Porto, Sporting and Benfica that is.

Do be aware that, with a Release Clause, you can set an expiry date. And that can be only a few months after the start of the contract.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Kuchiki said:

Does it help? Not in the slightest. Anybody reading the thread would have been able to deduce that. Your follow up reply still doesn't add anything to the thread.

You know, if I was going to play the role of being absolutely desperate to point out what does or doesn't add something to a thread, I'd probably add something myself.  But to be fair, I have better things to do than be the arbiter of something that means nothing.

But do try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Reputation could do with a rework, but the rework would not be in line with what people think it should be.

 

If you go in Europe and ask what Leicester is, they'll be wondering what you're talking about. So league success does not guarantee being famous.

 

If you go around in the UK asking what the top club in Ukraine is, you won't get much, even if they manage to reach the semis of the Europa League.

One Irish team did very well in Europe last year. If I ask people on this board to tell me what they did in Europe, and which team they were, not even many Irish fans will be able to remember.

 

Reputation does not build quickly in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, forameuss said:

You know, if I was going to play the role of being absolutely desperate to point out what does or doesn't add something to a thread, I'd probably add something myself.  But to be fair, I have better things to do than be the arbiter of something that means nothing.

But do try again.

Oh the irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...