what constitutes a troll win?

[cracicot]

My reply was moved to the 'unsatisfactory result' thread. I said:




It is not unless you have seen more info than I have.

OP may have played with a team full of low morale players with low condition who were all out of position with skillpoints wrongly assigned without a win bonus (vs the opposition having one) and arrows unreasonably placed on an ultra defensive team with passing set to a form that didn't suit his formation at all etc etc etc.
You don't know, or at least *I* don't know because I haven't seen him post any of those details. All I see is a formation and quality.

I deal with troll results too, but if I have a troll result, I'll let you base it on my formation, quality, morale, condition and many other factors that should have not made the troll result possible. I don't doubt that he should have won, I just want to prevent people saying that he should have won only based on his quality being 2 stars higher.

If you are saying that the factors I mention have no influence, then that is possibly true because Nordeus doesn't seem to give away any details on the engine at all. But most people on here are giving advice based on those factors (which we sadly have no proof for), so I'd rather see people at least post match statistics to get an idea of what happened so we can draw our conclusions on all the things that the developer gives us 0 information about.



1) It may be a troll win. The point I was making in that thread is that you don't know. The only things the OP posted in that thread were the quality of his lineup and the formation he used. He did not post anything else whatsoever. If those 2 things are the only factors that influence results, then this game has a boatload of troll wins.

2) A troll win constitutes a win that should not have a chance of happening. It's a non-realistic result based on quality, formations, in-game events and statistics. If you have a team with far better quality, use the correct counter-formation(*) and have good morale, condition, players in the right positions and decent tactics, yet still lose or get a result that doesn't reflect the situation at all, it is a troll result in my eyes.

*I have to mention the fact that people use the word 'counter formation' a lot, but this is purely based on our understanding of the game which changes every single season. Nordeus themselves have never said anything about a counter, so we use a bit of logic that doesn't have to apply at all when we talk about counter formation.

1) it was a 2* team, not a 3*, which makes it worse.
2) I played yesterday with a 2nd string team that was tired from a first game and couldnt make any changes and played with no morale on half the players and started the 2nd game with 70% condition on all the players...and won 3-1. the opponent was 43Q and I was 43.3Q.
3) I dont have more info than you, but I might have more insight into the workings of the game. What has been speculated is the apparent lack of need for tactics and/or orders in order to win a game. Many wins and losses cannot be explained even after reviewing the formation/tactics/orders. Some wins/losses just defy explanation.
4) you are correct with your views on counter-formations. there are none. There are just formations that work better vs certain formations. they are not counter formations as that implies that by using it, you should win. Realistically, there are only formations that give you a better chance at winning.

In the previous thread, in the game we are discussing, the 4-3W-1-2 formation should have been more effective vs the LOL team using the 4-4-2. given the fact that he was 3* more than the opponent and the LOL team was playing with a 1* DC (who surprisingly made MoM!). Like I said, unless the OP chose hard defending with blue arrows on all, it is extremely unlikely for that result to happen regardless of any of the other orders.

We have to remember that this is not a complicated game like football manager. This is an online "light" version, or "diet" football manager. They have not written any complicated code to make this game complicated. It is still ruled by numbers and odds within the game matrix. We can compare this game to the aforementioned game and that would be unfair as they are apples and oranges, even though T11 is being advertised as a real football manager game.

At the end of the day, T11 is a far cry from a real football manager game and is just a way to play a mini-football manager game for free and to waste time during the day. If this were a serious football manager game, then we would not be dealing with ANY of the current issues that are plaguing this game, simply because they would have invested enough into the game to make sure that these issues did not exist before it was released. These are simple issues to fix, dont let Nordeus tell you otherwise. The fact is they dont want to make the changes because they lose your token spending to some degree. To them, that is income. To us, that is gameplay enjoyment. Do you see what is more important to them?

They need troll results to keep the small fish playing. this is 100% a troll result. end of.

this one is a troll game?

absolutely not. well, I would think that it would be less than 6-0 but they are relatively equal teams. 4-3-2-1 vs 4-4-2 and the 4-4-2 lost big-time. unexpected but not unrealistic.

[Killerbee]

1) it was a 2* team, not a 3*, which makes it worse.

Do the maths on the stars you see on the player sheet, not on the manager page for the entire team. They add up to 2.8 average stars. But since stars are gained at a minimum and are not rounded up, I think it's fair to say that he was around a 3 star quality team.

2) I played yesterday with a 2nd string team that was tired from a first game and couldnt make any changes and played with no morale on half the players and started the 2nd game with 70% condition on all the players...and won 3-1. the opponent was 43Q and I was 43.3Q.

I saw that thread. Maybe you had a troll win?

3) I dont have more info than you, but I might have more insight into the workings of the game. What has been speculated is the apparent lack of need for tactics and/or orders in order to win a game. Many wins and losses cannot be explained even after reviewing the formation/tactics/orders. Some wins/losses just defy explanation.

I'm not denying the fact that troll wins exist at all, so I agree with wins/losses defying explanation. But you are basically saying that the only things that decide if you win or lose are 1) Quality, 2) Formation (without any tactics etc) and 3) Trollengine.
You may be right, as I can't prove otherwise at all. But this entire game would be a really thin engine with all sorts of frills added to it to make it "pretty" that have no effect at all if you are correct. And that would be quite sad.

4) you are correct with your views on counter-formations. there are none. There are just formations that work better vs certain formations. they are not counter formations as that implies that by using it, you should win. Realistically, there are only formations that give you a better chance at winning.

Yeah, I notice the effect of adjusting formations noticably, so formations do seem to have somewhat of an effect. I'm just saying that this changes almost every season, so a counter that is effective now may not be effective in 2 weeks.

In the previous thread, in the game we are discussing, the 4-3W-1-2 formation should have been more effective vs the LOL team using the 4-4-2. given the fact that he was 3* more than the opponent and the LOL team was playing with a 1* DC (who surprisingly made MoM!). Like I said, unless the OP chose hard defending with blue arrows on all, it is extremely unlikely for that result to happen regardless of any of the other orders.

Well, in most sim engines situations are created in which 'dices' are rolled against eachother. It's numerically possible that the OP's striker faced off in a one-on-one situation with said 1* defender 5 times. Seeing as the OP's striker is worth 5*, you can say that for example if the dice rolls 1-80, the OP's striker will pass that 1* DC. In this game the dice may have rolled 81-100 5 times, thus that 1* DC has done the unlikely and it has earned him MotM and a 9 rating.
Keep in mind 4-4-2 has been having some sort of overpowered magical status in which even obvious counterformations have struggled.

We have to remember that this is not a complicated game like football manager. This is an online "light" version, or "diet" football manager. They have not written any complicated code to make this game complicated. It is still ruled by numbers and odds within the game matrix. We can compare this game to the aforementioned game and that would be unfair as they are apples and oranges, even though T11 is being advertised as a real football manager game.

At the end of the day, T11 is a far cry from a real football manager game and is just a way to play a mini-football manager game for free and to waste time during the day. If this were a serious football manager game, then we would not be dealing with ANY of the current issues that are plaguing this game, simply because they would have invested enough into the game to make sure that these issues did not exist before it was released. These are simple issues to fix, dont let Nordeus tell you otherwise. The fact is they dont want to make the changes because they lose your token spending to some degree. To them, that is income. To us, that is gameplay enjoyment. Do you see what is more important to them?

They need troll results to keep the small fish playing. this is 100% a troll result. end of.

If you can prove that the only thing that matters is quality of players and formation (without any tactics and such), then I will agree that this was a 100% troll result. Otherwise I'd still have to wait for the guy to post his team's other details (though he was probably smart enough to not play with silly tactics and such).

This is besides the fact that you are right about troll results in general and the way Nordeus creates them and handles all the other token-sucking factors of the game supports your theory.