what constitutes a troll win?

[SlyAnimal]

1) Is this a troll win?
2) what constitutes a troll win?

1) I didn't see the original thread, but from reading the posts in here, I think the original screenshots are inconclusive, as they don't show a number of factors.

2) A heavy loss (3+ Goals) due to insanely terrible RNG (Random Number Generator).

I think that some of the common assumptions made about the game engine are flawed. I'll admit that I haven't played at a high level in T11, however whenever I play a game I try to understand the game engine as best I can, so that I can learn how to win. From what I've seen, formation/tactics definitely make a big difference, but I think that although player quality makes a big difference, I don't think it makes as bigger difference as what people seem to think.

As my assumption, regarding the game engine, is that it will carry out a series of checks using a random number generator (RNG). The checks define what is likely to happen in a game, what a player will try to do, and whether they will be successful, with modifiers based on the opponent's players abilities.

e.g. If a player is passed the ball, and they are in the zone of control for a defender, then they will have to pass a "test" for each defender, to see if they can successfully retain the ball before making an action. Each test would likely have a different modifier, based on the skills of the defender marking them. Each time tests are successfully passed, a new action will be initiated, and a series of perhaps 10-20 tests would likely be needed in order to score a goal. Condition/Moral would likely apply a modifier to each player's skills, and possession bonuses would apply a further modifier to players (As would certain tactics, e.g. Hard might give a +10 modifier to tackling, but scores that are too high when tackling, might cause a foul or yellow/red card, when players are tackled there would likely be another check made to see if they are injured or not, with hidden stats like injury proneness being a further modifier).

Anyway, assuming that this is the case, there is almost definitely a modifier cap, or a maximum amount by which an opponent's players can have an advantage over your players. This is an assumption I've made based on my team being challenged to friendlies by managers who have teams which are ridiculously better than me.

e.g. I'm lvl 3, one of my students added me on fb, without me realising they played Top11. They then challenged me to a friendly. They were lvl 17, 98 average quality vs 28 average quality. I wasn't online, so didn't watch the game, and was expecting to play an easy team, so was using a formation of 3-4-1-2 (attacking/hard/mixed/middle/own half), which is probably not a very good setup when playing a vastly superior team. They watched the game & had a formation of 3-1-4-2 so they also had a pretty good counter. They won 7:0. Of course they might have had low condition/moral/terrible tactics etc, but that's a similar margin by which I often beat teams which are 10 quality below me (Assuming they're not running heavy defence and that I use a counter formation), when someone's 70 quality above you and running a counter formation, you'd sorta expect them to win by a little more lol.

Bigger wins are possible, I've occasionally beaten teams by 10+ goals, but it's uncommon, regardless of formations/player quality etc. Which is why I think there are caps to the modifiers, and that after the modifiers are applied, RNG is applied, and a series of tests are required to be passed in order for goals to be scored.

Which is why weaker teams can beat stronger teams, even when using an illegal formation etc. As RNG can simply screw you over, while your opponent can simply get lucky. However, I think that some people think that player quality plays a bigger role than what it actually does, as a cap on the amount of modifiers applied is very very likely.


Obviously all of the above assumptions are based on my assumptions, rather than facts. However from what I've read/seen + how I would expect them to design the game, this seems like how I would expect it to work, and perhaps explains why people can get such terrible troll results (e.g. just by getting very unlucky, but they don't need the RNG to be quite as "unlucky" as what they think, because the modifiers will have caps).

So a 1* team vs a 10* team is probably, due to modifier caps, only going to have roughly the same result as a 1* team vs a 3* team, or an 8* team vs a 10* team.

this one is a troll game?

No I don't think so. (Detailed explanation below)

Did you watch the game? As the player who won did (Or at least I assume that their AMR is unrated because he was brought on as a late substitute).

Therefore, the team who won had (or might have had) +5% possession from being at home & +8% possession from their manager watching the game.

The teams are then relatively similar, particularly if you take into account that the lineup shown, probably doesn't include 3x players who he would have subbed off (And possibly replaced with less skilled but younger players).

Also the winning team's players all played better than the losing team's players, likely because of higher moral/conditioning, or a better allocation of skills (And a little bit better RNG)

Likewise the formation / tactics would have effected the result, but we can't see these.