what constitutes a troll win?

Look at this thread and continue this discussion, since MDKII closed the thread suspiciously.

Are u serious? Wtf is this?


Quote Originally Posted by Killerbee:
His entire team may be 2*, but his lineup was averaged at least 2,8+ which isn't terrible. Again, I don't doubt that it's an unlikely result, but the only stats we have from that match is formation (without underlying tactics) and quality. There are far more factors than these 2 that can mess up the result. 5* should not have to beat 3* in *all* situations. Perhaps he should have in this case, but unless there are more stats on the other factors, you can never say for sure if it's a troll win.

I replied:

yes i can say for sure its a troll win. You are making this more complicated than it actually is, for reasons unknown. This is not a complicated game and most of the tactics and instructions can be anything and you can win or lose easily and its up to the troll engine. I lost 4-0, sorry, I got my ass handed to me by the bottom team yesterday and I am #2, 60Q vs 55Q, and had 55% possession, but he had 18 shots to my 12, 12 shots on target to my 6 and 12 corners to my 5. i had a great counter formation and instructions and have beat his formation many times with mine, but it was not my day. I should have won but it was a troll win for sure. 4-0 = troll, 2-0 or 2-1 or a close game would have been an acceptable loss.

I'm saying that there are logical losses and illogical losses. both my loss and the loss of the OP were illogical losses, which are translated as TROLL wins. They dont happen as often in real life but happen here to allow smaller teams to have a chance and stay customers instead of getting frustrated with all the token teams and quitting because they have no realistic chance at winning.

Nordeus wants as many customers as they can, and have created a format where you can more easily succeed by paying money for tokens. This is not news to most of us. They have to factor in this frequent trolling or else the many token teams would always beat the LOL teams. Would you continue playing if you had a LOL team and knew you did not have a chance at winning anything? so they make it a troll win regardless of the formation, tactics or instructions just to keep things fair. the randomness of this game engine is the cause, and the randomness is programmed to keep customers from quitting.

This is a troll win. end of. the other info is irrelevant.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

This is a troll win. end of. the other info is irrelevant.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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

---

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.

this one is a troll game?
Attachment 14538

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Killerbee

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tongly45

this one is a troll game?
Attachment 14538

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tongly45

this one is a troll game?
Attachment 14538

---

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.

As a note, the original thread was moved to Unsatisfactory Result as it was exactly that.

I'm finding this discussion very interesting, though so I hope he doesn't close this one. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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? :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cracicot

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.

Eh, Slyanimal sneaked in while I was writing my post (when I was afk) and made a good post about the game engine, so props to him. :)

There r essays written here big time!! My opinion, it is a troll win.