I believe that a game by definition should follow a set of rules which either increases or decreases chances of winning.. If these rules work concistently like they should, results should be reproducable in order for it to be called a game instead of a slotmachine. These rules should be the same for everyone. I´m an analyst by nature and profession, and really, all logic flies out of the window far too many times. I don´t mind losing to a team if I clearly should have, based on a paper rock scissors format, which in essence all games are, as opposed to slotmachines. So far the only things that are concistent in the game are based on a businessmodel.

The 2 things that trump everything over a period of time are the 2 variables closest related to Token spending, quality and marketvalue, and to be fair, they should. Another thing is that abandoned teams, or managers who don´t watch their matches, many times perform better then they should to be called fair. THis happens in other games too, It´s like the game recognizes you´re about to quit and voila, an easy screeen appears a few days later, or in this game, a better performance. I am leaning more and more towards the notion this is not a pay to win game literally, perhaps even closer to pay to lose by the way Nordeus pairs teams together in competitions.

I recognize these patterns in my competitions and teams so often that I suspect these negate almost anything else. Added to this, i also believe a lot is programmed in the way khris keeps saying. I´m going to try this with 1 team and literally only buy goals from now on. I will only look at goalscoringstats when buying players, everything else like quality, age, formation, condition etc. shouldn´t matter much when they´r programmed to score.

I´m still having some fun, but my main high Q account only gives me headaches so to speak, being constantly bombarded with trolls, unexplained, bad results ie. triggers enticing me to spend more.