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.


28Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks

Reply With Quote
