Is this result of careless programming or plainly intentional?

[Celtic]

Do programmers discuss the models to achieve unrealistic results like this on purpose?

Do you have a good laugh observing stuff like this?

[Celtic]

My team:

just won the league and reached the cup final
players in top form,
full morale,
3,75M bonus,
home advantage
15% total supporters

The opponent:

is inactive (doesn't attend games or has supporters)
didn't promote
has his team all messed up (just a few reserves with contract)
goalkeepers playing mid-field
defenders playing strikers

In game:

I had 80% possession
overwhelming stats

BUT, commentaries were describing a dominant opponent with aggressive and successful play always threatening to score.

AND I was always chasing disadvantage, with his misplaced GK and Defenders threatening my goal and his attackers doing outstanding defence.

Do you believe that the bottom team of the Premier League would stand any chance against the Championship leader just playing with reserve players? even worse, players completely out of position, with no strategy and no manager?

What the f* is this game then?

Is all the game action and decision out of our hands?
What are the real factors that decide the outcome?

[Gert Funck]

Troll results are sadly not that uncommon

very frustrating if the come in packs

[Celtic]

Well, I'd call a troll result when the underdog outclasses a big team.

But this is not even realistic. I'd like to hear an explanation about it.

Seriously. Is it a hole in the overall program or is it planned?

[Southampton FC]

That sounds stupid. Hang on... goalkeepers threatening goal??? He wasn't playing Peter Schmeichel was he?

[Buffs Mad]

Its planned, to an extent. They can't do realism very easily and need to use chance to make the unexpected happen. Unfortunately embedding a chance that's big enough to allow the minnow to beat the bigger fish means it can go crazy when the 'chance' delivers extremes. So those one-off results can be more frequent in the game.

Commentary is the best guide we have for whats going on but its not a good guide unless we knew what priorities were given to comment/event selection. Its just a snapshot, even worse than TV highlights because the selection is programmed for a all the fixtures whereas TV highlights are selected for that game.

PS. Unless your team is all 9* we're not talking about Man Utd or Championship - that is unrealistic. Most teams in this game would be non-league And some are Boy Scouts.

[nikolgiorgos]

Every season I have 1-3 troll results. This is one of those probably but normally (and by statistics) it 'll not happen again in 2nd leg so I believe you 'll pass easily and (also by statistics) you 'll erase one troll for this season.

so, we all singing
"always look on the bright side of life"

[Cat Harrison]

That particular formation (with an MC as MC but tll 80/20 awhile ago) has beaten me. I consider it the hardest of the previously illegal formation to beat.

I do wish the troll results made just a bit more sense, I have been the little team vs. 2 star better with more shots on goal and lost too.. those matches should be the "upset" matches...

It's just silly.

[Celtic]

Its planned, to an extent. They can't do realism very easily and need to use chance to make the unexpected happen. Unfortunately embedding a chance that's big enough to allow the minnow to beat the bigger fish means it can go crazy when the 'chance' delivers extremes. So those one-off results can be more frequent in the game.

Basically you're telling me that what the game does is comparing teams, sending the odds to Random.ORG and serve a result that you can't change but cosmetically.

[Buffs Mad]

Basically you're telling me that what the game does is comparing teams, sending the odds to Random.ORG and serve a result that you can't change but cosmetically.

Nope - thats your 'random, out of your control' conclusion.

If you we just consider a simple example of a player making a shot. His relevant attributes will determine a result as to whether its on target or off - there will also be a random generated factor (actually there will be more than one) which will be applied to that initial result to modify it. I'd imagine that as in PNP DnD, iirc, that factor can produce a definite fail or success regardless of the initial result - like on a d20 rolling 1 or 20. Ofc its a small chance but a chance nonetheless

In games these exist to ensure there are no guaranteed wins or losses, success or failure - whether its 1/100, 1/20 or 1/16/ or 1/10 or another will affect the frequency of these things.

(There will also be other hidden factors such as the one that determines whether two identical players (attributes-wise) are different performers - I'd call it performance factor. It could be a smaller range from 0.75 to 1.25 (or even smaller) or big from 0.5 to 2.0 (or bigger). That means using the bigger number any player could be half as good or twice as good as his average - good 3*, bad 5*, great 7*, bad 7* - its all relative.)

Simply put, there is always a chance that a 1* succeeds in testing a 9* GK and similarly that a 9* GK fails to stop that 1* shot. Once you get an unfavourable run of chance you get a bad beat.

However, I do think these unexpected things happen too often in this game - too many exulted David's and dead Goliaths.

You yourself have spoken about a higher/lower chance of winning home/away. If that was true they'd achieve it my factoring everything by a say 1.2 or 0.8 factor. It offers an improved chance to win/lose based on location but not too much to rule out the opposite.

PS. all the numbers here are for demonstration purposes