I won`t use foul language BUT HOW XXXX

[Tactician]

I made some corrections. See the post again.
What 'not enough' ? What kind of team would be enough, an 8 star team maybe? This is nonsense, especially when considering the formations used. Stop defending something that is wrong.

[khris]

I made some corrections. See the post again.
What 'not enough' ? What kind of team would be enough then, an 8 star team maybe? This is nonsense, especially when considering the formations used. Stop defending something that is wrong.

+7Q never was, and never have to be enough to give a "automatic victory".
When I say not enough, I want to say "not enough to assure chances of victory between the 90%".

And I assure you, a 3* player can be more well proggrammed internally in effectiveness terms than a 6* or a 7*.
Then, there's teh Quality, internal quality, chances in the match, and for the simulation the chances are or fail or win for the player that tryes. So is not that simple, and is not that wrong.

[Tactician]

+7Q never was, and never have to be enough to give a "automatic victory".
When I say not enough, I want to say "not enough to assure chances of victory between the 90%".

And I assure you, a 3* player can be more well proggrammed internally in effectiveness terms than a 6* or a 7*.
Then, there's teh Quality, internal quality, chances in the match, and for the simulation the chances are or fail or win for the player that tryes. So is not that simple, and is not that wrong.

It is not only about superiority in quality. I told you to have a look at the formations used.