How many troll results you had this season ?

[KenoticFC]

I love Top Eleven not Troll Eleven. The state of the game forced me to tank. Not that I care about my team being stronger, I just had the feeling my whole season was wasted after all the league trolls, (I reached semis in both cup and SL). Plus like we all know the new market is a headache catalyst so I needed a break.

[gamer5289]

Team Strength: 74% vs 122%





100% Shot efficiency.
Even the German efficiency isnt that good

[nash123]

Today, trollday or what?

First pic is a friend of mine. Everything went perfect until 74' - against no manager, who may changed something...



A good friend (he his black) played league, he is leader. Opponent was 9.place, 22% weaker...


FA-member (he is blue) played his cupfinal... luckily he won at penalties...


My cup-stats. I won, but what the ... is going on with the shot to SoT-ratio?

[talisman]

It had already decided the result - the engine got to 74' and then thought 'Oh s**t, I'd better show some goals'...

[Tactician]

Many of you have complained about things based on statistics of matches. What if in reaction to these, Nordeus just make some adjustments or patches that just change those values on the statistics? You will still have (and see) unexpected, abnormal or 'troll' results, but just by the scores then. In other words, the main problems concerning this issue won't be solved; it just that people will have less reasons to complain. Significantly weaker, abandoned teams will still win against strong active teams. Teams (active or abandoned) will still win despite using inappropriate formation and orders.

What I would want, for example, is to have more fairness in this game, and to have more accurate information (match report and assistant manager's report) why a team won or lost rather than having cosmetic or randomly generated things that help little and instead make matters worst in some cases.

[KenoticFC]

Many of you have complained about things based on statistics of matches. What if in reaction to these, Nordeus just make some adjustments or patches that just change those values on the statistics? You will still have (and see) unexpected, abnormal or 'troll' results, but just by the scores then. In other words, the main problems concerning this issue won't be solved; it just that people will have less reasons to complain. Significantly weaker, abandoned teams will still win against strong active teams. Teams (active or abandoned) will still win despite using inappropriate formation and orders.

What I would want, for example, is to have more fairness in this game, and to have more accurate information (match report and assistant manager's report) why a team won or lost rather than having cosmetic or randomly generated things that help little and instead make matter worst in some cases.

I agree with what you say. When we started complaining about these troll results some doubters wanted more proof than just the score and team quality. So we also started sharing the stats that back up our claims. At the end people will believe what they want to believe.
If nordeus decides to just throw sand in our eyes, then good luck for them I'm just gonna stop caring about the game.
I would love better info at the end and I've been waiting for something like this to be implemented but I'm afraid that would showcase the flaws in the game.

[Tactician]

For me, as long as the 'trolls' or whatever they are apply the same for all the teams in the league, then it is ok. If it is about randomness, then there should be no bias; the dices used should be the same for all. The problem will be if one challenging team gets 'trolled' much more than the other challengers. Sure, it can happen if there is randomness involved, but if that happens too frequently in every season or two, then this is unfair.

Suppose that in a league, there are 3 main challengers for the title. All 3 are active teams with strong squads. Then there are 2 semi-active teams and the others are abandoned teams. So, 14 teams: 3 (quality and active), (2 semi-active with some quality here and there), and 9 non-active, abandoned teams with poor quality. According to some people here, what would decide the title would be matches between the 3 (quality and active). This is fair but then why play all the other remaining matches? Why not play only those 6 matches or at most 10 matches (that is including the semi-active teams)? In fact, playing against the remaining teams give you a chance to catch-up in case the random side was not on your side at all in match against one of the challengers for the title. Some things might be in the game for the purpose of simulating real-life situations, just that in real-life you don't have abandoned teams with no training, no manager, and so on. What we have is 26 matches which includes a possibility of unexpected results, including versus weaker opponents (like they occur in real life, but just that in real life there are no abandoned teams with no training and so on). So, as long as this 'trolling' or whatever it is applies with the same chance to all the teams in that league, then there should be no problem.

In the case of knock-out competitions, no. It is not appropriate to 'troll' people in such matches as one 'troll' can cause what would be among the favourites to win this competition to get knock-out at the early stages itself. There should be some randomness, but the effect should not be so much that it overrides completely the hard work of a manager where even a weak team with just a decent formation will beat a strong, active team despite that the strong team has enough in terms quality and tactics to beat a much stronger team than that weak team. There can be bad days, but even on a bad day a top team in the first division will beat a third division team or at most will get a draw, and surely a third division team will not knock-out a top team from 1st division by aggregate score. So maybe some tweaking is needed for how much effect randomness has on match results.

[KenoticFC]

For me, as long as the 'trolls' or whatever they are apply the same for all the teams in the league, then it is ok. If it is about randomness, then there should be no bias; the dices used should be the same for all. The problem will be if one challenging team gets 'trolled' much more than the other challengers. Sure, it can happen if there is randomness involved, but if that happens too frequently in every season or two, then this is unfair.

Suppose that in a league, there are 3 main challengers for the title. All 3 are active teams with strong squads. Then there are 2 semi-active teams and the others are abandoned teams. So, 14 teams: 3 (quality and active), (2 semi-active with some quality here and there), and 9 non-active, abandoned teams with poor quality. According to some people here, what would decide the title would be matches between the 3 (quality and active). This is fair but then why play all the other remaining matches? Why not play only those 6 matches or at most 10 matches (that is including the semi-active teams)? In fact, playing against the remaining teams give you a chance to catch-up in case the random side was not on your side at all in match against one of the challengers for the title. Some things might be in the game for the purpose of simulating real-life situations, just that in real-life you don't have abandoned teams with no training, no manager, and so on. What we have is 26 matches which includes a possibility of unexpected results, including versus weaker opponents (like they occur in real life, but just that in real life there are no abandoned teams with no training and so on). So, as long as this 'trolling' or whatever it is applies with the same chance to all the teams in that league, then there should be no problem.

In the case of knock-out competitions, no. It is not appropriate to 'troll' people in such matches as one 'troll' can cause what would be among the favourites to win this competition to get knock-out at the early stages itself. There should be some randomness, but the effect should not be so much that it overrides completely the hard work of a manager where even a weak team with just a decent formation will beat a strong, active team despite that the strong team has enough in terms quality and tactics to beat a much stronger team than that weak team. There can be bad days, but even on a bad day a top team in the first division will beat a third division team or at most will get a draw, and surely a third division team will not knock-out a top team from 1st division by aggregate score. So maybe some tweaking is needed for how much effect randomness has on match results.

That's why I hate trolls. I posted in the past how I lost the last league despite getting great results against the other 3 contenders 4 wins and 2 draws. They don't seem to happen to everybody equally. To be honest I didn't have this problem 3-4 months ago as the title was decided between direct competitors.
My unproven wild theory is troll results happen to help the predetermined champion win.

[Tactician]

That's why I hate trolls. I posted in the past how I lost the last league despite getting great results against the other 3 contenders 4 wins and 2 draws. They don't seem to happen to everybody equally. To be honest I didn't have this problem 3-4 months ago as the title was decided between direct competitors.
My unproven wild theory is troll results happen to help the predetermined champion win.

What if there was something like pre-determination of how good or bad a team will have as a season. For example, some calculations are made at the start of the season (or during the switch to the new season - maintenance) to determine how good or bad a team will perform that particular season in the different competitions or for the season as whole irrespective of its quality and the formation used, that is a clear hidden advantage or disadvantage has already been stuck to the team from the start of the season and this will stick to it for the whole season? What if the same was for separate weeks (in an attempt to simulate the form of a team)?

In the past, it has happened that after having won the treble with a team in a season, that same team was like unrecognisable in the following season despite having mostly the same players. The above could be a possible explanation.

By the way, for the league, there used to be a pattern or trend: those that finished 1st-3rd in the league faced each other on the last days of the season. What I mean is that fixtures were done at start of the season, but usually those that finished 1st-3rd played each other on the last days of the 4th week, like the game already knew who would end up as 1st, 2nd and 3rd. But this season, it does not seem so for the case of my league.

[talisman]

By the way, for the league, there used to be a pattern or trend: those that finished 1st-3rd in the league faced each other on the last days of the season. What I mean is that fixtures were done at start of the season, but usually those that finished 1st-3rd played each other on the last days of the 4th week, like the game already knew who would end up as 1st, 2nd and 3rd. But this season, it does not seem so for the case of my league.

I've not noticed that for the several seasons I've been back in TE. I could meet one of the main contenders in one of the last three matches of the season, but not all of them and in the last consecutive days.

On the contrary, I seem to play the other big-shots fairly early in the cycle (about the end of the first week and entering the 3rd weekend). Good, I think, to get them out of the way and then make hay amongst the minnows...