Hi, I couldn't find the post about why you can't line up a 5-5-0?
Or is it just an IS rule?
Without a striker means the bus behind and total domination of the midfield.
So without a defender a 0-5-5 should have the same consequences, right?

It's just a VF Cup rule.

So it's not really sporting

0-5-5 is not as anti-game as 5-5-0

But how can the game accept a 5-5-0 when it refuses to

For me the 2 are anti game from the moment he plays this tactic all the match and not to keep or try to score to equalize or win at the end. I've been on the receiving end of 0-5-5 tonight and I've lost on penalties, so win or lose that's not the problem. The problem is that the match engine doesn't punish a team that plays without a defender, it's crazy. The 5-5-0 is something else again because you can play a whole match like that against a stronger team. To hold a 0-0. Après pour moi le 0-5-5 est une faille dy jeux et c'est flippant voyant que sa fonctionne tout le monde vas y mettre imagine vf comme sa. In short, I'm personally shocked by it. And if I'd won tonight I'd have said the same thing. I've talked about it with Socrate, and yes, it's not easy, you have to adapt, etc., but really, 0-5-5 is the first time I've had to deal with it, and it's very sad

mick3829: Pour moi les 2 sont anti jeu à partir du moment où il joue cette tactique tout le match et non pas pour conserver ou essayer de marquer pour égaliser ou gagner à la fin. Je l’es subit se soir 0-5-5 en face je perd au tir au but bref victoire ou défaite c’est pas le problème. Le problème c’est que le moteur de match ne sanctionne pas une équipe qui joue sans défenseur c’est fou . Le 5-5-0 c’est autre chose encore car tu peu jouer tout un match comme sa contre plus fort. Pour te

5 5 0 or 0 5 5 doesn't change much... you can use any system you want. You can't stop a guy from being defensive or too attack-minded.
You systematically see abuse where there isn't any. You didn't get a point, move on to the next game. In my experience, the guy who does anything pays for it on VF. In one match you can get away with it, but if you're good in front of 5 5 0 or 0 5 5 it doesn't worry you at all.

I don't think I've been too bad at the tab, I've managed to adapt, but I'll say it, it's not the result that makes me say that, after all, you're right, but once I've understood how to play it, I'd be surprised if it did the same thing again. I'm only talking in terms of my own principles. If I'm the only one who doesn't think it's normal, then yes, I need to move on and get ready to play more and more against this kind of tactic. It just doesn't suit me

The problem that makes me react is that everyone wants to make their rules according to their morals or their way of seeing things. There are already too many rules in this game.
5 5 0 can be legitimate and the opposite too.
There are guys who play with 600 in the middle and that's no more an abuse than anything else.

Yes, that's why I'm saying it's my opinion. Then what rule are you talking about? I'm not necessarily talking about setting rules, I'm talking about the engine of a match that shits playing without a defender, I really don't understand. After that, as I said, I'll adapt, but I'm very concerned about it

The match engine doesn't see match compositions. It just takes into account the statistics, your opponent has played on the imbalance and the mdm has been kind to him. You should have adjusted your defence or midfield quickly. If you'd had an extra midfielder instead of a striker, you'd surely have blown them away. The game doesn't see the players, it sees the game as a whole 😉

Especially as 5-5-0 is no guarantee of keeping a score. I've always conceded quicker that way than when not playing 5-5-0 ^^

It's all a false debate: the 5-5-0 approach to concreting or the 0-5-5 approach to attacking at full stretch no longer means much these days with the collective and individual instructions.
We can easily go over 400 in defence with 0 defenders and over 400 in attack with 0 attackers.
To put it plainly, the supposed prohibitions that could be imposed (or that still persist for the rules of IS matches) no longer make any sense today.

myforsans: Tout ça est un faux débat : le 5-5-0 pour bétonner ou le 0-5-5 pour attaquer à fond ne veut plus dire grand chose aujourd'hui avec les consignes collectives et les consignes individuelles.
On peut facilement monter à plus de 400 en défense avec 0 défenseur et à plus de 400 en attaque avec 0 attaquant.
En clair, les supposées interdictions qui pourraient être faites (ou qui persistent encore pour le règlement des matchs IS) n'ont aujourd'hui plus du tout de sens.

I admit that the bans don't make any sense, but it's very, very strange.

myforsans: Tout ça est un faux débat : le 5-5-0 pour bétonner ou le 0-5-5 pour attaquer à fond ne veut plus dire grand chose aujourd'hui avec les consignes collectives et les consignes individuelles.
On peut facilement monter à plus de 400 en défense avec 0 défenseur et à plus de 400 en attaque avec 0 attaquant.
En clair, les supposées interdictions qui pourraient être faites (ou qui persistent encore pour le règlement des matchs IS) n'ont aujourd'hui plus du tout de sens.

If that makes sense, because I seem to remember that the reason why these combinations were banned was because they unbalanced the match engine. It's worth checking, because my memory isn't what it used to be

Unbalanced is a weak word in my opinion lol

What also begs the question is the fact that, basically, you can't line up a 0-5-5 team directly in the tactics tab. You have to line up a player in midfield or defence and then change his position to allow you to line up 5 strikers.

Demi-cerveau: Ce qui légitime également la question, c'est le fait qu'à la base on ne puisse pas aligner une équipe en 0-5-5 directement dans l'onglet tactique. Il faut aligner un joueur au milieu ou en défense puis modifier sa position pour permettre d'aligner 5 attaquants.

No debate, nothing in the rules prohibits it.
Let's leave it at that.
It adds nothing, or at worst makes the result more than random, but there's nothing new under the sun

I didn't say anything about a rule. I'm saying that the game, factually, prevents such a composition from being lined up in the first place. So it just needs to be more consistent:

• either you can line up 5 strikers in the tactical tab from the start. Personally, I have nothing against that.
• or you can't field 5 strikers at any time, in the same way that it's already impossible to field more than 5 midfielders or 5 defenders via the changes.

But I don't think that should remain an insider's 'secret'.

Demi-cerveau: Je n'ai pas parlé de règle. Je dis que le jeu, factuellement, empêche d'aligner une telle composition à la base. Donc il faut juste juste que ce soit plus cohérent :

• soit on peut aligner 5 attaquants dans l'onglet tactique dès le départ. Personnellement je n'ai rien contre.
• soit on empêche d'aligner 5 attaquants à tout moment, de la même manière qu'il est déjà impossible via les changements d'aligner plus que 5 milieux ou 5 défenseurs.

Mais ça ne doit pas rester un "secret" d

I totally agree, because maybe I'm wrong, but if you do it the way they do it, personally I'd call that a flaw. It should be possible to do it directly from the tactics or not at all.

mick3829: Totalement d’accord car peu être que je me trompe mais en faisant comme ils font moi personnellement j’appelle sa une faille. Il faudrait qu’on puisse le faire directement depuis la tactique ou pas du tout.

This is where you make a mistake. The way the game works is decided by the MDJ, not by you. The game allows for things that are surely not anticipated by the GM, but that doesn't make it a flaw.

What's to say that this mechanic isn't intended by the GM and that the bug is the blocking of 5 offensive players?
The problem is that we always want the rules to suit us.

everyone plays with their weapons it's just a game why favour the big teams all for the win the law of the strongest is not always the best

Teddy: C'est la ou ou tu dis une erreur. Le fonctionnement du jeu est décidé par le MDJ et non par toi. Le jeu permet des choses qui ne sont sûrement pas anticipé par le mdj mais ça ne rend pas pour autant cela comme une faille.

Quesqui te dis que cette mécanique n'est pas voulu par le mdj et que le bug est le blocage de 5 joueurs offensifs ?
Le soucis c'est qu'on veut toujours les règles dans le sens où elles nous arrangent.

Yes, of course, but personally it's not that it suits me or not, I can do the same, it's just my point of view with regard to the fact that it's basically football. But after that, yes, why not, I'm not suggesting a ban, after that we adapt and that's that

already, when we play against abandoned clubs, the stats are higher than my team. I'm forced to use the normal set point, but no matter how many times I change the set point, the abandoned club is superior

Teddy: C'est la ou ou tu dis une erreur. Le fonctionnement du jeu est décidé par le MDJ et non par toi. Le jeu permet des choses qui ne sont sûrement pas anticipé par le mdj mais ça ne rend pas pour autant cela comme une faille.

Quesqui te dis que cette mécanique n'est pas voulu par le mdj et que le bug est le blocage de 5 joueurs offensifs ?
Le soucis c'est qu'on veut toujours les règles dans le sens où elles nous arrangent.

Expert opinion hihi