Hello community,
Everyone's talking about it at the moment.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to (finally!) reduce the length of matches?
I don't think I'm the only one who finds it very long...
It also puts off a lot of new players!
As for the right length, I'm not sure, but at least half would be good.

What do the Vfian community think? :)

Kevin-7130: Hello la communauté,
Tout le monde en parle actuellement..
Ne serait-il pas opportun de diminuer (enfin!) la durée des matchs ?
Je pense ne pas être le seul à trouver cela très long...
Cela refroidit aussi beaucoup de nouveaux joueurs!
Pour la bonne durée, je ne sais pas trop mais au moins la moitié serait pas mal.

Qu'en penses la communauté vfienne ? :)

Totally against

For me, though, it's still the DNA of the game, even if it annoys me in some matches.

After that, would reducing the playing time make it more attractive if the mdm stays the same? With less time to react in case of a problem?

Yes yes and yes my Kevin! 😘

On the other hand, I think it's the charm of the game

New players are certainly not put off by the length of the matches

sora02: Ce qui refroidi les nouveaux joueurs c'est surement pas le temps des matchs

Not sure the new generation are fans of spending 1h30 behind a screen :).

The new generation is very often about everything, right away. It's not really the same as spending 1h30 in front of the screen for so little, that's for sure.

Totally for the idea.

But that's precisely the charm of this game.
A player is under no obligation to follow the whole game.
The advantage of a1h30 is also that you have more time to adjust your tactics. Let's imagine a 30-minute match. If you're not available, you're dead in the water.

no one is obliged to stay in front of a full match, those who don't want to can connect once the match is over

spoupou: personne n'est obligé de rester devant un match complet , ceux qui veulent pas peuvent aussi bien se connecter une fois le match terminé

Or even follow their 30 minutes of availability then get out there's no nicer than that 😆

Nevertheless, without altering the nature of the game or removing the 'tactical' aspect, reducing the duration of matches to 45 or even 30 minutes could be a plus in terms of appealing to the new generation in a hurry, while not frustrating the tacticians and relieving the carrot lovers who won't have wasted 'too much' of their time.

I say this all the more freely because I have long been, and always have been, an advocate of real-time matches.

Marcus Aurelius: La nouvelle génération c'est très souvent tout, tout de suite. Ça ne correspond pas vraiment avec passer 1h30 devant l'écran pour si peu c'est sûr.

Complétement pour l'idée.

Imagine that the problem is the length of the matches when a new player has to tap :

• A phoney team for several months, taking 5-0 after 5-0
• A disgusting points system that prevents you from progressing at a decent pace and therefore at the same level as those who were able to play during the easy-to-play level 10 period
• Ultra-rigid transfers and buy-sell, even more so with affinity
• Training that's not even remotely fun, consisting of launching one EC per day

I agree with you, the new generation is all about everything, right now, but that means unrestricted access to resources for those who want to get involved

On the other hand, an interesting idea would be to avoid matches on 2 occasions for 1h30 because one of the two managers has decided to put on the bus

When you're winning against a tough opponent... Your only prayer is that the match ends quickly... But I'm totally against it, and if we had to add extra time at each half-time it would be great..

i'm not new to the game and my opponents know it = after 20 minutes (especially given the very limited tactics) I'm fed up with wiping the floor and I give up. Shorter matches would suit me. I'm sure that new players would appreciate it too, but it's tricky to say because the reason why they chose not to play VF remains unknown. Of course, many people will say that it's part of the charm of the game, but that's the opinion of those who play it. What would be great would be to hear the opinions of those who don't play... or no longer do!

PS: aymeric should send an email to the players who have given up to find out their opinion

We're not saying that it's THE reason to flee, but that it should contribute to it.

When I was playing as a teenager, no worries, but now I'm 35, with a job, a family and obligations, it's no longer possible 🤷🏻‍♂️ There's no need to list everything that's involved 🥵 Spending 1hr30 on a game, and I stress the word, is completely ridiculous! Imagine your wife, your kids seeing you fussing over your smartphone all that time while you're driving home from work, bathing the kids, cooking, spending time with the family.

I thought about quitting for a long time because it didn't fit in with my life any more, but I'm still attached to it because building a team takes time and you don't want to throw everything away. At the moment, I'm no longer able to allocate all that time to attacking on the left and defending on the right, and so I'm suffering defeats because in the top flight, that's unforgiving, but at the same time I don't want to stop.

Reducing the length of the match would allow me to stick to this game and I don't think that adapting to our fans, who have also evolved, would be detrimental to this game, quite the contrary in fact. The 90-minute diehards will get used to it 😉😘

A little poll 🙂

Against, we would have to add the time for the changes, the injuries and the power cuts (humour, eh?) but against all the same

Cons. Real-time matches are an added bonus compared to the bland and quickly forgotten matches in rival games.

The new generation argument is a good one when people in their thirties, forties and over are asking for shorter matches. ^^

If your aim is to retain new players, it's more towards the points mentioned by sora that you should be looking.

I find the affinity system, as it is, far more damaging to enjoyment and stickiness than match time... In addition to the tactical panel which, as Guanta points out, wipes the slate clean every minute, it's as interesting as playing rattle at 15, the stylish players who make no sense, in short to discourage old and new players, if there was only game time, VF would have been first on the stores for a decade.
Game time is only for the regulars and the prize winners... the others are content to live most of the time (yeah, they're not winners, shame on them, that's for sure)
VF will be celebrating its 20th anniversary next year (we'll probably get 1M as a gift on this occasion, yippee ^^), if this game was going to break through, it would have done so already.
That said, I'm not against this proposal, knowing that whatever new features are introduced, whether I like them or not, I don't give a shit anymore, so my credibility is doubled.

45-minute match... remove taxes and affinity and let's have some fun!

Personally, I'm not hiding behind the newcomers' excuse because yes, that would suit me just as well.
For the reasons outlined by Djaiss, I'm in the same situation!
After that, whether it's accepted or not isn't up to me, but seeing the pros and cons, the debate is open and that's the main thing.

As lebaygue says, it won't change my life either whether it's 1hr30mins or 45mins for a VF match :)

But I'm convinced that few people are attracted to following a "match" behind a screen for 1h30 and doing left right centre at every news item. So yes, you don't have to follow it for 1hr30mins, but if you do, it's impossible to play properly (see djaiss's post).

From my point of view, I'd rather play for 45 minutes against another active manager, than play for 1.5 hours against an AFK guy, or one who co's every 20 minutes.

Everyone has their own vision and I respect those who absolutely want a 1h30 match, no worries about that!

Rather favourably, you could very well reduce it to 30 minutes with an update every minute. That would be more or less the same.
With less time wasted by managers, and more people attending matches.

The news is already every minute.

Yes, but back then it was every 3. Now it's every 1, so maybe even if we reduce the match time by determining 1 real minute = 3 match minutes. With possibly several actions in that minute.

It would be shorter and there would be more people present. In short, I'm in favour.

So I'm still against it, but a little clarification: at a time when everyone is complaining about the mdm, shortening game time won't do you any good because you won't be able to manage anything, it's a management game. By shortening time, you also reduce the possibility of solving your team's problems during the match

Also against!

Özel turnuva ve etkinlikte denenirse kısa süreli maçlar beğenilebilir.

kiki-sainté: Donc je suis toujours contre mais petite précision , à l heure ou tout le monde se plains du mdm raccourcir le temps de jeu n apportera rien de bon car on ne pourras plus rien géré, c est un jeu de gestion en raccourcissant le temps tu réduis aussi la possibilité de résoudre les problèmes en cours de match de ton équipe

Except that if match time were to be reduced, the MDM would also have to be adapted. Sounds logical....

Kevin-7130: Sauf que si le temps de match venait à être réduit, il y aurait également une adaptation du MDM. Ça paraît logique....

Yes, it's logical, but if the mdm isn't fully validated in 1 hour 30 minutes, how can it be validated in 30 minutes?

kiki-sainté: Oui logique mais si déjà le mdm n est pas totalement valide en 1h30 comment veux tu qu il le soit en 30mn ???

That's a question of programming. Whether Aymeric sets his MDM for 30 minutes or 1h30 or even 3 hours won't change a thing.
The effective time would correlate with the faster actuations and opportunities.
You could very well have 10 opportunities over the 30 minutes, as you currently have over the 90 minutes.

Kevin-7130: Ça c'est une question de programmation. Que Aymeric règle son MDM sur 30min ou 1h30 même 3h ne changera rien.
Le temps effectif serait en corrélation avec les actu plus rapide et les occasions.
Tu pourrais très bien avoir 10 occasions sur les 30min, comme actuellement sur les 90min.

You'll never make me believe that I could manage a match the same way in 30 minutes as I could in 1h30
As you say, there are 10 chances in 30 minutes, so stamina won't be of any use any more
All that to make you understand that it's a lot of work for Aymeric to reduce match times, Aymeric has a life outside the game
If you reduce game time, there's all the after-effects, and I'm not even talking about the bugs it'll generate

You're the one who doesn't want to understand that everything is correlated. The physical aspect, as you say, would remain the same with a loss. You just change the effective time of a match.

If that's work, I don't know, I'm not a programmer.

Kevin-7130: C'est toi qui ne veut pas comprendre que tout serait en corrélation. Le physique comme tu dis resterait pareil en perte. On change juste le temps effectif d'un match.

Si c'est du boulot, je n'en sais rien, je ne suis pas programmeur.

Well, you said it all in the end
On that note, I've said what I had to say. Have a nice day

i'm pretty much against it, but I'm starting to think why not. 😅

Kevin-7130: Hello la communauté,
Tout le monde en parle actuellement..
Ne serait-il pas opportun de diminuer (enfin!) la durée des matchs ?
Je pense ne pas être le seul à trouver cela très long...
Cela refroidit aussi beaucoup de nouveaux joueurs!
Pour la bonne durée, je ne sais pas trop mais au moins la moitié serait pas mal.

Qu'en penses la communauté vfienne ? :)

I'm an old hand at the game. Staying 1h30 in front of a match with the IRL doesn't interest me anymore. So I play without really playing.

A new poll? Hahah
Personally it's complicated 90min in front of your laptop almost every day. I understand 90min matches on important matches (final, IS and why not IE) but 90min div5 championship matches ... maybe bring a bit of logic on the matches

On the other hand, I think we should look at affinity, which I don't think is very useful, and especially style players. Having players with 1 NG shouldn't be that advantageous, it's pointless, there's no consistency.

Flo58: Contre, pour ma part il faudrait plutôt ce pencher sur l'affinité qui n'est pas très utile je trouve, et surtout les joueurs styles . Avoir des joueurs avec 1 de NG ne devraient pas avantager à ce point ça ne rime à rien , aucune cohérence.

Scoring players have 1 ng and yet they are useful it's totally stupid to remove them and it takes away strategy from the game ( with your idea the best ng gains no interest ). You'd either have to increase their ng which would be logical but more difficult for the transfer market or you'd have to get used to it 😁 it's no worse and it still allows the manager with less ng to counter teams with 90 ng who have brought out the CB or are much more established. Consequently it leaves the game in place otherwise no point in playing the matches.

Toumas: Les joueurs de marquage ont 1 de ng et pourtant ils sont utiles c'est totalement débile de les retirer et ça enlève de la stratégie au jeu ( avec ton idée la meilleure ng gagne aucun intérêt ). Il faudrait soit monter leur ng ce qui serait logique mais plus galère pour le marché des transferts ou alors tu t'habitues à ça 😁, c'est pas plus mal et ça permet toujours au manager avec moins de ng de contrer des équipes à 90 de ng qui ont sorti la CB ou sont beaucoup plus en place. Pa

Everyone has their own point of view, you can argue as you like, I don't see the logic in this type of player. Playing styles are important, 15 years ago it was pointless. Today it's a good thing to be able to train these players according to a style, but players with 1 NG shouldn't be similar to 99 NGs, for example.

Flo58: Chacun son point de vue, tu peu argumenter comme tu veux, je ne vois pas la logique sur ce genre de joueurs. les styles de jeu sont important , il y a 15 ans c'était inutile. Aujourd'hui c'est une bonne chose de pouvoir former ces joueurs en fonction d'un style mais des joueurs avec 1 de NG ne devraient pas être similaires à des 99 NG par exemple, il faut juste de la cohérence , bref...

So you didn't read the message but it doesn't matter, I'll explain it again, but only once.
Players with 1 ng are similar to players with 99 ng except that for VF they're not included in the criteria so they're counted as 1 but if you don't know that you must know very little about the game so it's normal for you to have a biased opinion and 15 years ago it was 2010 today it's 2025 so yes the game has changed, normal I'd like to say otherwise it's weird isn't it? So you also have to learn to adapt to the game rather than asking the game to adapt to you, that seems logical to me in any case 🤷.

Toumas: Donc tu as pas lu le message mais ce n'est pas grave je vais te réexpliquer mais qu'une fois.
Les joueurs avec 1 de ng sont similaires à des joueurs à 99 sauf que pour VF ils ne sont pas dans les critères donc sont comptabilisés à 1 mais si tu ne sais pas ça tu dois très mal connaître le jeu donc normal que tu es un avis biaisés et il y a 15 c'était en 2010 aujourd'hui c'est 2025 donc oui le jeu a changé, normal j'ai envie de dire sinon c'est bizarre non ? Donc il faut aussi apprendr

Look, you're cute but I don't care about your explanations, I gave my point of view and that's it. I don't want to turn this into a debate because it's not the basic subject. There's already a thread about it, you can continue there if you like

Flo58: Écoute, tu es mignon mais je me fiche de tes explications, j'ai donner mon point de vue et c'est tout. Je ne veux pas en faire un débat car ce n'est pas le sujet de base. Il y a déjà un sujet à ce propos, poursuit la bas si tu veux

So don't post if you're not open to debate and don't care what other people think. Debate is what this place is all about, so there's no point in posting if you don't want to take part. I'm sorry if I think otherwise, but the aim is to convince the other person, not to refuse debate, otherwise, once again, this place is literally useless if people think like you.

Toumas: Évite de poster alors si tu n'es pas ouvert au débat et que tu te fiches de l'avis des autres. Le débat c'est le principe de cet endroit donc aucune utilité de poster si tu ne veux pas participer. Désolé d'avoir une pensée contraire mais le but reste de convaincre l'autre pas de refuser le débat sinon encore une fois cet endroit n'a littéralement aucune utilité si les gens pensent comme toi.

So you didn't read the message but that's OK, I'll explain it again, but just once.
I'm not in any way closing myself off to debate, I'm just saying that this isn't the basic subject, I was just expressing my opinion. There's already a post about creating ng1s where there are some interesting proposals for replacing this type of player without it impacting on playing styles, you can go and defend your steak and without wanting to play the teacher would be preferable.

Guys, since you've been playing, you've all been sitting in front of your laptop for 1.5 hours, and if it goes to 1 hour or 30 minutes, you'll be the same
Following your match for 1h30 is part of the charm of the game, not many management games allow you to follow your match in its entirety, and then for me shortening the time of the game will serve no purpose if you want to stop whether it's 30mn or 1h30 it will serve no purpose you'll stop the same
If it's to connect to make the team and 2 minutes later you have the result frankly there are plenty of games like that

Nobody is talking about 2 minutes. But at the moment we have 90 minutes with 1 minute for the game to update the stats... so in the end, you're potentially changing tactics every minute. The idea is to speed that up a bit. It could be an update every 30 seconds, and a 45-minute match. You'd have the same number of tactical possibilities, except that you'd have to be quicker
I think that saying no won't change anything, I think that's wrong, today there are a lot of 30-40 year olds in the game (the majority) and who can't spend 1h30 in front of the laptop (I'm one of them) and I think that the game can also evolve. It's not a regression, it's simply an evolution in relation to the players of the game. And also perhaps to reach out to younger players (it would be cool to get a few more young people to join in, for the good of the game)

You don't need to understand the mdm to change tactics every few minutes...

Overhaul of the match engine... reduction in game time... soon we'll also be asking you to change the name... It's another game you want, maybe we should create one in your image..

iMcCarthy77: Refonte du moteur de match.. réduction du temps de jeu bientôt on va également demandez de changer le nom..C'est un autre jeu que vous souhaitez peut être faudrait il en créé un à votre image

It's clear