Hi to the community,

I'm taking the floor for the first time on VForum to talk about the issues that have been making the headlines and gaining momentum over the last few days. Between tensions between Admins, the exploitation of flaws, sanctions on the game, and the possible dissolution of the LR, events are following one another and deserve an update.
As an ordinary user of the game, I'd like to share my opinion in all transparency, point by point:

1. The role of the game's Admins:
   Managing a community of several thousand volunteer managers from all over the world, with different cultures and characters, is a complex task. The huge amount of work that goes on behind the scenes to keep the game alive is to be commended.

That said, a number of fundamental problems remain:

• There is no transparent framework for determining penalties for different offences. Even the written rules are not always applied. Decisions often seem arbitrary.
• All too often, Admins approach managers with suspicion, threatening or penalising them without clear communication. This goes against the fundamental principle: "innocent until proven guilty".
• Admins are also active managers, involved in agreements and competitions in the game. This creates confusion between their role as referee and that of competitor. Under these conditions, it is difficult to trust them completely to handle cases impartially. In the eyes of many managers, they are both judge and jury, which is unethical.
• The way disputes or requests are handled varies according to the agreement or the manager concerned. Some cases seem to be judged "on the client's head".

These observations or this feeling, shared by many managers, have severely damaged the image and credibility of the administration team.

2. Exploiting loopholes in the game
   Before talking about cheating, we need to start by clearly defining the following concepts:
   Bug, Flaw, Cheating.

When a manager manipulates the game to generate resources in a way that is not intended by the game, such as injecting fictitious money into an agreement or a club, this is pure cheating and deserves severe penalties.
On the other hand, when a manager uses a mechanic that is accessible to everyone, even if it verges on the limits of realism or balance, such as changing the goalkeeper's position to gain more XP by saving physical strength, this cannot be considered cheating as long as this mechanic is permitted by the game itself. In this case, it is the duty of the developers to correct the flaw without retroactivity or punishment, unless there is evidence of clear abuse.

But in a climate where the Admins are themselves players, few managers take the risk of reporting a similar flaw, for fear that the information will be used (if not banned) internally, for the benefit of their own agreements.

3. The case of the LR and collective responsibility
   As the chairman of a cartel who was the victim of the actions of a manager belonging to my cartel, and who moreover was not even a member of the cartel's board of directors (so I speak from experience), I wish to express my disagreement with collective penalties.
   Each manager must answer for his actions. A cartel should only be held responsible if it has benefited in a direct and measurable way from fraudulent behaviour.
   In our case, even with the support of the notorious Teddy AKA Jex, LR did not win the IS Cup in the S140 and S141 seasons, and they narrowly won the D1 title against CP. So it's an exaggeration to talk about any real gains or uncontested dominance.

If a sanction is to be applied, it should be proportional: a demotion to D2 (like Juventus IRL) or D3 (a demotion of one division for each season Teddy spent with LR) would be a strong measure in itself, and would allow us to turn the page once and for all.

I'm aware that this message is long, but as I rarely express myself, I'm counting on your indulgence. Thank you to those who will take the time to read to the end. The aim is not to create controversy, but to encourage a healthy, constructive and respectful debate between fans of a game we all love.

"That said, a number of fundamental problems remain:

There is no transparent benchmark for determining penalties for different offences. Even written rules are not always applied. Decisions often seem arbitrary.
All too often, Admins approach managers with suspicion, threatening or penalising them without clear communication. This goes against the fundamental principle: "innocent until proven guilty".
Admins are also active managers, involved in agreements and competitions in the game. This creates confusion between their role as referee and that of competitor. Under these conditions, it is difficult to trust them completely to handle cases impartially. In the eyes of many managers, they are both judge and jury, which is unethical.
The way disputes or requests are handled varies according to the agreement or the manager concerned. Some cases seem to be judged "on the client's head".

Do you have a single piece of evidence to support such statements?
And to conclude that you don't want any animosity and that it should be an open and calm debate after such unfounded accusations is funny 😅
You should have done what you've been doing for a long time, not spoken up!
It's enough to fall on admins, it's too easy! If you're punished, it's because of a mistake, full stop!

Hail,

Too long, summarise.

Ps: I admit I stole it

Phoenix: Salut la communauté,

Je prends exceptionnellement la parole sur le VForum à propos des sujets qui font la une et qui prennent de plus en plus d’ampleur ces derniers jours. Entre les tensions entre Admins, l’exploitation de failles, les sanctions sur le jeu, et l’éventuelle dissolution de la LR, les événements s’enchaînent et méritent une mise au point.
En tant que simple utilisateur du jeu, je souhaite partager mon avis en toute transparence, point par point :

1. Le rôle des Admins du jeu:
   G...

Hi, there,

I don't agree on this point:

It doesn't matter if it's a bug, even if it's accessible to everyone, its deliberate use is not permitted. As soon as voluntary use is demonstrated, this can lead to a penalty. If you don't accept the rules, you're not playing the game.

"Use of a bug or loophole
Any bug or loophole in the game must be reported to the anti-cheating administrator and the game moderator. Deliberate use of a bug or loophole to gain profit is prohibited. In the event of deliberate use of a loophole, you will receive a warning + fine + deletion of the asset acquired thanks to the loophole. In the event of a repeat offence, your club will be reset or deleted directly."

Of course, but you have to admit that the dividing line is often a little blurred.

For example, I sometimes come up against opponents who rush forward with 5 strikers.
But when you have 4 of them on the pitch, you can't bring on a substitute as a 5th striker.
It's blocked by the game.
But to achieve this, you use a trick (let's call it that) that almost everyone knows: you bring on your substitute striker in another position and once he's in, you change his position by putting him in attack.

What's that to you?
A loophole, a bug? something that's allowed?
And in your opinion, should you tell an admin if your opponent has had 5 strikers at some point during the match?
And what would be the penalty for the user of this "cheat-fail-bug-manip": a match lost on the green carpet? a fine? a ban?

They're already hard at work at the moment, but the admins are likely to be swamped...
Well, there are dozens of examples like that

Well, that's cheating, yes.

After that, it's up to the admins and Aymeric to apply the appropriate penalties.

I LOVE YOU ALL ♥️

Um, um if that's cheating, there are a lot of cheaters in the game 🤪

No doubt.

Not everything is equal, of course. But that doesn't mean you can't be part of it.

myforsans: Certes mais il faut quand même convenir que la frontière est souvent un peu floue.

Exemple j'affronte parfois des adversaires qui se ruent à l'attaque avec 5 attaquants.
Or quand tu en as 4 sur le terrain tu ne peux pas faire entrer un remplaçant comme 5ème attaquant.
c'est bloqué par le jeu.
Mais pour y arriver tu fais une manip (appelons ça comme ça) connue de quasiment tout le monde : tu fais rentrer ton attaquant remplaçant à un autre poste et une fois entré tu le changes de poste en le...

As long as the rule is mentioned in the regulations but only concerns i-s, I think that it is authorised in all other matches and that the manipulation is known by the staff/mdj, so it's not an exploitation of weakness.

Only 5-5-0 is prohibited in IS.

Galywat: Bah c'est de la triche oui.

Après, c'est tout le rôle des admins, et d'aymeric de graduer les sanctions en conséquence.

Mais on ne peut pas dire que le règlement n'est pas clair à ce sujet.

That's your interpretation, Galy'.
There are others.

It could just as easily be a bug. The MDJ may have accidentally blocked at 4, instead of 5.
As it's possible to have 5 defenders lined up in front of you, it's understandable that 5 attackers would be too.

But this 'bug' was fixed a long time ago. There's never been any feedback. On the other hand, there are plenty of other bugs that have never been corrected, particularly concerning the federations, for example.
So it's hard to say exactly what it is.

But if we do an audio one day, I'll make a note of it and ask Aymeric.
Given that it's possible to have 5 DFs, why limit it to 4 ATs? Maybe there's a reason (maybe there are more offensive profiles in the game than defensive ones, like for example the "Climb" DF and no "Defend" AT, so to balance things out we're taking away an attacker slot).

Magpie: C'est ton interprétation ça, Galy'
Il y'en a d'autres.

Ca peut tout aussi bien être un bug. Le MDJ ayant peut-être malencontreusement bloqué à 4, au lieu de 5.
Comme il est possible d'avoir 5 défenseurs alignés en face, on pourrait comprendre que 5 attaquants le soient aussi.

Mais ce "bug" a été remonté il y'a fort longtemps. Il n'y a jamais eu de retour. D'autre part, il y'a plein d'autres bugs qui n'ont jamais été corrigés, notamment concernant les fédérations par exemple.
Donc difficile ...

All I'm saying is that if there's a bug and it's being exploited, yes, that's cheating. Not my interpretation but the rules: the game doesn't allow you to have 5 attackers in the usual way. You have to manipulate the game to get it.

It's not the deal of the century, and it can be tolerated and done by many people and maybe one day it will be changed. But from the point of view of the rules, it's a foul, there's not even a debate. It's not for everyone's tastes.

Galywat: J'écris juste que s'il y a bug, et qu'il y a exploitation volontaire de ce bug oui c'est de la triche. Pas mon interprétation mais le règlement : le jeu ne permet pas d'avoir 5 attaquants de façon usuelle. Tu es obligé de faire une manipulation pour pouvoir l'avoir.

Maintenant j'ai pas dit que c'était l'affaire du siècle, c'est peut être toléré et fait par de nombreuses personnes et peut-être qu'un jour ce sera changé, et ça ne mérite sans doute pas de lourde sanction. Mais du point de vue ...

Your argument makes sense.
I'd have to find another "solution" that everyone would use to "get around" a less crystallising bug. If I can find one, then I'll use that against you. To show that sometimes a bug is logically circumvented because you have no choice. But I'm thinking of really minor stuff, I can't think of any examples and I'm hungry ^^.

For the specific case, Spoupou said in another post that Aymeric had already replied that it was allowed to play with 5 strikers. If Aymeric really said that, then there's been a bug that hasn't been fixed for a while. It's OK, he's not the only one, but some people are adapting.

I should point out that I don't play with 5 strikers, it's just to discuss the matter a bit :)

Magpie: Ton argumentaire se tient.
Il faudrait que je trouve une autre "parade" que tout le monde utiliserait pour "contourner" un bug moins cristallisant. Si je trouve je t'opposerai ça alors. Pour démontrer que parfois, un bug est contourné logiquement, car tu n'as pas le choix. Mais je pense à des trucs vraiment mineurs, là je n'ai pas d'exemple en tête et j'ai faim ^^

Pour le cas précis, Spoupou affirme dans un autre poste qu'Aymeric avait déjà répondu qu'il était autorisé de jouer avec 5 attaqu...

Then there are the rules and common sense, and I think that's what makes a good admin, applying the rules with common sense. All I'm doing here is pointing out that there's a fault. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it should result in immediate blocking. If it's really tolerated here and explained as such by aymeric, then I can't see an admin penalising anyone for it.

However, if it does happen, the person can't really complain if it happens.

Once again, that's your interpretation, because without even making a start, I can change a player's line from defender to midfielder or striker.
So for you that would be cheating only because it would be done immediately following a throw-in.
I respect your opinion, but I think it's in the minority and, above all, almost impossible for the admins to apply.
The game is full of "optimisable" settings. Take the player agent, for example. He overvalues some players and undervalues others. That's the way it is, it's the way the game creator wanted it to be. So, in your opinion, is it cheating to buy at the market price a player in the game who is over-valued by the players' agent and then swap him with a player from the Vfstore and pay him less overall?
And if that's cheating, where do you draw the line?

myforsans: La encore c'est ton interpretation car sans même faire une entrée en jeu, je peux faire changer de ligne un joueur et le faire passer de la ligne des defenseurs à celle des milieu ou à celle des attaquants.
Donc pour toi ce serait de la triche uniquement parce que çà serait fait immédiatement à la suite d'une entrée en jeu.
Je respecte ton avis mais je pense qu'il est minoritaire et surtout quasi inapplicable par les admins
Le jeu est truffé de paramétrage "optimisables". Interesse toi par ...

It's against the rules because it's not allowed by the classic use of the game: you can't put in 5 full strikers without a secondary manipulation not designed for that to get around it. After that, whether it's done by a majority of people, or whether it's not applicable by the admins, I can understand that. But it's not something open to interpretation. Once again, the rules are very clear on this point. In this particular case: 0 interpretation.

For the player agent, if I've understood correctly it's not a bug, but two different values: one made by the players via the market, and the other by VF, via a specific system. It's a problem with the VFStore.

Galy, what's against the rules? Have you got a little screen? It's clearly noted for the IS that 5-5-0 is forbidden, a rule specific to the competition, but for the rest? It's not mentioned in the rules. From then on, the problem comes mainly from the set-up, which requires this manoeuvre to put 5 attackers (atc and ace together). A few years ago you could do it without the manoeuvre. It would just be nice to be able to do it again to limit these manoeuvres and give that feeling of 'cheating'.
You can have 5 FDs and 5 Ms, so why shouldn't you have 5 strikers?
As far as I'm concerned, it's neither a flaw nor cheating, but a problem with the way the game is set up.
I haven't used it for X number of years, so there's no need to pigeonhole me as a cheat 😅.

lorenzo861: Galy, qu'est ce qui est contraire au règlement ? T as un petit screen? Il est bien noté pour les IS que le 5-5-0 est interdit, règle propre à la compétition, mais pour le reste? Ce n'est est pas notifié sur le règlement.. Dès lors, la problématique vient surtout du paramétrage qui nécessite cette manœuvre pour mettre 5 attaquants (atc et as confondu). Il y a quelques années on pouvait le faire sans manœuvre. Cela serait juste bien de pouvoir le refaire pour limiter ces manœuvres et de donner ...

5-5-0 and 0-5-5 are not the same thing. The game allows for 5 defenders, 5 midfielders, but not 5 strikers. That's all there is to it. Unless you're handling something that's not meant for that.

I'm not putting anyone in the cheating box. People use this example to say that the rules are ambiguous. Well, it's not. It's not the scandal of the century either, I'm not trying to point the finger at anyone.

Well, it seems strange to think that you can make players do 5 5 0 but not 0 5 5... be entitled to full defence but not full attack... Is the catenaccio back? 😅 but to each his own, as they say.

I have been following the debate around the alignment of the 5ᵉ attacker very carefully, and I think this case is a perfect illustration of the grey area that exists between what is allowed, what is forbidden, and what is not yet clearly defined.

If the alignment of a 5ᵉ attacker is considered a bug, then it needs to be fixed quickly by the developers.
If it is a flaw, it must be formally prohibited, communicated to the whole community, and sanctioned if used.
On the other hand, if there is no rule against it today, and some curious managers have found a way to field 5 attacking players, then they are simply being more ingenious in their exploration of the game.

This case shows just how much interpretation can vary in the same situation. And God knows there are many other similar cases in the game.

Phoenix: J’ai suivi avec beaucoup d’attention le débat autour de l’alignement du 5ᵉ attaquant, et je pense que ce cas illustre parfaitement la zone grise qui existe entre ce qui est permis, ce qui est interdit, et ce qui ne l’est pas encore clairement défini.

Si l’alignement d’un 5ᵉ attaquant est considéré comme un bug, alors il doit être corrigé rapidement par les développeurs.
S’il s’agit d’une faille, elle doit être formellement interdite, communiquée à l’ensemble de la communauté, et sanctionnée ...

Yeah

To answer your different opinions on the alignment of the 5th striker:
The one and only purpose of aligning a 5 5 0 or 505 or 5 5 0 formula is to maximise the impact of an X style.
If you don't want a similar team composition, ask the MDJ to modify the impact of each position's style so that you no longer see these "Bizarre" schemes.

#forum?topic=163443

Aymeric replied to this topic that I opened 2 years ago.
I felt that his message was open to interpretation. It must also be said that it suited me.

After rereading it, and even though it would still suit me, it does say that it's a bug. so a priori, you don't have the right to do it.

The real subject of debate is not about any particular feature, notably bizarre formations such as 0-5-5, but about the interpretation of grey areas in the game. And that's where things get tricky.

To illustrate my point, I'll take a fictitious example (which, as far as I know, doesn't exist in the game):

Let's imagine that by sending the Junior recruiter on an assignment every Tuesday at a specific time of day, he systematically brings back 16-year-olds with a potential of 81 or more.
So I have several legitimate questions:

Is this a flaw in the system? A bug that needs fixing? A trick discovered through observation, rigorous monitoring and experimentation in a management game?

And above all: what should I do?

Continue to exploit this discovery discreetly? Notify an Admin (a competitor in the game) at the risk of making the information public and putting my club or agreement at a disadvantage? Wait for an official announcement that may never come?

In a management game, information is a strategic lever. When there are no explicit rules (it must be said that, with all the goodwill in the world, the rules cannot cover 100% of cases), nor a neutral body to whom such cases should be referred, we are all faced with unclear choices. It's precisely these grey areas (the Eldorado of the ill-intentioned) that are the problem today.

And as long as these situations are not clearly defined by a reporting and handling process, everyone will interpret them in their own way (administrators and users alike), which fuels tensions and divisions within the community.

Phoenix: Le vrai sujet du débat ne porte pas sur une fonctionnalité en particulier, notamment les formations bizarroïdes tel que le 0-5-5, mais bien sur l’interprétation des zones grises dans le jeu. Et c’est justement là que les choses deviennent délicates.

Pour illustrer mon propos, je me permets de prendre un exemple fictif (qui, à ma connaissance, n’existe pas dans le jeu) :

Imaginons qu’en envoyant le recruteur Junior en mission chaque mardi à une heure précise de la journée, il ramène systémat...

Because in your example, the notion of a bug is itself a bit vague. Which is not the case with the 5 attackers, for example.

Phoenix: Le vrai sujet du débat ne porte pas sur une fonctionnalité en particulier, notamment les formations bizarroïdes tel que le 0-5-5, mais bien sur l’interprétation des zones grises dans le jeu. Et c’est justement là que les choses deviennent délicates.

Pour illustrer mon propos, je me permets de prendre un exemple fictif (qui, à ma connaissance, n’existe pas dans le jeu) :

Imaginons qu’en envoyant le recruteur Junior en mission chaque mardi à une heure précise de la journée, il ramène systémat...

let me change your question.
If it's a bug and you use it knowingly, are you at fault?
Yes, even if you didn't know it was a bug or a flaw.

So if you knowingly use your "discovery" without first ensuring that you had the right to do so, then you're at fault. So yes, the right course of action is to contact an admin.

This is a football management game, not a treasure hunt. There are no secret tricks or shortcuts hidden away in the intricacies of VF. So common sense is, if something seems odd to you; ask.

Galywat: Parce que dans ton exemple, la notion de bug est elle même un peu flou, c'est pas quelque chose de non voulu, mais le code qui a été décrypté.

Ce qui est pas le cas du 5 attaquants par exemple.

Dans ton cas, oui ça peut être complexe, mais c'est plus de l'optimisation et à aymeric de corriger pour rendre la chose aléatoire (même si on parle d'un truc fictif :p). c'est tout le rôle d'un admin et d'aymeric de déverminer les éventuels problèmes.

Ça n'empêche pas que certains cas sont assez...

The season before I won a match, the opposition put 5 strikers on and scored ... by playing 0-5-5.
You say it's forbidden, so I could have won the match on a green carpet and everything would have changed in my season.
But I didn't cry. Even for hundreds of thousands of euros VF.
I don't see how that's a flaw.
It's just that the MDM has been a big joke for a few seasons now. There's no logic to this mdm. Logically, if you play 0-5-5 you have to lose, which wasn't my case because I was winning before his 0-5-5 and then the score was reversed.
Again my IE today (and like my end of season in the championship the two draws on Sunday and Tuesday) proves how the mdm must be changed. It's great that you're dominating, but to win you have to be dominated or wait for a red card for the opposing team, or of course you have to be OK!

Magikcats: La saison der je gagne un match, l'adversaire met 5 attaquants et marque ... en jouant 0-5-5.
tu dis que c'est interdit, donc j'aurais pu gagné le match sur tapis vert et tout aurait changé dans ma saison.
Mais je n'ai pas pleurer. Même pour des centaines de miliers d'euro VF.
Je ne vois pas en quoi c'est une faille.
C'est juste que le MDM sa fait quelques saisons que ça s'est devenu une grosse blague. Il y a aucune logique sur ce mdm. Logiquement si tu joues en 0-5-5 tu dois perdre, ce qu...

Unfortunately, as long as you hope to win all your statistically dominated matches, you'll be disappointed on VF.

For a 0.8 xg difference, you have around a 55% chance of winning. In other words, despite having dominated your opponent relatively well, statistically speaking, you have almost a 1 in 2 chance of winning but also a 1 in 2 chance of making another score.

so yes, you're entitled to rage. we all rage. but, once you've got past it, you take a step back from your match, study the potential mistakes you made and tell yourself that you'll be more successful in the next match. and when it takes a long time, well, you take it easy, sometimes it takes a long time. but that's the way it is.