Following the discovery of loans of less than 24 hours at the start of last season, I've just done a test to see if there was a loophole for recovering twice +1 in endurance.

I gave my player a training camp and sent him out on loan.

image](https://i.imgur.com/RiiynAd.jpeg)

Then a second preparation course was held

My player took 2 +1 in endurance.

If an admin can remove a stamina point from my player and pass the info on to Aymeric.

But hadn't Aymeric blocked that?
I mean, hadn't he put a patch in place that blocked the possible stage for a designated player at 1?

I don't want to get into a two-bit argument here, I just want to understand.

I'm sure I've read of cases where the player didn't have a second "+1" on the 1st day of last season. Transfers for sure. Loan, I think too but I'll have to look.

So if it was patched, has it been removed (and why?).

Magpie: Mais Aymeric n'avait pas bloqué ça ?
Je veux dire, il n'avait pas mis en place un patch qui bloquait à 1 le stage possible pour un joueur désigné ?

Je précise que je ne veux pas entrer dans une gueguerre à 2 balles, mais juste comprendre.

Je suis certain d'avoir lu des cas où le joueur n'avait pas de deuxième "+1" au 1er jour de la saison dernière. Transferts pour sûr. Prêt, je pense aussi mais il faudra que je recherche.

Donc si c'était bien patché, cela a t'il été retiré ? (et donc pourq...

The +1 that was missing was on loan returns.

I also did the test for a transfer

Before the transfer

After the transfer

OK, so if I've understood correctly, the patch has been cancelled. And nothing has been put in place.
And no communication of course, so we don't know what's OK or not.

However, in the case of short loans, the problem is that nothing in the old rules (or the new ones, as far as I can see) prohibits or regulates them. And besides, Aymeric has been aware of this since Demi's time with the Administration.
So if nothing has been done since then, it's hard to draw any conclusions.

Consequently, if the patch has been removed, we need to quickly decide what is authorised and what is not. And define it clearly. After all, if we don't regulate, there is the possibility of multiple placements. I agree with you on this principle. It remains to be seen whether this is intentional or not.

Oh boy, you sell (or you sell yourself depending on how big the family is) your players 5 times 100k (or even more let's be crazy) and you can do as many internships as sales?

Is that right?

On loan, the blocking still exists (but I think it's badly programmed).
I. Williams

This player went home this morning at around 7am, with no training course, neither with me nor with him. He then launched his training course and the player didn't take part in the event. So he didn't get the +1 he was hoping for ...

Magpie: OK donc si j'ai bien compris, le patch a été annulé. Et rien n'a été mis en place.
Et pas de communication bien entendu, donc on ignore ce qui est OK ou pas.

Néanmoins, pour le cas des prêts courts, le souci est que dans l'ancien règlement (ni le nouveau il me semble), rien ne les interdit, ni les réglemente. Et d'ailleurs Aymeric est au courant depuis le temps de Demi à l'Administration.
Donc si rien n'est fait depuis, compliqué d'en tirer des conclusions

Par conséquent, si le patch a été ...

There is only one training course per player.
If you deliberately make a short loan in order to give him two courses, you are using a loophole...

Check out this topic #forum?topic=169028

The player was at auction and the admins withdrew him.
If it was allowed to do several training courses, they wouldn't have cancelled the sale.

"There will only be one course per player" => Hmmmm I think you're pretty sure of yourself there. Nothing makes that clear. It's just a blank. I don't see how the game prohibits a player from having a stage in a club, and then having a 2nd one if it's sold before the time limit of the event. Just as if he has 2 times the form regen after a transfer, etc.. The game allows for this without a hitch.
In fact, many players ask a seller to do a training course before buying their player. And there's never been any debate about it. It's even come up several times. And nothing has been done about it. So your basic argument... really sorry, I don't support it (and I say that without hostility). And if having a 2nd training period after a transfer doesn't work, can you see yourself stopping yourself from buying a player because he's already had his training period, when you have to do yours in 2 days' time?
The thing to do seems to me to be to put in place a blocker if what you're saying is true (only 1 training period is planned). Or announce it, or regulate it.

The only thing you're highlighting, and which deserves some real thought, is the fact that it's being done through short loans. But, as I pointed out above, nothing regulates them. There is nothing. And the subject was raised with Aymeric over a year ago (when it was first introduced).

In the case you mention, it goes without saying that using them for 40 internships is an obvious problem. So it's vital to legislate on this. And urgently. I think we'll agree on that. (Or patch it up completely!)
But the specific case has probably been dealt with because I think it's beyond any logical tolerance. But from a regulatory point of view, I think there's plenty to discuss.

Otherwise, I'm coming back to this, but I think there are plenty of players who have +2s, and have been for years. And I'm not aiming at anyone, it's general I think.
Aymeric seems to have started to regulate that. Well, we don't really know :/

When you ask an admin "is it allowed to take out a loan for an additional prep course in order to get +1 in endu twice and then break it straight afterwards?" and they reply "no, that's a loophole", it becomes pretty clear.

This must have happened a number of times in the course of a purchase, and probably unintentionally.

But now that everything is open bar, we need to fix the problem quickly.

On the other hand, when you only send your player(s) out on loan for a few days just to do double training or even double recovery afterwards, yes, the game does allow it... But it seems very, very limited to me.

Otherwise, I send my A team to a colleague's and, conversely, I call everyone back and my players take 2 endurance tests per season.

There are indeed things that need to be reviewed, and even more so now that the limit has been removed. It opens the door to anything and everything.

Marcus Aurelius: Quand tu demandes à un admin "faire un prêt pour un stage de prépa supplémentaire afin d'avoir +1 en endu deux fois et le casser juste après c'est autorisé ?" et qu'il répond "non, c'est une faille" ; ça devient assez clair.

Ah, I didn't see that.
At least not in the post, or anywhere else, but frankly, I have to admit that I haven't read everything about the VFo
And if it's immediately defined as a flaw, I'd really like to have this admin explain it to me. And to look at the rules alongside.

It's like the federations, for example. The way to have several players summoned to the same federation has been defined as an exploitation of a loophole by an admin on the VFo. Doesn't that prevent some people from having 2 players selected for the same country? Should we look into it?

I think everything needs to be ironed out.
But if multiple internships for a player are authorised (or at least not forbidden), and short loans are not regulated, and above all that the MDJ has been aware of this for at least 1 year, it seems complex to me to claim that a loophole has been exploited. In any case, I'd like to discuss it (which is what we're doing here). Rather than drawing conclusions on the fly.

That said, I totally agree that we need to regulate, or ban, or clarify. And even better: in the regulations.

I think (and dare to hope) that the admins have tools to spot the multiple stamina progressions, or else I'm worried.
But all this just goes to show once again that the game is a real house of cards with chain reactions as soon as you touch a detail.
If you can terminate a loan early, a cascade of loopholes is triggered, into which a whole host of clever characters immediately swoop.
It has become a recurring theme that any new feature or development almost immediately leads to its share of circumventions.
Any new feature, however minor, should be announced to everyone with sufficient lead time to allow everyone to have their say and to review the copy before launching. And if legitimate objections are raised, corrections should be made before labelling.

You can be worried: we have no way of 'monitoring' players' progress other than by looking at their profile, just like everyone else.

Deliberately turning a game mechanism to your advantage means using a loophole.
If you take out a loan for a day or less just to do a preparatory course, you are misusing a game mechanism to your advantage.

We can go on and on; but the problem is summed up in the two lines above.

Marcus Aurelius: Détourner volontairement un mécanisme du jeu à son profit, c'est utiliser une faille.
Faire un prêt d'une journée ou moins juste pour faire un stage de prépa, c'est détourner un mécanisme du jeu à son profit.

On peut partir sur des pavés ; mais le problème est résumé dans ces deux lignes au-dessus.

So I don't agree with the term "misappropriate".
Short loans are not banned.
Only one course per club is allowed.

And yes, I'd like to see a game mechanism created so that a player doesn't take his second +1 internship if he's already done one. And this has been the case for over a year now.
I even thought that was the case.

You may not agree with this, but making a loan solely for an additional training period is still a misuse of a game mechanism.

I can confirm what Pigloo said: I think there's a blockage for training courses in the sense of "loan returns". It's set up any way you like, because here we have the case of a player who came back on loan from a club that hadn't organised the course, and who, like last season, didn't do his course at the club he'd come back to either.

In short, since the problem I raised exactly 56 days ago, nothing has been resolved.

But your player at least took his +1
At least that's changed 😅

Marcus Aurelius: Tu peux ne pas être d'accord ; mais faire un prêt uniquement pour un stage supplémentaire, ça reste un détournement d'un mécanisme du jeu.

That's your judgement.
I imagine you had the same one when you were called up to the English FA.
Fortunately, we can think differently.
So we have two opposing points of view. You're saying things that seem to me to have no basis in the regulations.
Having said that, I may be wrong, I don't think so, we'll see, I totally accept being wrong if that's the case.
In any case, my arguments are well-founded. And we need to be able to see things more clearly, to avoid any judgement/interpretation.

I think this problem needs to be sorted out as soon as possible... because with the transfer market opening up 'freely', it's going to be nimp!
Not to mention loans... you've got a 'big family' and with 3 or 5 accounts, each one buys the player (and why only one?) and bim 3 to 5 points added to the current season!

The beneficiary club gets the player back after 57 days and... for 500k in transfers per season, you've got a good, hard-working player at the end of his training!

So if we also break the training system by not regulating 'loopholes'... well... In short, I'm going to take in my whole family to compete!

Brutus: Je pense qu'il faut régler ce soucis au plus vite... car avec l'ouverture "libre" du marché des transfert, ça va être nimp !
Sans parler des prêts... tu as une "grande famille" et avec 3 ou 5 comptes, chacun achète le joueur (et pourquoi qu'un ?) et bim 3 à 5pts supp. à la saison en cours !

Le club bénéficiaire récupère son joueur au bout du 57ème jour et voilà... pour 500k de transfert par saison, tu as un bon joueur bien endurant à la fin de sa formation !

Alors là, si on casse aussi le s...

Exactly. It used to cost you at least the fees on the various transfers. But now .....

If people took two minutes to be honest, we wouldn't need to draw up a long-winded regulation that no one reads except to find out what it doesn't say in order to clear the name of a controversial action under the guise of legality.

Rift, hijack! We're about to become the Louvre Museum on VF! 😂

Honestly, I don't want to reopen the debate, but...

If "buying" a player from the VFStore (because a bug allowed it) is a flaw.

And they say that taking double preparation or physical recovery courses is not. Good

Once again, we need to discuss this and resolve the problem as quickly as possible. Because in just one day you can see the drift that can occur, so I'll leave you to imagine in a few weeks, with the clever ones.

PS: My message is not intended as a provocation or anything else, but I think you need to have a minimum of objectivity.

It's mostly factual.

As for your attack on me calling up English players, what can I say? I'm neither chairman nor coach.
If you think there's cheating going on, tell an admin or post a bug or wherever you want..............and above all you say that the England coach is a big lazy slob, there were only 2 matches out of the 8 allowed last season.

Now, if we could stop the wilful digressions and refocus.

Marcus Aurelius: C'est surtout factuel.

Quand à ton attaque sur mes convocations de joueurs anglais ; quoi dire ? Je ne suis ni président, ni sélectionneur.
Si tu penses qu'il y a triche, préviens un admin ou post en bug ou où tu veux..............et surtout tu dis que le sélectionneur anglais est un gros feignant, il n'y a eu que 2 matchs sur les 8 autorisés la saison dernière.

Maintenant, si on pouvait cesser les digressions volontaires et se recentrer.

Oh no, it was mainly to fill in your definition of 'Detourner'.
Objectivity is what Cedric is talking about. So you did use manipulation to get 2 players selected?
Are you hijacking a mechanism that only allows 1 player per club? I'm just repeating your principles...

It's simply a parallel to show that what you see, we can see differently. And of course I'm not going to go and see anyone. That's clearly not my aim, and I don't even give a shit. It's not my only job to stick to the admins in order to bring down someone, or a group, the proof is in the pudding...

Anyway, all that to say that we understand the principle. And that it's vital to clarify what's OK and what's not. I think we'll all agree on that.

His club only has English players, so he's entitled to 3 in the squad. If you need tactical advice as well as an understanding of the rules, don't hesitate to get in touch.

I'm not the coach, so I don't select the players, so I can't divert anything to get 2 or more selected. So I invite you to talk to the person concerned.
And for the record, a manager with a nation can have several players selected, it's in the rules.

But if you're emotionally shaken by this, I suggest you write to the admins; rather than trying to distract them in a rather clumsy way.

Let's stay focused on the fact that diverting loans to benefit from additional internships is a real misuse of the game's mechanics.

The only flaw, abuse or misuse of this theme of physical preparation courses would be to systematically organise them for dozens of players per club, and yes, then we could talk about abuse!
As it stands, I'm not shocked!
Frankly, apart from the 2 or 3 poor guys who would have the dishonesty and the time to do that, it's a false debate.
But I understand the initial message, the current system would allow you to do that. In reality, I'm not sure that any player would enjoy doing that every season for 10 of those players!