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?).

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 ...

"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.

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.

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 😅

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!

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.

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!

You can come back to this 100 times.
I'm still not the England coach.
So I still don't select the players.
So I still can't divert anything to select them.
But since you seem to be in such a tizzy about this, I'd urge you to talk to the relevant authorities or the manager (or whoever you want, I don't want to restrict you).

Let's get back to this deliberate misuse of a game mechanism for the sole purpose of giving players an extra event.

Alalala les lr svp allez s'y direct j'ai déjà sortir les pops corn 😅
From what I've understood the +2 is blocked but by doing a prep course + recovery course it can unblock the +2.
If this isn't a loophole, you'll have to explain it to me...

I'm still not England coach, etc........
Feel free to create a separate topic if it helps you sleep better.

Let's get back to today's news.

I don't really understand why this is going to the federations...

The bug seems to concern the case of a loan.
The return from loan + definitive transfer when they consider that the player has benefited from it so even if that wasn't the case ... the player receives nothing apart from a loss of physique.

Since I see that I'm (reluctantly) being quoted on the subject, I'm going to state things clearly as they were at the time of these discussions. I don't know where things stand now.

1. The rules EXPLICITLY allowed a federation to have 3 players from the same club in its ranks, provided that the club was of a single nationality.

2. The coach had the right to select players from a club at any time.

3. Considering these two points, Marcus was perfectly entitled to have 1, 2 or 3 English players selected. Neither he nor the manager is at fault.

4. Assuming that the current VF administrators have a problem with this situation, there is a simple solution to change this:
   a) They go to Aymeric to explain their problem.
   b) They get Aymeric's agreement to change the rules.
   c) They change the rules and make an announcement on vforum.

All this reminds me of a recent discussion I had with an administrator on the "transfers" section of the forum. I was told, in essence, that it was normal for a club that didn't respect the VF rules as written to come and shout at me when I was scrupulously respecting them. Because the rules as written did not correspond to the administrator's philosophy on this particular subject. Sorry, but that's not how things work and how they should work. The rules are written. You have to respect them and enforce them, or else change them.

Aren't you fed up with all your two-bit polemics?
You need to grow up a bit,
😡

In this case, I haven't misappropriated anything; there's no valid comparison. If you think that's the case, please create your own topic or talk to the admins. We'll see what happens.

As far as the main subject of Estac's post is concerned, however, there is indeed a deliberate misappropriation of a game mechanic.

Any news on the penalties for those who use this flaw?

I'm going to be looking for an agreement soon and I'd like to make sure I don't make the wrong choice.

Yes, it would be good to have an answer, because if it's not a fault, I've got a few youngsters waiting to take a few points in endurance racing.

Regulate, no, but I think you can catch the clever ones who do...

Yes, it's an almost perfect flaw, with the +2 not appearing.

I'm curious to know who is using this loophole ....;)

Soon I imagine a lot of people.
It's going to be a sad game.

I hope there will be sanctions. I didn't follow where it came from. Who are we talking about? What agreement?

Whatever the agreement, the rules are the same for everyone, big or small
Foul = penalty AND that's it

Oh yes, the player should simply be deleted from the database.

Good
Since you're talking about a flaw AND not a bug
And as we are in the bug section
I invite you to post in the community section AND to contact the anti-cheating administrators.
To do this
so I'll close here