For the past few seasons, the CP/LR rivalry has dominated Division 1; it’s simple really – almost 60% of the top 30 players belong to one of these two clubs.
Consequently, if we look at the average points per alliance, only six alliances exceed the average: I can imagine the lack of motivation among the other alliances, who must pray at every draft not to end up with a CP or LR
In short, we’ve raised this issue often, but isn’t it time to accept that there aren’t enough top-class players to sustain a 16-team D1, and since the vast majority of top players want to team up with one another (and that’s their right), we should go all the way and create an 8-team D1 with just one relegation spot.

You're right, it's been a while since we last talked about it. 😆

There are already several suggestions here:
#forum?topic=168074

For several months now, some have been pointing out the excessive gap in quality within the division, which makes the fixture list decisive.
Having more evenly matched games and direct clashes would make the league more competitive and more interesting. But that’s just my opinion.

The gap wasn’t as wide just four or five seasons ago; we still had teams or divisions that could challenge for the title, and there were two or three sides pulling ahead; now we easily have six (with all due respect to them). It’s a bloodbath that, apart from scaring players away, serves no purpose.
It’s like the real world: 90% of wealth and success is held by 2%, and it’s getting worse and worse – except that in this world, we can walk away. And do we really want to end up with just 100 players left in this game?
So let’s leave the champions to their own devices and allow the others to develop, so that they only reach the final stage once they’re ready and equipped to fight.

Don’t worry, FYM will be back to sort everything out!

That doesn’t stop us from getting thrashed by the ELU. 😁

Joking aside, sorry lads, but I’m still against it. I’ve got IE requests that sometimes sit there for two days. Once, nobody picked it up. I’d really like to find some opponents again. 😬 Especially as reducing D1 won’t push the good clubs towards leagues other than CP, LR, LV and Cercle – quite the opposite!

All the more reason to tighten things up.

I also think we should reduce the number of leagues in Division 1 (I’d cap it at 12) and completely overhaul the individual championships – fewer championships there too.

We could also approach the problem differently:

• Reduce the number of IPs per season. Why not 50 instead of 100?
• Limit the number of members per alliance. Why not 10 instead of 50?

These are bad solutions, of course. But no worse than the one mentioned in the original post. Except that these solutions will never be proposed by the top leagues because they don’t suit their interests.

At some point, the top alliances need to realise that they are primarily responsible for this situation, by recruiting left, right and centre any member who scores more than 20 points in a season.

Do you want competition? Well, stop raiding the talent pool. It’s easy to do; you just need to stop approaching people and turn down candidates you don’t actually need. But that would mean challenging your ultra-dominant status, and that’s something you don’t want to hear about. You’d rather propose restricting the elite as much as possible so as to cement your ultra-dominant position even further.

I’m totally against it. It just cements the dominance of the big clubs even further.
What’s more, just because you’re not in the top 8 clubs, you don’t get the chance to take on seasoned managers, which means fewer opportunities to improve tactically.
There are some brilliant managers in leagues who, in terms of tactics and squad quality, deserve to be in the title race, but their ambitions lie elsewhere. And yet they love coming to play big matches against LR, CP, Cercle and so on.
Competing for the title, yes, but at any cost, no. The atmosphere is also a factor to consider in a community-based game

The problem itself has been the same for ages: the number of very active players has dropped, and there are fewer top-tier teams. And since people are only human, they tend to band together to go for titles. We must commend the efforts of these two alliances for having successfully established this dual-dynasty. But that’s not about to change; it’s relatively easy to maintain this level from now on. It was quite similar in the past.

Most of the top clubs will fall into line, regularly recruiting the best players from the next tier of leagues, and there’s not really anything we can do about it. It makes sense.

There are fewer very good teams, and you have to play 100 EI per season, so there’s room for the best in the game in these leagues. Playing 50-60-70 matches? Yes, that could be a solution, and at the same time, it means a slightly greater impact from the variance in results and the impact of IS. It’s not simple; it’s not certain there’s anything that can be done about it, unless we change a lot of things. It might open up a few more possibilities for other leagues, but that’s not guaranteed.

In my personal opinion, the alliance system needs a complete overhaul, but that’s going to take some work

Otherwise, yes, season after season, the same two will keep getting stronger and the gap will just keep getting wider. That’s just the way the current system works, and it’s also down to the falling number of very active players

Hello everyone,

This issue has been coming up for quite some time now, with Aymeric requesting changes to balance inter-alliance competition, but I haven’t seen anyone suggest a solution that the community could implement. Let me explain

The presidents and staff of the leagues choose and decide who plays and how many matches each player plays; the solution is simple but will be unpopular

There are 100 matches to be played per season for an average of 20 clubs per alliance. In this case, for 20 members, give 5 matches to each; if there are 25 members, that would be 4 matches each, and so on…

Admittedly, the ‘perfect 10’ would no longer be achievable, but this would allow for a fairer competition to be revived.

After all, this is just one idea on how to change things without having to overhaul the entire MDJ system.

Kids love beating top players so much that they go AFK.
And I’m not even talking about the alliances that do a limited number of IE runs.

Lowering it straight to 8 might be a bit excessive, but 12 is a necessity.

I don’t dispute the superiority of the CP and LR, but if those two alliances stopped poaching the best members from other alliances left, right and centre, there would be less of a gap in skill levels and more suspense.

In fact, spreading the games out across all the members in the league could make a big difference.

A league with 30 members works out at an average of three matches per club (four for some to reach 100),
if there are 50 members, that’s two matches each; whether a player is AFK or not makes no difference, as there will always be someone on one side or the other.
On the other hand, managers with squads at 90-99 NG who only have 3-4 matches left to play won’t be able to do much more than advise their colleagues with 70-70 NG to help them win, which could make a difference

I’m not saying there’s no need for reform, but just that before always asking the MDJ to change things in the game, perhaps we could first look at how the community can change and make it more competitive

I’d also point out that every time the game’s programming changes, we end up with more bugs, so we should first see how the community can improve the game and on this point, the community can make a big difference to how these matches are managed

Leaving aside the issue of alliance dominance, the overarching question is really this: how can you avoid making the game off-putting if you’re a bit competitive but don’t belong to one of the top six alliances?
The only alliance to have managed to break through in the last 30 seasons is the AFU
If you want (because that’s the point) to climb the rankings, the league and cup competitions aren’t usually enough; you have to do inter-club transfers. A player starting out will spend time building up his centre, then to improve he joins a club and prefers a good one without going straight for one of the top 8.
Little by little he climbs the ranks, as does his alliance, and he finds himself 8th in D2, but as D2 is packed with sister alliances, he’s started to gain experience; but then he moves straight up to D1 and there... Bam, a 4-0 loss to Misha, then a 4-0 loss to Skyz – he can quickly realise the bar is set too high and will start playing less or try to aim for a top-6 spot, but even in Division 2, at some point, places are limited, so he drops out.
What I mean is that the gap has reached such a level that there’s a lack of that intermediate division where you can finish your development at a high level without getting thrashed. And for me, that would be a division made up of the top 8 from D2 and the bottom 8 from D1, with a single promotion-relegation spot. The standard would be very high, and there you’d have time to gain enough experience, enjoy yourself and only face the best once you’re ready.

RIP to the clubs whose applications were politely turned down by the CP; they’ve just learnt they probably didn’t have enough ‘guts’ to take them on! Are your egos holding up? 😂

We all agree that change is needed. Thanks to the clubs for putting forward proposals; they’re going to a lot of trouble for something that probably won’t happen. But hope springs eternal, so let’s hope...

Why not limit it to 4 or 5 international matches? But what will happen then?
All the mid-table clubs will use their transfer windows at the start of the season when Magpie, Skyz and Misha Ced are in the Champions League, then they’ll wait until the end of the season, once they’ve used their four transfer windows, to plan for the next one. In short, it’s like wanting to play in a different division.

Sure, you’re perfectly entitled to choose your own selection criteria, just as I’m perfectly entitled to think they’re a bit pretentious. But it’s no big deal!

• Reduce to 12 teams per division
• Create a closed league for sister teams
• Limit to 5 friendly matches per club
• Pay 500k per friendly match organised to NSE Futbol Club

PS: also review the number of championships (as previously mentioned); VF no longer has sufficient real assets for the current setup

PS 2: Kita, hurry up and sign the club’s sale offer

Demi has highlighted the real issue: the recruitment of top players in D1 leagues.
Of course, you can’t stop a player from leaving, but I don’t see the point in it, apart from winning the title every season – that’s for sure.
Personally, I prefer to stay loyal and take on the challenge of going out to find CP and LR players.

I must admit, whilst things are getting a bit congested at CP and LR, that I don’t know why some people aren’t taking up the challenge of joining the Circle or the Vikings to bolster their ranks and get involved in the title race, as they did a few seasons ago. Honestly, it’s just a matter of two or three players to get the few points needed to be on the same level; it would make the league more exciting to think that the title is being contested by four teams, as in England, rather than in France or Germany, where the league is decided before it’s even begun.

So, rather than moping around in the second division, don’t hesitate to lead by example. I’m sure plenty of Championship clubs would be delighted to welcome you on board to help them improve.

As compensation for hitting on us, Poky! 😛
I don’t know if we’ve come out on top, but we’d be delighted to welcome you, Zelj! 🙃

But I’ve just come from LR1 and I’ve gone back to LR2 of my own accord because I don’t feel I’m committed enough to be there.
In LR2, the challenge is precisely to finish first in D2. I know my limits in terms of skill and commitment, and I feel I’m in the right place, so I’m enjoying myself.
And I’d enjoy it even more if the standard in D2 were to rise as proposed, because the challenge would be even greater whilst still remaining achievable.
But now, if one day the sister clubs were to disappear or I found myself without a contract, I’d actually find it more logical to apply to the Vikings, Cercle or RTG if there were a challenge to help take the team to the next level in the title race, rather than just bolstering a dominant side thatwouldn’t need me at all

The real problem is not the dominance of CP or LR, but the mindset of certain managers.

Every season, the most ambitious clubs almost invariably join the strongest alliances. The result: the same alliances become even stronger, attract even more good clubs and continue to dominate the competition.

For me, the real challenge isn’t joining a league that’s already at the top, but helping to build a project capable of competing with the best. Unfortunately, many managers prefer security and guaranteed victories rather than taking risks and building for the long term.

As long as this mindset persists, it will be very difficult to see new alliances emerge that are capable of competing with CP and LR. The dominance of these alliances is not only the result of their quality, but also of the natural appeal that success holds for managers

Many good clubs stick to their core values, but after a while they too have built a strong team and are managing their matches well, so they want to win the Holy Grail.
So, naturally, to win trophies and face a challenge, they have to move on, and that’s only human.
We still play in the VF league for the competition too.
When FYM were relegated, we were completely stripped bare.
They’ve all joined up with some great clubs (LV, CP, LR, LV, etc.) and I never tried to hold them back; on the contrary, I understood their choice.
It’s not the big clubs that need to bend to the will of the players, but us smaller clubs that have managed to make the members want to stay.
With determination, it’s still possible to quickly challenge the top 5.
Beat 5 out of 7 big clubs and you’re getting there.
It takes time and patience, but it’s not impossible either.

The flow isn’t one-way.

At CP, for example, there have recently been departures to other leagues such as ELU and the Entente Languedocienne, or even L7C. L7C, incidentally, is set to go from D5 to D1 very soon, barring any disasters.

I don’t have any shares in L7C, but I imagine they have these three pillars: a network of managers who get on well, an organisation and a vision, as well as a good atmosphere. They’ve come together well and even have a sister alliance, just like LGM and Sweet did before. So managers who are keen to embark on a ‘zero to hero’ project do exist, especially if they can do it with friends.

But when you’ve got at best two genuine new players a month who’ll stick with VF, it’s impossible to keep the forty or so more or less active alliances in the game happy, whatever their level.

I think Demi’s idea is a brilliant one: reducing the number from 100 IE to 50 IE.

The benefits:

• We’ll have more high-quality IEs rather than just quantity
• It’ll stop agreements from chasing numbers
• Agreements won’t need numbers to be competitive
• It’ll also promote new agreement projects

"To conquer without risk is to triumph without glory!"

Or perhaps there are simply too many agreements.

In any case, until there is a realisation that, with the decline in the number of managers (I’m talking about ‘individual’ and active managers, not clubs set up solely to pick up free players), a league comprising 16 D1 alliances, with alliances potentially bringing together 50 clubs, no longer reflects the reality of the game at all.

But reducing the maximum number of members per alliance (as suggested by some) will not change anything, as many clubs in ‘large’ alliances did not join their alliance for the IE but for all the other benefits they can find there.

And imposing a reduction in the number of clubs per alliance will only cause alliances of 2, or even 3, to balloon, and may even lead to the creation of alliances of 3 and 4 where none currently exist.

The only parameter that needs adjusting is the number of alliances per division.

The move from 20 to 16 was far too ‘insipid’; reducing it to 12 would undoubtedly be just as much so. What would provide a different direction is the move to 8-team divisions with two promotions and two relegations per division (and, in parallel, a league based on the same model exclusively reserved for sister leagues).

When you look at the current league standings, it’s telling
In D1: more than half of the leagues will not have played 100 matches by the end of the season
In D2: the same

There are two reasons for this ‘loss of interest’:

1. The imbalance in fixtures, which means that mid-table clubs from ‘small’ partnerships dare not schedule away games because they know they have an 80 or 90 per cent chance of facing teams far too strong for them
2. the fact that in a 16-team league, three-quarters of the clubs know from the very first matchday that they cannot compete for the title and that, whatever they do, they will not be relegated.
   A league where three-quarters of the participants have nothing to play for is inevitably uninteresting.

With divisions of eight and significant reshuffling each season (two promoted and two relegated), this will give a real boost to many clubs’ motivation for the Inter-League championships.
And as the icing on the cake, a reform of IS matches: 7 IS matches (1 per week) with a high points coefficient against the other 7 teams in the division.

This ties in with your previous post, and I agree with that – and I’ll say it again: even if the suggestions aren’t perfect, I think the majority of the discussions are aimed at making the game more enjoyable, ensuring it remains appealing, and keeping people playing.
The alliance system is one of VF’s strong points; even when you’re fed up with the game, you stick around for the mates who’ll try to help you reach new milestones if you want to climb higher.
In short, would it be possible to set up a poll (limited to members who have been here for at least 6 months) on:
The ideal number of alliances per Division 1 and 2 (or even 3): 6, 8, 10, 12 or the current 16
The number of promotion and relegation spots: 1, 2 or 3
A sister league running in parallel?
The number of matches per season: 50, 60, 80 or 100

Honestly, do you really think that by removing four clubs from Division 1 you’ll have a better chance of beating the LR or the CP? It won’t make any difference at all, just like reducing the number of teams.
Are you afraid of being relegated that you’re suggesting removing four teams from Division 1? But it’ll be worse with 12 alliances – the bottom two will go down. Some alliances have been in Division 1 for a while but are struggling to stay up; others are bouncing between Division 1 and 2; and others, like the NWO Wolfpack, are trying to train their members to reach the top level (it might be this season, but it’ll be tough)
By closing the promotion route to these alliances, you’re isolating yourselves amongst the big alliances, so for me it’ll be worse to reduce the number of alliances
I was one of the first to want a sister alliance division, but only fools never change their minds. I’m against it now because, for alliances like ours, it’s been really useful to meet these second-tier alliances, most of whose members are from first-tier alliances
You want a revolution: put 150 to 200 members per alliance, ban sister alliances. If you have too many members, too bad – you’ll have to sort them out. This will allow the remaining members to join existing alliances, as creating new alliances will be banned
Precisely to avoid having hidden sister alliances
And above all, to stick to 16 alliances per division
I know some of you are going to tell me my ideas are rubbish – rest assured, I’m used to it

I haven’t read the post in full, but looking back, the game is clearly geared towards individual and team performance. The best and most dedicated players are rewarded. It’s not really surprising to see the final result.
A few years ago, when I was more dedicated, I managed to sneak into the top 50; not anymore. The new points system has raised the bar for performance (taken into account in the individual rankings of cup winners).
I used to enjoy battling for a place in the top 10 of the individual rankings, but not anymore. It’s a lost cause if you don’t win at least one cup.

As for the IE battle, if you want competition, it’s not that complicated. A maximum of 15 to 20 members per alliance, a maximum of 50 IEs, and new alliances will spring up because not everyone will be able to play their IEs. You might say, ‘create alliances 3 and 4’, but not necessarily: alliance 3: D3 max, alliance 4: D4 max. Many clubs will want to play in D1 and won’t accept D2.

Given the decline in the number of active players, the system needs a thorough overhaul. Broadly speaking, the best players are in the two big teams, then there are two or three trying to challenge them, and the rest are struggling to keep up. If you want more challenges and more competitive partnerships, you need to break up the concentration of the game’s best players....
Well, I’m not going to make many friends by saying this... but it’s the only solution: spread the strength around. The number of active players is too low to consider anything else.
Reducing the number of alliances in D1 to 8 will no doubt tighten up the IE rankings (with higher-level matches), but VF will become even more elitist, with good managers moving down to D2 because D1 is too complicated and the performance required is too high.

We’ve noticed that sister agreements have been causing problems for years.
Perhaps it’s time to do away with them once and for all.

If we draw a parallel with the various regional Division 1 leagues in the game, which consist of eight clubs, the good thing is that, broadly speaking, almost all eight clubs are involved in the race for something from start to finish: the title, a Champions League qualifying spot, avoiding relegation, etc...

But if next season it were to switch to 16 clubs (without home-and-away fixtures given the length of the season), it would be a disaster in terms of interest; more than half the clubs would have nothing to play for from the start, assured of finishing between 4th and 14th given their squad strength.

We’re playing a virtual game to have fun doing things that give us a bit of a thrill.
If playing in the Premier League is just for the sake of being able to say and show off: ‘I’m in the Premier League’, frankly, it’s a shame to have come to that.

We keep going round in circles on the same topics, time and time again. We keep bringing up the same arguments and the same possible solutions. In the end, in a few days’ time, this thread will fade into obscurity along with the others, and we’ll bring it up again in three months, six months or more.

The only person who can make a difference is Aymeric. And as long as he doesn’t feel like reading up on it, making a decision or changing anything... well, we’ll just keep going round in circles for a while. Discussing and debating is great. But if it always leads to... nothing, what’s the point?

And why not create a league system organised by continent? For example, CP for France, Le Cercle for Belgium, and so on. The leagues would be grouped by region—Europe, Africa, and so on—with a first and second division system as we have now. This would allow for the creation of new leagues, more competitive championships, and so on.

Members could go wherever they like, of course, but this way there would be several D1 champions from each country and so on; that would sort out quite a few issues.

It would even allow us to consider several inter-league cups.