Hello community,
I know this subject has already been mentioned, but it's extremely painful to be "afraid" of touching the settings or making changes for fear of getting a goal.
To back up what I'm saying, I've played my last 3 games against big guns. I'd like to make it clear that my defeat in these games was logical, even if I could have hoped for a different outcome in one of them.
1- #match?mid=6764987 : I take a goal in my changes
2- #match?mid=6794108 : I take a goal when I consult my opponent's 'style stats'.
3- #match?mid=6795352 : I take a goal 7mn after my changes

Do I have to play AFK like a big shot? If every time I touch a parameter or make a change, I take a goal, I might as well go and play tennis. At least I won't be wasting my time.
It's weird to lose stats when you're consulting, and when you're making changes, you bring in freshness and sometimes strength, and that's fatal.

Player changes that lower the stats... such a logical setting... It's as if the substitutes don't train with the starters every day... Unless they have a memory problem and it takes 10 minutes to recognise their team-mates... Anyway, it's exciting to be active in matches 🤣

Every now and then, an opponent's change leads to a goal, and then, through bad luck, it's fallen to you, 3 times in a row.

Looking at your opponents, yes, it could have happened to anyone.

Don't be fooled, a change leads to a drop in stats for you and your opponent after a while and the 'compensation' comes in between.

Don't denigrate your matches with subjects like that, you'll see that you'll do the same thing in some of your next matches 😉

Respectively 6th, 10th and 13th in VF...

This drop in stats may be understandable in some cases. In others it is not.

A coach changes everything, which makes sense in terms of the potential negative impact.

In the final minutes, when you have to go all out to win or come back from a goal down, the drop in stats does the opposite...

I'm not questioning the quality of my opponents, who deserve their victory. However, I don't understand the circumstances that made me concede.
With the same strength, I don't have this problem (or a lot less), but here I've played 3 games when I was far inferior on paper (the fact that I played away 3 times didn't help either). It was tactically nice to put up some resistance, but it's a shame that the goals came in a strange way, each time at the bottom of my stats... We're not allowed to touch anything any more when we're playing big managers?

Basically, your complaint is understandable.

As for the form, you said it yourself: 3 very big opponents, and what's more, playing away from home, a change that leads to a smaller drop in stats and boom, you pick up 1.

It's not a question of moving or not moving, amha, it's a question of knowing if you need to and if they move ;)

More and more matches give an impression of inconsistency. The game has always had an element of randomness, and that's normal. Nobody wants the favourite to win 100% of the time. But before, this element of randomness was generally acceptable. Today, it seems to have gone well beyond that limit.
We are seeing more and more results that are very difficult to explain, even by looking at the statistics, the xGs or the balance of power between the teams. Where once a match might have produced a slightly lucky goal, it now seems that this type of situation is repeated far too often. Innocuous actions become decisive, major gaps between two teams are no longer sufficiently noticeable, and matches are becoming less and less reliable.
In my opinion, the problem lies mainly with the balancing of the match engine. There were probably two ways of responding to criticism of the lack of goals in big games, particularly in the Champions League:
Either increase the gap between small, medium, good and very big chances.
In this case, the best teams would have been rewarded more, but the gaps between the highly optimised clubs and the others would also have been more visible.
In other words, to increase the probability of conversion more generally, without necessarily accentuating the differences between the different types of chances.
This second option seems to have been chosen. The problem is that increasing the probabilities without sufficiently reinforcing the hierarchy between chances and teams mechanically increases the weight of chance.
The result is matches that seem much less readable, much less controllable, and sometimes even frustrating for those who are really interested in the competition.
This is not a complaint after a bad run or a few poor results. Losing is part of the game. So is playing a bad match. But stringing together a string of very surprising results, match after match, in all the agreements and all the competitions, gets tiring. Many of the players involved have noticed.
The CPs have already done a lot of work analysing VF's results, but there hasn't really been a clear answer. Yet there is plenty to discuss. When teams with an average of 250 points face off against teams with 200 or 210, the difference is not insignificant. On paper, it represents a huge difference. And yet, sometimes that difference seems to matter a lot less than it used to.
Of course, a strong team on paper is not enough. You also have to optimise your match statistics, your tactics, your physical strength and your choices. But still: at some point, differences in level, preparation and investment have to have some real weight in the results.
The aim of this message is not to attack the MDJ or to denigrate the work done on the game. The aim is to say that a significant proportion of competitive players today feel a loss of consistency. And if this feeling is shared by so many people, it at least deserves to be heard.
VF needs randomness, yes.
But above all it needs acceptable, legible and consistent randomness.
Today, many people feel that this balance has been upset. And it's precisely this point that we need to be able to discuss seriously with the MDJ.