Well, there are plenty of things to complain about when it comes to MDM. The word "carrot" crops up in most posts and conversations. It's time to propose an improvement project!

It's worth remembering that today, MDM is pretty well designed once you understand how it works (or at least a good part of it). However, there is still a significant element of randomness in some matches, due, in my opinion, to xGs capped at 0.27, which does not allow for a sufficiently high opportunity/goal conversion rate.

Why is this?

• No doubt to avoid excessive scores
• So as not to discourage new players who would lose one game after another
• To avoid spending 1h30 watching each match
• To get closer to reality
• Etc.

The main points to emerge from the discussions I've had or read:

• We accept losing to someone stronger than us, and that's normal
• You accept losing when you're not online while your opponent is (or isn't, for that matter): all you had to do was get online and follow the match instead of complaining.
• It's too easy to concretise to avoid conceding goals

On the other hand, losing or drawing against someone who isn't online, or who refuses to play, when you've spent 1 hour 30 minutes watching the match and largely dominated it (I'm not talking about a 100-point difference, but a match like Marseille against Bayeux in the French Cup), that's frustrating.

In short, I can only see one solution to satisfy everyone and make the MDM almost perfect:

👉 Increase the maximum xG on an occasion.
Not necessarily up to 1 as in the real world, but already double them (0.54), in order to improve the opportunity/goal conversion rate and thus reduce that "carrot" feeling and the ensuing frustration.

It would also make the matches much more fun and enjoyable to watch. A good 3-3 is much more interesting than a 0-0. It forces you to follow and adapt your strategy, rather than locking up the match in the meantime.

Yes, VF is a game. As such, it is supposed to amuse and entertain. But frustration is counter-productive to fun.

So, if you agree with this idea, I'm counting on you to like this project to motivate Aymeric to look into this important subject for the future of VF.

PS: this post is not intended to start sterile debates - there are already 'carrot' posts for that.

It’s a good idea.
A player’s individual scoring chance
can be distinguished from the team’s overall scoring chance.
A skilled coach can turn a tough match into a muddy mess or achieve a major comeback.
So everyone feels what's live game benefits more than offline.
Seeing changes in VF is upsetting to classic fans.
If Aymeric tries to separate test/beta leagues and tournaments instead of going through this…
Both classic and modern fans will win.

Hi, there.

I completely agree with the gist of the message.

As for the solution, I'm leaning towards a slightly lower xG cap than your proposal. But I would add a change that is absolutely necessary to achieve the desired goal (lol): an increase in the conversion rate of opportunities.

Increasing xG alone would be like enlarging the goalkeeper's goal. You'd think you'd have more chances to score. But if the programming is calibrated so that you have a 16% chance of converting your chance into a goal... well, nothing changes, whatever the size of the goal. ^^

Just capping the xg at 0.33 instead of 0.27 would have a big impact and check that there isn't a bug explaining why sometimes nothing happens for half a minute or more 😉

Nice post, thanks Tomas for taking the time to write it 👍🏻

+1 for the proposal.

The xGs are too low in matches with the cap of 0.27 maximum per occasion.

For example, if you give your opponent 2xG - 0.4xG, that's almost 1 chance in 3 of taking a carrot (29% draw or loss).
#match?mid=6726109&score
Which is enormous, given that it's virtually impossible to achieve that in big games with the current cap.

In the LDC, we're more on the 1.2-0.5 mark when we're outplaying a big opponent.
And here we're on figures where we only win ~55% of the time and draw ~45% of the time, which makes the competition far too unpredictable.

zejl: Déjà rien que plafonner les xg à 0.33 au lieu de 0.27 je pense qu on en sentirait beaucoup les effets et vérifier qu il n' y ait pas un bug expliquant pourquoi parfois il ne se passe rien de chez rien pendant une mi temps voire plus 😉

No better than you. The proposal makes sense, but doubling the maximum ceiling seems too high to me too.

Since the dawn of time but the big difference is that even the top 10 find themselves hooked and bored to death because as time goes by managers manage to 'block' a match for want of winning it so the matches between the top 20 which should be the showcase of the game, the slightly eventful thing end most of the time in 0-0 or 1-0 and frankly it sends a dream to newcomers to say wowhhh when you get to the top you'll have the chance to string together 0-0s....
So maybe some coaches will try new systems or new tactics that will revive interest (we can criticise it all we want but Teddy almost succeeded) but I doubt it and without something that changes we're going to go round in circles and get more and more bored, hence the many suggestions because we just don't want that to happen.

Small UP so that aymeric thinks on it in view of the number of like.😉

The adjustments to the xG boost made the games completely inconsistent. It hasn't made the game more punishing, it's just made the number of goals soar. The real problem is the allocation of chances, not the xG itself. The engine distributes goals by following the delivery of chances.

A dose of randomness is good for the game. But the results over the last few days have been mind-boggling.

When the roll falls to the opposition, you can dominate as much as you like, but nothing happens until the next update.

To fix this, you need to increase the number of updates per match and adjust the probabilities.
Returning to the previous settings with a significant increase in the number of updates should allow things to balance out while maintaining an increase in the number of goals.

Did something really happen? 🤣

Yes, it's visible if you analyse the CSVs to be exported from the Matches tab correctly.

Personally, I haven't seen any changes in the last few days. There have always been 'inconsistent' series (depending on what you mean by 'inconsistent'), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the game settings have changed.

After that, increasing the number of events could be a good thing to reduce the variance at match level. But I'm not sure it would be accepted.

Galywat: J'ai pas vu de changement ces derniers jours personnellement. Des séries "incohérentes" (selon ce qu'on met derrière ce mot), il y en a toujours eu, ça ne veut pas forcément dire que le paramétrage du jeu ait changé.

Après augmenter le nombre d'actu ça peut être effectivement une bonne chose pour que la variance à l'échelle d'un match soit moins importante. Mais pas sûr que ce soit accepté

Your personal bias is different from the statistical bias.

There have been changes, just look at the extractions.

sora02: Ton biais personnel est différent du biais statistique.

Il y a eu des changements, il suffit de regarder les extractions.

It's still possible, but if so, what changes will there be?

Galywat: Ça reste possible, mais si c'est le cas, quels sont factuellement les changements ?

There are a lot more goals in the games, and above all it seems that xGs are not taken into account for the danger of chances. As a result, we're seeing an increase in the number of games with +4 goals, without it really being consistent with the in-match stats.

When did the change take place, roughly, so that we can form an opinion on the matter?

Demi-cerveau: Le changement daterait de quand, à peu près, qu'on puisse se faire un avis sur la question ?

Pour ma part, je n'ai rien constaté à l'échelle de mon club ou des ie de mon entente.

First on the night of 19-20 March.
Then on 02 April.

Yes, on 1st April, I broke my xG record, 6.22, for me it changed at that moment 😂

Out of curiosity, I looked at the goals on the rtg ie matches. I noticed :

• 85 goals in 45 games up to 19 March (average 1.89 goals per game).
• 67 goals in 35 games since 20 March (average 1.91 goals per game).

If there has been any change between 19 and 20 March, it's not immediately obvious.

Demi-cerveau: Par curiosité, j'ai regardé les buts sur les matchs ie de la rtg. J'ai constaté :

• 85 buts en 45 matchs jusqu'au 19 mars (moyenne 1,89 buts par match).
• 67 buts en 35 matchs depuis le 20 mars (moyenne 1,91 buts par match).

Si changement il y a eu, entre le 19 et le 20 mars, il ne saute pas aux yeux à première vue.

It's not necessarily the number of goals that's changing, but the inconsistency.

My feeling is that a lot more "weak" chances are hitting the target than before.

For example, 0.26xG is not equal to a 26% chance of scoring a goal.... And 0.05 is not 5% either....

So if I sum up correctly:

• not happy because too many 0-0s in matches
• not happy because there are too many goals compared to the consistency of the chances

If I was Aymeric I'd have lost my hair a long time ago!

Fougch: Du coup si je résume bien:

• pas content car trop de 0-0 on se fait iech en match
• pas content car trop de buts par rapport à la cohérence des occasions

Si j’étais Aymeric j’aurais perdu mes cheveux depuis longtemps !

I don't see anyone crying here.

Spoiler alert
Be patient. A very nice analysis is coming soon and will give you a clearer picture😉

ME my doctor told me I had to be careful with my diabetes 🤣🤣

Fougch: Du coup si je résume bien:

• pas content car trop de 0-0 on se fait iech en match
• pas content car trop de buts par rapport à la cohérence des occasions

Si j’étais Aymeric j’aurais perdu mes cheveux depuis longtemps !

Dark browns, very often, give us a tonsure as we age... but it's possible that with the money from the VF store, he made an express return trip to Turkey ^^.