Hello Aymeric,

I really appreciate your active involvement and how you listen to the community, as well as most of the new features, but I think the one concerning MdM is counterproductive.

Whether it’s the first version (timer + instant change) or the second version (changes spread across several updates), it makes matches between two active players far less interesting.

Nowadays, without any leeway in the stats, it’s become difficult to gain a real advantage over an active and attentive opponent. It makes matches tight, not very interesting to watch, and increases the element of chance. It’s hard to catch your opponent off guard (which is a shame for a tactical game).

I understand, initially, the desire to find a solution when you suspected illegal use. But since it was a bug, it would be a shame to continue down this path.

I wanted to wait until the new season was approaching, gain a bit of perspective after several matches, and gather feedback from a number of managers before starting this new thread. This change is having a negative impact on the motivation of many members, including some of the most active in your game. I think that’s a shame 🙁

Thank you for taking the time to read this, and I hope you’ll have a rethink on this matter 🙂 That would be great.

Have a good week, everyone

The second version at least has the advantage of being clearer and less of a tactical mess; I think it could be used as a basis.

In my opinion, it is possible to improve the current system slightly:

--> Have a sort of token system for each team to reduce the delay in implementing new instructions to 0 seconds, as currently happens during a substitution or at half-time.

For example, having 10–12 tokens per team, or 5–6 per half. This would, in a way, simulate the fact that the team is able to adapt to new instructions quickly, but that a certain number of times

Each team would be free to use them whenever they wish. This would offer a good compromise for trying to influence the outcome, whilst keeping the gameplay similar to how it works today. The number of tokens could be adjusted based on feedback from the first few matches.

But it’s clear that at present, between two active teams of similar standard, barring certain very specific moments, it’s extremely difficult to make a difference.

Mauvais idée! On va se retrouver avec des jetons payants au VFSTORE. Pendant que les mecs qui jouent gratuitement vont se retrouver avec des pubs pour Onlyfan ou autre ….

On a vu des matchs actifs VS actifs dépasser les 1 de xg ?

Il est clair, en tout cas, qu’on va avoir un regroupement de tactiques centrées autour de phj jeu direct, contre attaques et des attaques à 3 pour bourriner les côtés sur les matchs serrés si ca reste en l'état. C’est juste un paliatif miser sur un bridage du jeu naturel sur les côtés pour passer par là.

Ce sera le seul moyen de garantir un peu de déséquilibre pour contrer un adversaire dans ces cas de figure..

Le niveau des équipes va reprendre le pas sur le niveau tactique d'assez loin.

@putneg

My idea might not actually be a good one. However, these days it’s impossible to make a difference against a team that’s on the same level as you and just as active.

As for the pace of the game, it’s not a problem – I like it too – but it’s not at all suited to the current MDM.

==> You need to create imbalances to generate the maximum xG these days (and since 2007). At the moment, that’s impossible when teams are on an equal footing. My token idea was to be able to recreate those imbalances, but admittedly, it might not be any better.

For example, to take two current examples: without absolute success, it’s now impossible to beat teams like Magpie’s (one of the best in the game, if not the best), or Lahi when he fields a defence of 550–600. Before, you could occasionally catch your opponents off guard; that’s impossible now. This MDM favours the 3-4-3 formation, PHJ and big teams that can create an imbalance thanks to their squad depth. Tactically, you have absolutely no leeway against these teams.

==> Another idea, with no going back, is to completely overhaul the MDM – typically, by reducing the conversion of defence ratings and PHJ into zone stats, and/or increasing attack. But that would have other unintended consequences, such as making it impossible to defend effectively. It’s a bit of a vicious circle. Perhaps it’s just a matter of fine-tuning.

==> I’m not sure, without a total overhaul of the MDM, that it’s possible to have a viable system as we have today. We also have to accept that VF remains a game; if we want something more structured, we’d have to go back to fixed updates every 3–4 minutes and hide the opponent’s movements. It won’t be real-time, and anyway, what difference does that make? We’re not playing FM.

The MDM is the foundation of VF; it’s also why there are still quite a few veterans playing. In this age of AI, you could create a VF clone in two weeks. A certain veteran player whom every VF player knows has gone all-in on this: if you look at his game, he’s using a system that’s almost identical to the MDM’s core mechanics; he doesn’t even try to hide it – it’s bordering on plagiarism as he uses the exact same terms and has just added a few extra gimmicks. I won’t play it on principle, but I see loads of people flocking to it, and I can understand why they’re finding things there that they miss in the game. The big VF matches are the very essence of the game; if those matches become uninteresting, you’ll lose the game’s active and long-standing player base in the long run – that’s guaranteed.

I’m not saying the game shouldn’t evolve, but the current changes aren’t well thought out on the MDM, at any rate. Nobody plays VF for the shop in the first place; we play for the matches and stick around longer for the shop. We play for those 5–10 per cent of matches that will make all the difference.

As things stand, if we take a bit of advice on board, here’s what ‘might’ suit everyone:

• The pace: Statistics updated every 3 to 5 minutes (at random), which means you don’t have to be glued to your screen for an hour and a half non-stop. On the other hand, something immediate, perhaps with more responsiveness from the MDM side in the event of a major imbalance.

• Hiding the ability to see the opponent’s moves: this is essential, whatever the format.
  It gives a slight advantage on PC (but only just…). And I understand that it’s unbearable to have all your moves anticipated over 90 minutes. Even more so with the current meta, where there are only a few useful adjustments to make during the match.

At the moment, it’s true that it’s very, very difficult to create an imbalance, especially when you know what attack/defence ratio is needed to stand a chance of creating a chance with maximum xG. It’s impossible against an active opponent.

It all boils down to one thing… I’M SO BORED!

Even though there’s no point in making substitutions every minute for 90 minutes, just trying to keep up with the opposition’s moves – whether tactical or individual – really got the adrenaline pumping!

Before the start of the new season, is there any chance we could do something about this over the weekend, @aymeric45?

Could you please revert the mdm to how it was before? It’s unplayable as it is at the moment.

Moi un 11 de départ une tactique puis les changements et loto à qui le tour
Fini les matchs avec 2 manager actif ça n'a plus intérêt à suivre 90 min .
C'est pour cela que je ne fais pas de ie .
Dans un championnat dans les divisions inférieures.
Le jeu est beaucoup moins amusant qu'il y a 2 ans trop de changements tue le changements.
La devise "on s'adapte" avait une limite pour moi je suis la, sans être la ,mon centre intérêt est ailleurs
Je répète ma composition, les remplaçant quand j'y pense ,remplir la boutique l'entraînement et c'est tout .
Je ne suis personne le jeu survivera ,mais je pense que je ne dois pas être le seul à vraiment s'ennuyer

Petit UP?

Franchement, j’ai du mal à retrouver l’intérêt tactique des matchs aujourd’hui.

J’ai parfois l’impression que le début de match se joue beaucoup sur les circonstances, que les adaptations tactiques sont rapidement neutralisées et que la seconde période devient une succession de changements pour tenter de faire basculer le match.

Je parle peut-être comme un vieux con, mais je trouvais que c’était mieux avant. C’était perfectible, certes, mais j’avais davantage le sentiment que les choix tactiques avaient un réel impact sur le match.

Dommage, parce que c’est justement cet aspect qui me plaisait, et je n'étais peut-être pas le seul.

Sur ce, je retourne faire des chaussettes.