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?).

Magpie: Mais Aymeric n'avait pas bloqué ça ?
Je veux dire, il n'avait pas mis en place un patch qui bloquait à 1 le stage possible pour un joueur désigné ?

Je précise que je ne veux pas entrer dans une gueguerre à 2 balles, mais juste comprendre.

Je suis certain d'avoir lu des cas où le joueur n'avait pas de deuxième "+1" au 1er jour de la saison dernière. Transferts pour sûr. Prêt, je pense aussi mais il faudra que je recherche.

Donc si c'était bien patché, cela a t'il été retiré ? (et donc pourq...

The +1 that was missing was on loan returns.

I also did the test for a transfer

Before the transfer

After the transfer

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 ...

Magpie: OK donc si j'ai bien compris, le patch a été annulé. Et rien n'a été mis en place.
Et pas de communication bien entendu, donc on ignore ce qui est OK ou pas.

Néanmoins, pour le cas des prêts courts, le souci est que dans l'ancien règlement (ni le nouveau il me semble), rien ne les interdit, ni les réglemente. Et d'ailleurs Aymeric est au courant depuis le temps de Demi à l'Administration.
Donc si rien n'est fait depuis, compliqué d'en tirer des conclusions

Par conséquent, si le patch a été ...

There is only one training course per player.
If you deliberately make a short loan in order to give him two courses, you are using a loophole...

Check out this topic #forum?topic=169028

The player was at auction and the admins withdrew him.
If it was allowed to do several training courses, they wouldn't have cancelled the sale.

"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.

Marcus Aurelius: Quand tu demandes à un admin "faire un prêt pour un stage de prépa supplémentaire afin d'avoir +1 en endu deux fois et le casser juste après c'est autorisé ?" et qu'il répond "non, c'est une faille" ; ça devient assez clair.

Ah, I didn't see that.
At least not in the post, or anywhere else, but frankly, I have to admit that I haven't read everything about the VFo
And if it's immediately defined as a flaw, I'd really like to have this admin explain it to me. And to look at the rules alongside.

It's like the federations, for example. The way to have several players summoned to the same federation has been defined as an exploitation of a loophole by an admin on the VFo. Doesn't that prevent some people from having 2 players selected for the same country? Should we look into it?

I think everything needs to be ironed out.
But if multiple internships for a player are authorised (or at least not forbidden), and short loans are not regulated, and above all that the MDJ has been aware of this for at least 1 year, it seems complex to me to claim that a loophole has been exploited. In any case, I'd like to discuss it (which is what we're doing here). Rather than drawing conclusions on the fly.

That said, I totally agree that we need to regulate, or ban, or clarify. And even better: in the regulations.

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.

Marcus Aurelius: Détourner volontairement un mécanisme du jeu à son profit, c'est utiliser une faille.
Faire un prêt d'une journée ou moins juste pour faire un stage de prépa, c'est détourner un mécanisme du jeu à son profit.

On peut partir sur des pavés ; mais le problème est résumé dans ces deux lignes au-dessus.

So I don't agree with the term "misappropriate".
Short loans are not banned.
Only one course per club is allowed.

And yes, I'd like to see a game mechanism created so that a player doesn't take his second +1 internship if he's already done one. And this has been the case for over a year now.
I even thought that was the case.

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 😅

Marcus Aurelius: Tu peux ne pas être d'accord ; mais faire un prêt uniquement pour un stage supplémentaire, ça reste un détournement d'un mécanisme du jeu.

That's your judgement.
I imagine you had the same one when you were called up to the English FA.
Fortunately, we can think differently.
So we have two opposing points of view. You're saying things that seem to me to have no basis in the regulations.
Having said that, I may be wrong, I don't think so, we'll see, I totally accept being wrong if that's the case.
In any case, my arguments are well-founded. And we need to be able to see things more clearly, to avoid any judgement/interpretation.

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!

Brutus: Je pense qu'il faut régler ce soucis au plus vite... car avec l'ouverture "libre" du marché des transfert, ça va être nimp !
Sans parler des prêts... tu as une "grande famille" et avec 3 ou 5 comptes, chacun achète le joueur (et pourquoi qu'un ?) et bim 3 à 5pts supp. à la saison en cours !

Le club bénéficiaire récupère son joueur au bout du 57ème jour et voilà... pour 500k de transfert par saison, tu as un bon joueur bien endurant à la fin de sa formation !

Alors là, si on casse aussi le s...

Exactly. It used to cost you at least the fees on the various transfers. But now .....

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.

Marcus Aurelius: C'est surtout factuel.

Quand à ton attaque sur mes convocations de joueurs anglais ; quoi dire ? Je ne suis ni président, ni sélectionneur.
Si tu penses qu'il y a triche, préviens un admin ou post en bug ou où tu veux..............et surtout tu dis que le sélectionneur anglais est un gros feignant, il n'y a eu que 2 matchs sur les 8 autorisés la saison dernière.

Maintenant, si on pouvait cesser les digressions volontaires et se recentrer.

Oh no, it was mainly to fill in your definition of 'Detourner'.
Objectivity is what Cedric is talking about. So you did use manipulation to get 2 players selected?
Are you hijacking a mechanism that only allows 1 player per club? I'm just repeating your principles...

It's simply a parallel to show that what you see, we can see differently. And of course I'm not going to go and see anyone. That's clearly not my aim, and I don't even give a shit. It's not my only job to stick to the admins in order to bring down someone, or a group, the proof is in the pudding...

Anyway, all that to say that we understand the principle. And that it's vital to clarify what's OK and what's not. I think we'll all agree on that.

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!

Alexandre67310: Son club a uniquement des anglais, il a donc le droit à 3 joueurs en sélection. Si par ailleurs tu as besoin de conseil tactique en + de compréhension du règlement, n’hésite pas

No, that's not true
In the new rules, yes, but before this Saturday morning, that's not true.
I won't bounce back on your childish provocations, and instead cordially recommend that you think/read before writing, if possible.

And so, for Marcus, as having more than one person selected does not appear in the rules (before last night), you'll have to turn to the VFo for any information you may need.
Happy reading: #forum?topic=168407&date=1755954196

(If you want, I've also got Morten saying that the selection of several players is null and void).

Let's get back to the subject. Flaw or not. To be corrected, certainly

Blagoje Vidinic: Tu peux être inquiet : nous n'avons aucun moyen de « surveiller » la progression des joueurs autrement qu'en regardant leur fiche, comme tout le monde.

However, it would be quite simple if you could export to Excel a history of a daily backup of all the players with their characteristics.
Then all you'd have to do is compare two columns. Then, of course, you'd just have to manually identify the cases (rare and easy to see) where the increase in stamina could be the result of stored XP.
And then you'd also have to stipulate in the rules that the detection of such fraud automatically results in the player being reset, which would be a deterrent, wouldn't it?

Magpie: Non c'est faux
Dans le nouveau règlement oui, mais avant ce samedi matin, c'est faux.
Je ne rebondirai pas sur tes provocations enfantines, et te recommande plutôt cordialement de réfléchir/lire avant d'écrire, si possible.

Et donc, pour Marcus, comme le fait d'avoir plusieurs sélectionnés n'apparait pas dans le règlement (avant cette nuit), il faut donc se tourner vers le VFo pour trouver des informations, éventuellement.
Bonne lecture : #forum?topic=168407&date=1...

That's not the point of my post but you're wrong.

Can we have an answer from the admins on the subject?

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...

Alexandre67310: Son club a uniquement des anglais, il a donc le droit à 3 joueurs en sélection. Si par ailleurs tu as besoin de conseil tactique en + de compréhension du règlement, n’hésite pas

Hello,

Before you start treating people with contempt and contempt with comments (and innuendo) that are more than borderline towards Magpie, here are the discussions that took place 2 seasons ago:
#forum?topic=168407

"Half-Brain: You have to "bypass" the federations module to do that. The rest in mp if you wish." (former admin)
"Blagoje Vidinic: It's still a flaw 😉" (Admin bugs)

Yes, it's a pure use of a loophole not originally allowed by the game. The only option to select N+1 players from the same club is to add a player from that team to the squad while no other player from the squad is in that club (which can be done if you buy a player who is already in the federation, which is the only case where a loophole cannot be used, as opposed to loaning the player to the federation to have another player from your squad placed there, or waiting for the player to be called up to the federation to add another player to the federation).

As for the substance of the loan issue, the hidden purpose of which is also to want to accuse people out of revenge for the Jex dossier (you can see this very clearly from Ced90's reaction), good luck in getting to the bottom of it. As Demi described, A45 ONLY patched the double endurance course because a player on loan can no longer do a course when he returns to the original club. Now, good luck separating these different situations and knowing when you can do a course and when you can't (and above all, to the admins to check, or to A45 to code):

• Return of loan with endurance course completed
• Return of loan with endurance course not completed
• Auction purchase with endurance course not completed
• Auction purchase with endurance course completed
• List purchase or direct negotiation with endurance course completed, without request from the purchasing club.
• List purchase or direct negotiation with endurance course completed, with request from buying club.
• List purchase or direct negotiation without endurance training course completed.
• Loan for one season with endurance course not completed before
• One-season loan with endurance course completed before.
• Multiple short-term loans with endurance training course completed in a loop.

estac:

Ce n'est pas le sujet de mon poste mais tu te trompes.

Pouvons nous avoir une réponse des admins concernant le sujet ?

Look, this came out later:

I'll let you be the judge. And to have 2 selected, it's not the coach who has to systematically do the handling. That's where the 'diversion' comes in :)

In short, I don't mind if we change the subject, but if you keep coming back to it ^^

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.

brewen: Bonjour,

Avant de prendre les gens de haut et avec mépris avec des propos (et un sous-entendu) plus que limite envers Magpie, voici les discussions qui ont eu lieu il y a 2 saisons :
#forum?topic=168407

"Demi-Cerveau : Il faut "contourner" le module des fédérations pour faire cela. La suite en mp si tu le souhaites." (ancien admin)
"Blagoje Vidinic : Ça reste une faille. 😉" (Admin bugs)

Oui, c'est une utilisation de faille pur et dur non permise par le je...

There is no hidden agenda.
The first players found to have used short loans are not from you.
When we checked all the loans, we discovered that some of you had also done so.

All the information was passed on to the admins on 21 October.
We did not have proof of the +2. No decision was taken.

estac: Il n'y a pas de but caché.
Les premiers joueurs découverts ayant utilisés les prêts courts ne sont pas de chez vous.
En vérifiant tous les prêts, nous avons découvert que certains de chez vous l'avaient aussi fait.

Toutes les infos ont été remontées aux admins le 21 octobre.
N'ayant pas la preuve du +2. Aucune décision n'a été prise.

No hidden agenda, of course... Like the post to ask about short loans? You'd think. Incidentally, pieutte was punished for the same type of idea. He just asked if a situation was normal (which led to Jex, of course), as you did...

For short loans:
Maybe these people also had reasons for doing it?
Maybe it wasn't for multiple internships as implied?

To date, none of the managers you mention, on the CP side, have been contacted, either to explain themselves or to be verified by an (independent) administrator.
So no more innuendo or thinly disguised accusations (here or elsewhere). We know where the sources come from, and the objective, so let's be frank.

We won't agree on the path to be taken, but at least we'll agree on the goal (at least on our side): to clean up this grey area and guarantee fairness for all. If that means a patch, fine. If it's through the rules (because the patch seems perfectible), then that's fine too.

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.

brewen: Bonjour,

Avant de prendre les gens de haut et avec mépris avec des propos (et un sous-entendu) plus que limite envers Magpie, voici les discussions qui ont eu lieu il y a 2 saisons :
#forum?topic=168407

"Demi-Cerveau : Il faut "contourner" le module des fédérations pour faire cela. La suite en mp si tu le souhaites." (ancien admin)
"Blagoje Vidinic : Ça reste une faille. 😉" (Admin bugs)

Oui, c'est une utilisation de faille pur et dur non permise par le je...

So perhaps my message wasn't understood properly.

But there's no vengeance or anything, I just provided an element of comparison, the one that seemed most explicit to me.

As I discussed privately with Magpie, there's a fine line between optimising and exceeding the rules. Why do +2 stamina every season and not +3 or +4? Nothing forbids it, it's not written in the rules.

If you ask two innocent people. One will talk about optimisation, the other about cheating. It's a question of point of view.

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

Sun's: Je comprends pas trop pourquoi ça part sur le terrain des fédérations...

Le bug a l'air de concerné le cas où l'on prête
Le retour de prêt+ transfert définitif quand a eux considèrent que le joueur en a bénéficié donc même si ce n'était pas le cas ..le joueur ne reçoit rien hormis une perte de physique

The subject of federations was just a clumsy attempt, and a failed one at that, to divert attention from the main subject.

We're really talking about a classic loan, not a federation loan (or even an IS loan) which is only used for one day, or even just a few hours, in order to take advantage of an additional preparation camp.

Magpie: Pas de but caché, ben voyons... Comme le post pour demander, pour les prêts courts ? On y croit... D'ailleurs pieutte a été sanctionné pour le même type d'idée. Il avait juste demandé si une situation était normale (ce qui a débouché sur Jex, certes), comme tu l'as fait pourtant...

Pour les prets courts :
Peut-être aussi que ces personnes ont eu des raisons pour le faire ?
Peut-être que ce n'était pas pour des stages multiples comme on le sous-entend ?

A date, aucun des managers dont vous p...

Unlike pieutte, I didn't quote anyone.
I pointed out a flaw, misappropriation or optimisation. If you rely on the rules, it says: "A flaw in the game must be reported to the anti-cheat admin and the game moderator". Which is what I did when I opened this thread.

I don't care whether you believe me or not. There's a problem and it needs to be sorted out.

Marcus Aurelius: Le sujet sur les fédérations c’était juste une tentative maladroite, et ratée pour le coup, de diversion vis à vis du sujet principal.

On parle vraiment de prêt classique et non de prêt fédé (ou même IS) qui n’est utilisé qu’une journée, voir même que quelques heures, afin de profiter d’un stage de préparation supplémentaire.

Not at all. I'm simply explaining that the notion of "hijacking a game mechanic" can have several meanings. There are good ones and bad ones, depending on how you see things. After that, you can pretend not to understand and cry 'hijacking', it's funny :)
It's more meaningful with specific examples, I think. It allows you to look beyond the subject at hand, and compare.

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.