Hello,

I’m starting this thread to provide an overall assessment of gameplay during matches. The latest update has been the subject of much discussion; the idea is that, based on this analysis, everyone can form their own opinion, even without necessarily having tried out all the interfaces.

The conclusion will lead us to realise that the recent changes cannot remain as they are, lest we face a bottleneck that could prove disastrous for the future of VF.

Warning: this is a lengthy post. However, this thread is not sponsored by the Romans!

To begin with, I’ll provide some context and outline the changes made over the last two years, the period when I actually started playing.

• Summer 2024: many VF managers have players with 99 NG; playing styles (short passing, counter-attacking, creative play, direct play, etc.) are very popular. They grant players a bonus of almost 70 per cent of the relevant stat. The style bonus is not affected by physical attributes.

To ‘counter/optimise’ these style bonuses, ‘marking’ players are very common.

VF players use them as follows: 99 in one stat for the bonus, 99 in marking to reduce the opposing attacker’s NG. The reduction to the attacker is more than half their NG.

Thus, even if the player has a NG of 1, mathematically speaking, the player is cost-effective.

NB: It should be noted that a style bonus will primarily provide stats in the centre. (25 per cent on the left, 50 per cent in the centre, 25 per cent on the right.)

• Late 2024 – early 2025: Faced with the proliferation of marking players, Aymeric, dissatisfied with their use, decides to reduce the impact of style bonuses by a few per cent, and he also drastically reduces the NG reduction provided by marking players.

With this change, and despite several tests, marking players are consigned to the scrapheap. This feature of the game gradually falls completely out of favour with managers.

This marks the first update to reduce tactical options.

• During 2025, there were occasional reductions in the percentage impact of playing style relative to a player’s points total, but these were relatively minor. At the same time, a few threads appeared on the MDM forum, with some users expressing a feeling that the game was unresponsive, particularly in big matches.

• Late 2025: another one-off reduction in the impact of playing styles; if I recall correctly, it fell below 65 per cent per point.

‘Style-based’ teams became increasingly rare, except on the PHJ, which remained highly popular.

• Early 2026: a consensus begins to emerge regarding the difficulty of seeing chances or goals in ‘big’ matches. This is particularly noticeable in the Champions League and the Europa League, when both managers are paying close attention.

Managers argue that there is an invisible ‘cap’ on xG. Consequently, many matches end in draws or 1–0 scorelines, where the manager’s influence over tactics appears minimal.

In response, Aymeric decides to remove the cap on individual XG per chance, as well as on XG generation itself, even in big matches. We occasionally see high-scoring matches; this continues until the start of summer.

As for the general mood, the community seems relatively calm regarding the game’s gameplay.

• July 2026: major changes to playing styles. Aymeric decides to increase the points allocation by a few per cent; however, physical attributes now affect points gained.

The previous appeal of teams built entirely around a single ‘style’ becomes obsolete. Mathematically, it would appear that the return after a few minutes of play is entirely negative for teams seeking a large bonus in ONE style.

This update begins to drive VF into a tactical ‘bottleneck’.

We were already seeing fewer and fewer ‘style’ players; this is the final nail in the coffin for managers who have taken this approach.

• Early September 2026: initially for no apparent reason, several major changes.

Firstly, several managers who played closely contested matches found themselves with a historically low XG, almost close to 0, in matches where there was a genuinely significant statistical gap.

Aymeric, in a comment, implied that managers should make fewer tactical changes.

It therefore becomes clear that an artificial ‘restriction’ is in place to prevent managers from making changes if they want to create something.

• A few days later, the gameplay version at the time of writing:

The intense artificial restriction is no longer quite so frustrating. Statistics are updated in real time with every change, whereas previously this happened every minute.

However, each minor change takes 10 seconds.

Consequently, several issues arise:

All these changes, and particularly the most recent one, will mean that managers watching their match will be forced to minimise the number of changes they make as much as possible.

• As the game currently stands, this means it will significantly reduce the number of usable tactics. At first glance, I think that having 2–3 line-ups will minimise the number of changes as much as possible. VF will lose some of its depth.

• The pointlessness of styles

The current state of styles is already at its lowest point in years. This may be intentional, particularly given the recent changes.

However, whereas we still saw clashes of styles before these latest changes, now you have to: click to view the opposition’s style, change your players’ styles, then switch back to the correct style.

That’s at least 5–6 changes just for that. At least 1 minute for ONE style. It’s unusable.

• This will force managers to follow their matches even more closely.

Part of the community would appreciate not having to be glued to their matches quite so much.

This change does not address that issue, as from now on, with updates happening in real time and no changes allowed after 10 seconds, the defending manager can quickly find themselves in trouble.

Whereas before they had a 1-minute breather, now there is none at all.

• Even more randomness

In fact, two managers battling it out would each take turns trying to create a favourable 1-minute window. The cumulative effect of these favourable updates would determine whether or not the manager gained the upper hand.

Now, with these 10-second updates, this information can be taken into account at any moment, and one unlucky micro-update is all it takes for a match to go down the drain.

Note:

• These changes will make no difference to two absent managers.
• These changes will make no difference in the case of an absent manager versus a present manager, unless the latter is making changes all the time.

However,

It would appear that these profound changes to gameplay are linked to several factors:

To do away with the ‘55-00’ meta, where the fastest/most agile manager is rewarded.
It would appear (I don’t wish to pass judgement) that some managers have been caught botting. These changes would therefore (hypothetically) serve as a preventative measure against this.

Given these factors, I propose several solutions:

• An update to the playing styles to bring them up to date.

This could involve a different impact on on-pitch statistics than the current 25 G/50 C/25 D.

It could involve other factors, but as things stand, it seems very clear that this would spell the end for managers who have taken that approach.

• Removing the ability to see in real time via the ‘live’ feed what opposing managers are doing.

This would inevitably be linked to regular but non-systematic match updates.

But the benefit would be to prevent managers who don’t want to play the ‘55-60’ game from having 1 minute to prepare their attacking and defensive tactics.

VF would resemble a head-to-head battle with an interesting ‘mind game’ element.

Perhaps linking this with a punitive MDM, even if it means conceding numerous goals, could be a great added bonus.

• Restoring some prestige to marking.

As things stand, and regardless of how it’s used (even when boosting a marking player’s NG), this profile is of absolutely no interest.

Admittedly, it used to be overused, and a reduction in its utility was necessary. However, today, it has completely disappeared. One less tactical variable.

• Return to the 3-minute ‘dry’ update system?

Some VF managers say they don’t like having to be glued to the screen every second of their match.

Potentially reverting to the old system, with 31 very strict 3-minute updates, might satisfy both the most dedicated players and those who’d like to relax.

There are probably other options I haven’t thought of.

In any case, the situation seems crystal clear: the current gameplay is frustrating everyone who wants to play.

In the medium to long term, the very charm of VF – its tactical ‘rock-paper-scissors’ match-ups – will fade away. Many tactical variables will fall by the wayside.

Taking preventative measures against abuse may seem necessary. However, at present, it’s the whole of VF – regardless of a manager’s profile – that ends up being penalised.

Solutions need to be found to satisfy everyone. The game is rich; matches allow for hundreds and hundreds of variables – let’s not over-restrict it.

Apologies in advance for the massive post. Sorry for any mistakes.

Thanks to those who’ve read this, and I hope this thread doesn’t go off on a tangent!

Il est clair qu’en l'état on va dans le mur.

Le combo timer-actualisation à la seconde c’est pas viable. Les matchs entre deux managers actifs c’est une plaie à suivre.

==> Les changements sont à la fois incessants et hyper compliqués à faire et hyper restreints.

L'actualisation à la seconde des stats c’est déjà une très mauvaise idée en tant que telle.

VF est un jeu qui doit etre accessible. L'avenir des jeux c’est pas de passer 90 minutes non stop devant son écran sans savoir exactement ce qu’il se passe.

Le coeur du MDM et les tactiques permettent suffisamment de profondeur. Pourquoi tout compliquer et tout rendre illisible ? Revenons à des événements discrets en cachant les mouvements adverses.

L’autre solution c’est de complètement changer l'outil tactique du jeu pour coller à ces nouveautés. Mais il y a tellement plus simple à faire...

Je comprends pas que ca ne saute pas aux yeux...

VF va juste perdre des joueurs, parce qu'au delà de l'aspect sympa et nostalgie pour d’autres, si le cœur du jeu est pas bon les joueurs vont pas rester.

Et là, soyons clair, le coeur du jeu n'est pas bon du tout, c’est meme mauvais : c’est pas plaisant à jouer, c’est pas clair du tout et ca manque terriblement de profondeur pour peu que deux joueurs veulent jouer leur matchs à fond.

• La particularité de VF, sa grande force, c’est son moteur de match. Il n'est pas mis en valeur en ce moment.

Il ne suffit pas de grand chose pourtant.

This presentation provides a very good explanation.

I rarely give my opinion on various topics.

Some changes are interesting, but there really is a problem with the game here. I’m not against surprises, but it’s becoming almost worrying at this stage that surprises are winning more often than the team that should be closing out the match itself.

The timer is also a real nuisance when trying to compete against stronger teams; we’re inevitably limited in the tactical changes we can make.

I thought I’d read that these days you have to adapt your play whilst avoiding moving around too much; I do this in my friendlies and even there it’s becoming very difficult to keep up.

Chances have become noticeably scarce, and nothing makes sense anymore when it comes to reading the game or following instructions.

Aymeric, you’re tinkering with quite a few things at the moment, and I approve of the changes, but please, we absolutely must review the match system, or else a great many – and I mean a great many – managers will be giving up the game very soon.

I’ve been spending at least an hour a day on VF for the past two and a half years. It’s not healthy, but it was my thing. The timer update reminded me that I’ve got loads of other things I could be doing – or a well-stocked Steam library – if I want to keep being a couch potato.

Seriously though, this is the first time in my gaming life that I’ve seen a competitive game that penalises active players!

And I’m not just whingeing out of habit. I’ve no problem adapting my team to changes in the game. This time, I wanted to form my own opinion based on a few matches before passing judgement. No issues in friendly matches or those with nothing at stake. But it’s the very heart of the gameplay that goes out the window as soon as two players are active.

I don’t want to speak for my most recent opponents in IE, but I don’t think I’m wrong in saying it was utter boredom plus 90 minutes of concentration. Tchoori, did you enjoy that great tactical moment of central attacks and wing attacks every 10 seconds? Just as much as I did mirroring that in defence.

If no fixes are planned, active competitive players will sort themselves out and head for the simplest solution available to them: inactivity, or leaving the game.

You’ve forgotten to mention how the endurance aspect has been watered down.

As for the rest, you’re right on several points, but I think the whole ‘TIMER’ business is the final straw for many. What a nuisance that thing is! It makes the game unplayable, uninteresting and extremely frustrating, whether you decide to play the full 90 minutes flat out or not.

Like Azby, I was waiting for a proper match between active players to make up my mind, and the current gameplay is quite simply enough to put you off the game (it’s been a long time since I’ve enjoyed my gaming experience; optimising the workshop has become more fun and strategic than playing this sort of match). Wasting 90 minutes simply being held back and unable to do anything – that was my conclusion yesterday. I wanted to switch from a standard full-wing formation to a full-centre formation using short passes yesterday:

• 2 MDC instructions to change for the PC bonus = 30 seconds
• 6 positions to change (MDG and MDD to MDC, ASG and ASD to ASC, and ATG+ATD to ATC) = 90 seconds
• The full-axis command (including the change to PC style + defensive command + attitude all at once) = 15 seconds

Total time = 2’15

Time for the opponent:

• A 2-second click to switch from ‘block wings’ to ‘block centre’. Then issue a few player instructions as PC bonuses during the remaining 2’ to disrupt the PC whilst the opponent is making changes.
  And the reverse process is identical...

Admittedly, it was already impossible to make so many changes in under 10+ seconds before, and the opposition could counter just as effectively in a matter of seconds. But we could test the option and revert to the old one if it didn’t work, within 30 seconds (1/180th of the match). We could also position all our players centrally and attack down the wings, to catch the opposition off guard when the stats updated. But now, that’s no longer a viable strategy with instant updates; it takes 1/40th of match time to make a change, 1/20th to change and revert to the original state, and there are no surprises for the opponent, who watches everything in real time whilst preparing and drinking their coffee until the opponent has finished making their changes. Checkmate.

Furthermore, the game as it stands penalises the attack for the following reasons:

• Part of the attacking back line is naturally recalibrated down the centre in certain cases, preventing a full-scale attack down a single wing by spreading the attack too thinly. This is not the case for the defence.
• Only 4 players can be used in the attacking line-up, compared to 5 in defence. Yet another disadvantage for the attack compared to the defence (as for midfielders, attacking midfielders can easily be countered by defensive midfielders)
• The time taken to adapt offensively (the number of changes required) is much greater than that for defence, if you do not score within a second of the change (something I have experienced in a match, though it is very rare).

The adjustments are understandable, but without a revised and adapted calibration (adjusting the duration of adjustment tokens, putting the attack on an equal footing with the defence, hiding or modifying the opponent’s visible information for a short time), matches between active players are dead (or at least, the vast majority of tactical options are), and the first team to score will have a huge advantage, as the opponent will have to take even greater defensive risks to score, and use far more 15-second ‘tokens’. Suffice to say that whoever finds themselves chasing the score is likely to have a very poor gaming experience.

I partly agree with quite a lot of what’s been written above (but I also partly disagree).

If I go by my last two IE matches (yesterday and Friday), in which both opponents played the full 90 minutes
#match?mid=6975255&stats
#match?mid=6976910&stats
There were plenty of tactical shifts, suspense, twists and turns, and quite a few incidents beyond just chances (injuries, cards, etc.).
A result that was fairly consistent with the flow of the match and the relative strengths of the sides.

You had to stay alert at all times, and although I’m a bit frustrated by the two draws, I’m more annoyed with myself than with the MDM, as I made a few bad decisions – and I think my two opponents could say the same, as they too had a fair chance of winning.

And honestly, I didn’t feel as though the timer was holding me back, even though both opponents were moving around a lot. It’s just a matter of adapting and thinking through your moves more carefully, rather than just going through the motions like a robot: I did say a robot, not a bot :) :) )

So I think what’s a shame is that all these changes are happening without warning and without any explanation as to why, but in the end everyone will adapt to them, whether they like it or not…… until the next ‘surprise’ change!

Hi Sora, thanks for this recap.

As for marking, it’s still possible to have players who are just as effective as before, provided you train them properly. Man-to-man marking might even be the best option against opposition players with high NG. That said, I’ll concede that it’s no longer possible to have defenders with a defence rating of 1.

I’ve also heard feedback about the match engine lacking responsiveness, which, in my view, is a shame as it’s designed to operate in real time based on the choices you make. That’s why I’ve recently ensured that the target impact of tactical choices is displayed instantly in the statistics tab. This provides visual feedback on what you’re doing.

As for playing styles, they remain interesting, as they still benefit from an imbalance. As long as their contribution is greater than 50 per cent per point, they remain worthwhile. That said, as the curve showing the impact of fatigue on playing styles differs from that affecting NG, it may in some cases be more advantageous to choose the specific moment(s) in the match at which to apply these styles. I’m open to feedback on this, and further changes may still be made during the off-season.

As for xG, I don’t think there’s any capping. We’d need to look at which matches we’re talking about, because when analysing the overall stats, the average is around 3.2 goals per match, and 2.7 goals in IE matches, for example, which is within the expected range. The debate about the number of goals per match is an interesting one to have, but I’m one of those who believe that a large part of something’s value comes from its rarity. That’s what led me to take this stance for Virtuafoot, and I stand by it.

As for in-match changes, it’s perfectly fine (and recommended) to adjust your tactics. However, it’s not acceptable to make a decision and then reverse it shortly afterwards. Although the impact of substitutions is visible in the statistics tab, the players themselves need time to adapt to the change, which can take around ten minutes, as mentioned here. Virtuafoot is designed to be a slow-paced game, where you don’t need to be constantly logged in to follow your match. The 90-minute matches are designed precisely for this purpose: to allow you to step away for a moment without losing track of the match.

As for the 10-second delay, even before this, it was already not recommended to make several substitutions in quick succession. Virtuafoot is a game of observation rather than a game of action. It isn’t about 10 seconds, or even a minute. A match lasts 90 minutes, and what’s being assessed is the ability to implement a sound tactic over the course of the match, not a minute earlier or later. It may be more effective to make one good substitution than a bad one that you then have to rectify.

There’s no more or less randomness than there was before. I don’t think the game’s data suggests otherwise.

I know many would prefer a faster-paced game, with more goals and a more immediate feel. It must be the TikTok generation that wants that. I’ve started working on a project along those lines, but it won’t be ready straight away. I’ll give you more details when I have them.

I think you’re misinterpreting some of the feedback:

• Players don’t want immediate responsiveness; on the contrary, the slow pace isn’t a problem: it’s precisely the latest changes you’ve made that are geared towards the kind of immediate responsiveness required between two active managers

• This goes hand in hand with a significant loss of clarity in these matches: which stats sheet is taken into account? All of them? If not, the clarity is virtually non-existent. If so, we’re back to the problem of having to adapt immediately because we don’t know what’s required.

==> I completely agree with you that VF should allow users to step away temporarily or enable a more relaxed approach, but your latest changes (over the past two weeks) on this subject ALL run completely counter to that.

Le problème est de toutes façons bien plus profond que ça pour moi. Le nouveau système est horrible je trouve. Pour autant il était pas bien mieux avant...
En résumé, je pense que donner un avantage à un joueur actif, qui se connecte plusieurs fois par jours, notamment pendant les matchs, ok.
Mais donner un avantage à celui qui va "perdre" 1h30 de sa vie devant le jeu je trouve pas ça très intéressant dans tous les cas. C’est en plus pas très réaliste de faire des changements toutes les 60 secondes ou toutes les 10 secondes... bref c'est pire qu'avant je suis d'accord mais c'était déjà pas ouf avant. Je pense qu’il faut changer fondamentalement le mdm, pas sur l'aspect probabiliste qui est certes frustrant mais garant d’un intérêt dans le jeu, mais sur la façon dont on influe sur le match.
En gros, ce système des 9 barres me semble nous enfermer dans un jeu peu intéressant tactiquement.

Merci Aymeric et top ta réflexion sur les 90 minutes d'un match. C'est très juste.

Je vais redire ce qui a déjà été dit mais c'est important de le souligner encore plus. Les dernières modifications obligent les clubs à être encore plus actifs sur leur match et de changer encore plus leurs tactiques. Même si les statistiques générales baissent, c'est moins gênant que de laisser quelqu'un archi dominer un secteur ou deux. Donc on change. Comme on ne sait pas à quelles secondes les changements seront pris en compte par le MDM on est obligé de changer toutes les 15/20 secondes si l'adversaire change aussi. Et finalement la baisse de stats due au changement sera annulée si les 2 clubs changent aussi.
Conclusion : en pratique, c'est malheureusement l'inverse de la théorie dont tu avais imaginé Aymeric. Je suis plutôt d'accord avec toi, c'est devenu de plus en plus insupportable d'être présent pendant 1h30 sur le jeu de suite. Je l'ai fait pendant 11 jours de suite quand il y avait coupes donc la LdC et championnat. J'en avais réellement marre à la fin.
Ce que je préconise, c'est soit de raccourcir les matchs (15 minutes avec des MAJ chaque minute) ou de laisser 1h30 mais avec des MAJ toutes les 5 minutes comme à une époque. Peu importe la solution, ça ferait entre 15 et 20 MAJ par match.

Le jeu actuellement c’est ca

Adversaire joue dans l'axe → tu le vois immédiatement → tu bloques l'axe → il change de côté → tu le vois → tu changes de côté → etc…j’ai tenu2 minutes jen avais marre je sais pas si je suis tout seul surtout quand ca prends 01h30 pour changer les postes
Si le jeu veut conserver un aspect manager/simulation, il y aurait une solution assez simple : conserver la simulation en temps réel mais ne pas transmettre immédiatement toutes les informations tactiques de l'adversaire.
Par exemple, le jeu pourrait continuer à simuler seconde par seconde en interne, mais ne faire apparaître les secteurs dominés et les changements tactiques qu'à intervalles fixes, par exemple toutes les 2, 3 ou 5 minutes. Le manager devrait alors décider avec une information imparfaite.
Cela recréerait justement l'élément intéressant de l'ancien système : anticiper plutôt que répondre instantanément.

Just because it appears instantly doesn’t mean the MDM does the same… quite often you’ll score a goal with your previous attack rather than the current one… a bit like before, in a way.

That was already the case before, too, and it probably still is.

Before, we didn’t know when tactical choices would be taken into account each time, either. However, we did know when it MIGHT happen, and we also knew when it HAD happened.
At that point, based on the scores from the nine sectors, we could assess whether or not we felt confident about a possible move, and start positioning ourselves again for the next potential update.

Today, as far as we can tell, we still do not know when tactical choices will be taken into account. We have an idea of when this MIGHT happen, but there is no certainty as yet. And we cannot tell when it HAS happened. This forces us to move around even more than before.