For the past few seasons, the CP/LR rivalry has dominated Division 1; it’s simple really – almost 60% of the top 30 players belong to one of these two clubs.
Consequently, if we look at the average points per alliance, only six alliances exceed the average: I can imagine the lack of motivation among the other alliances, who must pray at every draft not to end up with a CP or LR
In short, we’ve raised this issue often, but isn’t it time to accept that there aren’t enough top-class players to sustain a 16-team D1, and since the vast majority of top players want to team up with one another (and that’s their right), we should go all the way and create an 8-team D1 with just one relegation spot.

You're right, it's been a while since we last talked about it. 😆

There are already several suggestions here:
#forum?topic=168074

For several months now, some have been pointing out the excessive gap in quality within the division, which makes the fixture list decisive.
Having more evenly matched games and direct clashes would make the league more competitive and more interesting. But that’s just my opinion.

The gap wasn’t as wide just four or five seasons ago; we still had teams or divisions that could challenge for the title, and there were two or three sides pulling ahead; now we easily have six (with all due respect to them). It’s a bloodbath that, apart from scaring players away, serves no purpose.
It’s like the real world: 90% of wealth and success is held by 2%, and it’s getting worse and worse – except that in this world, we can walk away. And do we really want to end up with just 100 players left in this game?
So let’s leave the champions to their own devices and allow the others to develop, so that they only reach the final stage once they’re ready and equipped to fight.

Don’t worry, FYM will be back to sort everything out!

That doesn’t stop us from getting thrashed by the ELU. 😁

Joking aside, sorry lads, but I’m still against it. I’ve got IE requests that sometimes sit there for two days. Once, nobody picked it up. I’d really like to find some opponents again. 😬 Especially as reducing D1 won’t push the good clubs towards leagues other than CP, LR, LV and Cercle – quite the opposite!

Misha: Ça nous empêche pas de nous faire taper par les ÉLU. 😁

Blague à part, désolé les gars mais je suis toujours contre. J’ai des demandes d’IE qui restent parfois 2 jours. Une fois personne l’a prise. J’aimerais bien encore trouver des adversaires. 😬 D’autant que réduire la D1 ne fera pas glisser les bons clubs vers d’autres ententes que CP, LR, LV et Cercle, au contraire !

Do you think that was a joke?
An ELU player beat an LR player just today 😁 The ELU players are on their way – watch out, everyone!

Joking aside 😄 if any top players are looking to play elsewhere, the ELU is recruiting 😉

zejl: Le fossé n'était pas aussi grand il y a encore 4 ou 5 saisons , on pouvait encore avoir le cercle ou les lv qui pouvaient chatouiller le titre et il y avait 2 ou 3 ententes qui decrochaient maintenant on en a facilement 6 (avec tout le respect qu on leur doit) c'est une boucherie qui a part faire fuir les joueurs n a plus d'intérêt.
C est comme le monde reel 90% de richesses et résultats sont détenus par 2% et c'est de pire en pire sauf que ce monde on peut le quitter , et veut on vraiment s...

I don’t particularly agree that the league is competitive, and we’ve seen periods of dominance for 60 seasons (that’s over 9 years!) now:
#ranking?type=entente&div=1&history

S 75–95: LV crushing almost everything
S 95–110: 50–50 LV/LR duel at the top
S 110–125: LR crushing almost everything
S 125–147: CP/LR duel only, with CP dominance (2/3 vs 1/3 of titles)

For 20 seasons now, CP and LR have been performing at ratios of 2.2 (minimum) to 2.6 (220 to 260 points per season), whilst the chasing pack struggles to exceed 200–210 points.

All the more reason to tighten things up.

I also think we should reduce the number of leagues in Division 1 (I’d cap it at 12) and completely overhaul the individual championships – fewer championships there too.

k3vin59218: Tu trouves que c etait une blague ?
Un ELU a taper un LR pas plus tard qu aujourdhui 😁 les ELU arrivent faites tous attention

Blague a part 😄 si des grands joueurs cherche a performer ailleurs , l ELU recrute 😉

ELU is actually a very good example.
There are 37 of you, yet out of the top 12, you’re the only ones to have played just 75 games – which suggests there’s a certain sense of discouragement.
Let’s take it a step further: let’s take a six-team league (the famous six who are on average), and next season you finish as D2 champions. Wouldn’t you be better equipped, with clubs in the league having gained confidence and become more attractive, to be able to recruit?

We could also approach the problem differently:

• Reduce the number of IPs per season. Why not 50 instead of 100?
• Limit the number of members per alliance. Why not 10 instead of 50?

These are bad solutions, of course. But no worse than the one mentioned in the original post. Except that these solutions will never be proposed by the top leagues because they don’t suit their interests.

At some point, the top alliances need to realise that they are primarily responsible for this situation, by recruiting left, right and centre any member who scores more than 20 points in a season.

Do you want competition? Well, stop raiding the talent pool. It’s easy to do; you just need to stop approaching people and turn down candidates you don’t actually need. But that would mean challenging your ultra-dominant status, and that’s something you don’t want to hear about. You’d rather propose restricting the elite as much as possible so as to cement your ultra-dominant position even further.

Demi-cerveau: On pourrait aussi prendre le problème autrement :

• diminuer le nombre d'ie par saison. Pourquoi pas 50 au lieu de 100 ?
• limiter le nombre de membres par entente. Pourquoi pas à 10 au lieu de 50 ?

Ce sont de mauvaises solutions, bien sûr. Mais pas plus mauvaise que celle évoquée dans le sujet initial. Sauf que ces solutions ne seront jamais proposées par les ententes de tête car elles ne vont pas dans leur sens.

Au bout d'un moment, il faudrait que les ententes de tête prennent conscienc...

I sort of agree – when you see how tricky it is to get 100 IEs (especially this season with the World Cup on top of all the other tournaments), it’s clear that everyone needs new players...

The number of active players in the game is dropping day by day; it just needs a revamp
And frankly, playing one in every two matches against an AFK team with wide-open spaces isn’t exactly thrilling

I’m totally against it. It just cements the dominance of the big clubs even further.
What’s more, just because you’re not in the top 8 clubs, you don’t get the chance to take on seasoned managers, which means fewer opportunities to improve tactically.
There are some brilliant managers in leagues who, in terms of tactics and squad quality, deserve to be in the title race, but their ambitions lie elsewhere. And yet they love coming to play big matches against LR, CP, Cercle and so on.
Competing for the title, yes, but at any cost, no. The atmosphere is also a factor to consider in a community-based game

Demi-cerveau: On pourrait aussi prendre le problème autrement :

• diminuer le nombre d'ie par saison. Pourquoi pas 50 au lieu de 100 ?
• limiter le nombre de membres par entente. Pourquoi pas à 10 au lieu de 50 ?

Ce sont de mauvaises solutions, bien sûr. Mais pas plus mauvaise que celle évoquée dans le sujet initial. Sauf que ces solutions ne seront jamais proposées par les ententes de tête car elles ne vont pas dans leur sens.

Au bout d'un moment, il faudrait que les ententes de tête prennent conscienc...

To be honest, I don’t entirely agree with the 100 rule – you’re limited to 10, 12 big clubs; if a cartel monopolised 20 or 25 of the big ones, they’d end up playing 4 or 5. I’m not sure that would go down well, so no, CP and LR aren’t plundering all the clubs.
Except that two years ago there were still enough big clubs to feed plenty of alliances; say what you like, but there aren’t enough hyper-active players left for all these alliances.
And the few that remain (that famous top 30 or so) completely dominate the game.
For the stats enthusiasts, I’d be curious to know how many AFK days there were in D1 over the whole season?
One final example to illustrate this decline.
My NG is below 90, I haven’t played in the Champions League, I’m in LR2, I’m in Languedoc D2, I take my matches seriously but without giving 100%.
In short, a very decent season but nothing to write home about, and in the season’s rankings I’m somewhere between 50th and 60th. So with this record, how can I find myself so high up?

Tomasm: Totalement contre. Ça reviens a asseoir encore plus la domination des grosses ententes.
De plus, sous prétexte que tu ne fais pas partie du top 8 des ententes, tu n'a pas le droit de te confronter à des managers aguerris et donc moins d'opportunités de progresser tactiquement.
Il y a de supers manager dans des ententes, qui tactiquement et niveau effectifs mériteraient de jouer le titre, mais leurs ambitions sont toutes autre. Et pour autant ils aiment venir taper des gros matchs contre des ...

Yeah, but something needs to be done – there are far too many AFK matches. I can see on the Discord server that the lads love high-stakes matches and are fed up with coming across AFK players. I’m sure that you guys in the CP, who are also serious competitors, feel the same way.

The problem itself has been the same for ages: the number of very active players has dropped, and there are fewer top-tier teams. And since people are only human, they tend to band together to go for titles. We must commend the efforts of these two alliances for having successfully established this dual-dynasty. But that’s not about to change; it’s relatively easy to maintain this level from now on. It was quite similar in the past.

Most of the top clubs will fall into line, regularly recruiting the best players from the next tier of leagues, and there’s not really anything we can do about it. It makes sense.

There are fewer very good teams, and you have to play 100 EI per season, so there’s room for the best in the game in these leagues. Playing 50-60-70 matches? Yes, that could be a solution, and at the same time, it means a slightly greater impact from the variance in results and the impact of IS. It’s not simple; it’s not certain there’s anything that can be done about it, unless we change a lot of things. It might open up a few more possibilities for other leagues, but that’s not guaranteed.

In my personal opinion, the alliance system needs a complete overhaul, but that’s going to take some work

Otherwise, yes, season after season, the same two will keep getting stronger and the gap will just keep getting wider. That’s just the way the current system works, and it’s also down to the falling number of very active players

Hello everyone,

This issue has been coming up for quite some time now, with Aymeric requesting changes to balance inter-alliance competition, but I haven’t seen anyone suggest a solution that the community could implement. Let me explain

The presidents and staff of the leagues choose and decide who plays and how many matches each player plays; the solution is simple but will be unpopular

There are 100 matches to be played per season for an average of 20 clubs per alliance. In this case, for 20 members, give 5 matches to each; if there are 25 members, that would be 4 matches each, and so on…

Admittedly, the ‘perfect 10’ would no longer be achievable, but this would allow for a fairer competition to be revived.

After all, this is just one idea on how to change things without having to overhaul the entire MDJ system.

Kids love beating top players so much that they go AFK.
And I’m not even talking about the alliances that do a limited number of IE runs.

Lowering it straight to 8 might be a bit excessive, but 12 is a necessity.

bluethunders26: Bonjour à tous ,

Ce sujet reviens depuis un long moment avec des demandes de modifications de la part d aymeric pour équilibré la compétition inter entente , mais a aucun moment j ai vue quelqu’un proposer une solution qui peut être faite par la communauté, je m explique

Les présidents et staff des ententes choisissent et définissent qui et combien d ie joue , la solution est simple mais va déplaire

Il y a 100 ie a jouer par saisons pour une moyenne de de 20 clubs par entente , dans...

Reducing the total number of IEs could also be a way to improve things

After all, there are several examples of teams with 30, 40 or 45 players, which are a long way from 100 matches... So is it a lack of motivation or a lack of activities?

Honestly, the argument that “facing a seasoned manager is motivating” – most people say it’s a lost cause from the start, the gap is too wide
At worst, they try for 15 minutes and get zero updates, then go AFK with the game wide open

I don’t dispute the superiority of the CP and LR, but if those two alliances stopped poaching the best members from other alliances left, right and centre, there would be less of a gap in skill levels and more suspense.

In fact, spreading the games out across all the members in the league could make a big difference.

A league with 30 members works out at an average of three matches per club (four for some to reach 100),
if there are 50 members, that’s two matches each; whether a player is AFK or not makes no difference, as there will always be someone on one side or the other.
On the other hand, managers with squads at 90-99 NG who only have 3-4 matches left to play won’t be able to do much more than advise their colleagues with 70-70 NG to help them win, which could make a difference

I’m not saying there’s no need for reform, but just that before always asking the MDJ to change things in the game, perhaps we could first look at how the community can change and make it more competitive

I’d also point out that every time the game’s programming changes, we end up with more bugs, so we should first see how the community can improve the game and on this point, the community can make a big difference to how these matches are managed

zejl: Je ne suis pas complétement d accord en vrai avec 100 ie tu es limité a avoir 10, 12 gros clubs, si une entente trustait 20 ou 25 gros ils se retrouveraient à jouer 4 ou 5 ie je ne suis pas certain que ça plairait donc non cp et lr ne pillent pas tous les clubs.
Sauf qu ii y avait encore 2 ans y avait assez de gros clubs pour alimenter plein d ententes la on dira ce qu on veut mais il n y a plus assez de joueurs hyper actifs pour toutes ces ententes.
Et les quelques une qui restent (ce fame...

To answer your question to some extent:
Of the last 391 matches (over the last 30 days), 109 had at least one opponent who took no action during the match, which is around 28%.

Everyone is entitled to their own interpretation, but for me the problem is the small pool of players. Not enough new blood coming in. And on the other hand, players who have been competing on VF for years and then prefer to just chill out on the game, devoting far less of their free time to it.

grissais's man: Je ne conteste pas la supériorité des CP / LR , mais si ces 2 ententes arrêteraient de recruter à tout va les meilleurs membres dans d'autres ententes il y aurait moins de différence de niveaux , plus de suspens .

You must be mistaken.
I don’t think we’re recruiting left, right and centre – quite the opposite, in fact.
I’ll speak only for my own club, but on the contrary, our recruitment is very targeted. We’ve had few new signings (and few departures, if that gives you any food for thought as well…).
That said, opportunities do arise, so this season we may have launched a small recruitment drive, but this is very much the exception – we mustn’t overdo it, and we must stick to the facts.

And when I say targeted, I don’t necessarily mean top-tier managers. But above all, active, reliable managers with a bit of grit. That’s our approach to recruitment—certainly not mass recruitment, definitely not. We’ve actually made the exact opposite choice.
In fact, I think there was a run of 4–5 seasons with no new recruits a few seasons back... That was deliberate, and applicants were politely turned down, which I imagine made other groups very happy...

The crux of the matter has been simple for a while now. It’s the decline in real, active managers that’s causing us to refocus on larger groups. There’s inevitably less diversity. And if, on top of that, life is good in the big groups (active Discord, mutual support, advice, the market, etc.), well, OK, guilty of wanting to run a group properly. I’m not saying we’re succeeding, but in any case we’re trying our best.
As for groups that are declining, we shouldn’t necessarily blame others alone.

In short, once we have a larger community, we can probably hope for a good level of diversity again. But the problems with VF, left unaddressed for a long time, have led us here.
Good luck with revitalising the whole thing. But I’m afraid the proposed solutions won’t make much of a difference.

Leaving aside the issue of alliance dominance, the overarching question is really this: how can you avoid making the game off-putting if you’re a bit competitive but don’t belong to one of the top six alliances?
The only alliance to have managed to break through in the last 30 seasons is the AFU
If you want (because that’s the point) to climb the rankings, the league and cup competitions aren’t usually enough; you have to do inter-club transfers. A player starting out will spend time building up his centre, then to improve he joins a club and prefers a good one without going straight for one of the top 8.
Little by little he climbs the ranks, as does his alliance, and he finds himself 8th in D2, but as D2 is packed with sister alliances, he’s started to gain experience; but then he moves straight up to D1 and there... Bam, a 4-0 loss to Misha, then a 4-0 loss to Skyz – he can quickly realise the bar is set too high and will start playing less or try to aim for a top-6 spot, but even in Division 2, at some point, places are limited, so he drops out.
What I mean is that the gap has reached such a level that there’s a lack of that intermediate division where you can finish your development at a high level without getting thrashed. And for me, that would be a division made up of the top 8 from D2 and the bottom 8 from D1, with a single promotion-relegation spot. The standard would be very high, and there you’d have time to gain enough experience, enjoy yourself and only face the best once you’re ready.

RIP to the clubs whose applications were politely turned down by the CP; they’ve just learnt they probably didn’t have enough ‘guts’ to take them on! Are your egos holding up? 😂

We all agree that change is needed. Thanks to the clubs for putting forward proposals; they’re going to a lot of trouble for something that probably won’t happen. But hope springs eternal, so let’s hope...

Tazz26: RIP les clubs qui ont vu leur candidature gentiment refusé a la CP, ils viennent d'apprendre qu'il n'avait probablement pas assez de "bulbe" pour les intégrer ! Ça va les chevilles ?😂

On est tous d'accord pour dire qu'il faut du changement. Merci aux clubs force de proposition, il se donne bien du mal pour quelques choses qui n'arrivera probablement pas. Mais l'espoir fait vivre, alors espérons..

That’s not the only criterion. There are others, if you read carefully. Like being active. I mentioned it – didn’t you see it?

Demi-cerveau: On pourrait aussi prendre le problème autrement :

• diminuer le nombre d'ie par saison. Pourquoi pas 50 au lieu de 100 ?
• limiter le nombre de membres par entente. Pourquoi pas à 10 au lieu de 50 ?

Ce sont de mauvaises solutions, bien sûr. Mais pas plus mauvaise que celle évoquée dans le sujet initial. Sauf que ces solutions ne seront jamais proposées par les ententes de tête car elles ne vont pas dans leur sens.

Au bout d'un moment, il faudrait que les ententes de tête prennent conscienc...

I completely agree with you

Why not limit it to 4 or 5 international matches? But what will happen then?
All the mid-table clubs will use their transfer windows at the start of the season when Magpie, Skyz and Misha Ced are in the Champions League, then they’ll wait until the end of the season, once they’ve used their four transfer windows, to plan for the next one. In short, it’s like wanting to play in a different division.

Sure, you’re perfectly entitled to choose your own selection criteria, just as I’m perfectly entitled to think they’re a bit pretentious. But it’s no big deal!

zejl: En dehors du sujet domination d entente le sujet global est surtout : comment ne pas rendre ce jeu répulsif si tu es un peu compétiteur mais que tu n appartiens pas au top 6 des ententes.
La seule entente de ces 30 dernières saisons à avoir réussi à émerger ce sont les AFU
Si tu veux (car ça reste l intérêt) monter dans le classement, le championnat et les coupes ne suffisent généralement pas il faut faire des ie, un gars qui demarre va passer du temps a faire son centre puis pour s améliore...

RTG, and its D1 championship title from season 126, sends its regards and apologises for not having made a name for itself yet.

Given that we’re essentially a bunch of nobodies barely good enough for Division 2, I’m counting on the great Roman legion to stop coming round to pick a fight with our members, as they did just recently. I suppose they had to replace Jex, I suppose....

And if, by some chance, one of our members were to apply to join you of their own accord, I’d be happy to explain to your president where the button is to reject an application.

We’re sorry again for our upcoming defeats against you. We hope it won’t spoil your fun too much, my lord. And if we ever manage a draw or a win, it will undoubtedly be a bonus.

Have a lovely day.

• Reduce to 12 teams per division
• Create a closed league for sister teams
• Limit to 5 friendly matches per club
• Pay 500k per friendly match organised to NSE Futbol Club

PS: also review the number of championships (as previously mentioned); VF no longer has sufficient real assets for the current setup

PS 2: Kita, hurry up and sign the club’s sale offer

Demi-cerveau: La RTG, et son titre de champion de D1 en saison 126 te salue, et s'excuse de ne pas avoir encore émergé.

Vu que nous sommes en substance des brêles tout justes bons à la D2, je compte sur la grande légion romaine pour ne plus venir faire du rentre dedans à nos membres, comme ils l'ont fait encore très récemment. Il fallait bien remplacer Jex j'imagine ....

Et si par mégarde un de nos membres venait à aller postuler de lui même chez vous, je veux bien expliquer à votre président où se trou...

I may not have made myself very clear, but when I say ‘emerge’, I’m talking about a new team that would come into the top flight and establish itself there for the long term, so I don’t see why you think your team fits that description – you’re a long-established club 🤷
Anyway, even in an 8- or 10-team league, you’d be in it, so I don’t see why you feel targeted. And then, OK, let’s imagine an average season where you’re not in the top 8.
Can you honestly tell us that, even though things have gone rather well for you, the two or three teams in your alliance that scored one or two points in the fifth round had a brilliant time?
Would it be shameful to find yourself in a division with the top 8 from D2 and the bottom 8 from D1, and for all the members, like the FYM this season in D2, to regain confidence and start afresh on a solid footing?
Sometimes the suggestions that some people make – perhaps a bit clumsily – are intended to try and make the game more enjoyable, not to provoke or mock.

Demi has highlighted the real issue: the recruitment of top players in D1 leagues.
Of course, you can’t stop a player from leaving, but I don’t see the point in it, apart from winning the title every season – that’s for sure.
Personally, I prefer to stay loyal and take on the challenge of going out to find CP and LR players.

I must admit, whilst things are getting a bit congested at CP and LR, that I don’t know why some people aren’t taking up the challenge of joining the Circle or the Vikings to bolster their ranks and get involved in the title race, as they did a few seasons ago. Honestly, it’s just a matter of two or three players to get the few points needed to be on the same level; it would make the league more exciting to think that the title is being contested by four teams, as in England, rather than in France or Germany, where the league is decided before it’s even begun.

So, rather than moping around in the second division, don’t hesitate to lead by example. I’m sure plenty of Championship clubs would be delighted to welcome you on board to help them improve.

Demi-cerveau: Du coup, plutôt que de te morfondre en lr2, il ne faut pas hésiter à montrer l'exemple. Je suis sûr que plein d'ententes de D1 seraient ravies de t'accueillir pour s'améliorer.

I was even going to suggest FYM to him! 😀

As compensation for hitting on us, Poky! 😛
I don’t know if we’ve come out on top, but we’d be delighted to welcome you, Zelj! 🙃

But I’ve just come from LR1 and I’ve gone back to LR2 of my own accord because I don’t feel I’m committed enough to be there.
In LR2, the challenge is precisely to finish first in D2. I know my limits in terms of skill and commitment, and I feel I’m in the right place, so I’m enjoying myself.
And I’d enjoy it even more if the standard in D2 were to rise as proposed, because the challenge would be even greater whilst still remaining achievable.
But now, if one day the sister clubs were to disappear or I found myself without a contract, I’d actually find it more logical to apply to the Vikings, Cercle or RTG if there were a challenge to help take the team to the next level in the title race, rather than just bolstering a dominant side thatwouldn’t need me at all

The real problem is not the dominance of CP or LR, but the mindset of certain managers.

Every season, the most ambitious clubs almost invariably join the strongest alliances. The result: the same alliances become even stronger, attract even more good clubs and continue to dominate the competition.

For me, the real challenge isn’t joining a league that’s already at the top, but helping to build a project capable of competing with the best. Unfortunately, many managers prefer security and guaranteed victories rather than taking risks and building for the long term.

As long as this mindset persists, it will be very difficult to see new alliances emerge that are capable of competing with CP and LR. The dominance of these alliances is not only the result of their quality, but also of the natural appeal that success holds for managers

Many good clubs stick to their core values, but after a while they too have built a strong team and are managing their matches well, so they want to win the Holy Grail.
So, naturally, to win trophies and face a challenge, they have to move on, and that’s only human.
We still play in the VF league for the competition too.
When FYM were relegated, we were completely stripped bare.
They’ve all joined up with some great clubs (LV, CP, LR, LV, etc.) and I never tried to hold them back; on the contrary, I understood their choice.
It’s not the big clubs that need to bend to the will of the players, but us smaller clubs that have managed to make the members want to stay.
With determination, it’s still possible to quickly challenge the top 5.
Beat 5 out of 7 big clubs and you’re getting there.
It takes time and patience, but it’s not impossible either.

minadinho: Beaucoup de bon club reste dans leur entente de coeur , mais au bout d’un moment eux aussi ont construit une belle équipe et gère leur matchs donc souhaite avoir le graal .
Donc forcément pour avoir du palmarès et du challenge ils sont obligé de partir et ça reste humain .
Ont joue quand même à vf pour la compétition aussi.
Lors de la descente de la fym ont a totalement étais pillé .
Ils sont tous rejoins de très belle ententes ( lv, cp , lr, lv ect )et j’ai jamais essayé de retenir bie...

The same goes for the LGM alliance; I joined the alliance. It included players such as imccarthy, ultras, ben9867, khad, as well as several strong clubs.
The alliance was among the top five and regularly competed at the highest level.
But when the project collapsed, the majority of LGM’s members moved to LR.
At that point, I was in Alliance 2 and tried to save the structure, but with almost all the clubs leaving, I was forced to start from scratch.

The flow isn’t one-way.

At CP, for example, there have recently been departures to other leagues such as ELU and the Entente Languedocienne, or even L7C. L7C, incidentally, is set to go from D5 to D1 very soon, barring any disasters.

I don’t have any shares in L7C, but I imagine they have these three pillars: a network of managers who get on well, an organisation and a vision, as well as a good atmosphere. They’ve come together well and even have a sister alliance, just like LGM and Sweet did before. So managers who are keen to embark on a ‘zero to hero’ project do exist, especially if they can do it with friends.

But when you’ve got at best two genuine new players a month who’ll stick with VF, it’s impossible to keep the forty or so more or less active alliances in the game happy, whatever their level.

I think Demi’s idea is a brilliant one: reducing the number from 100 IE to 50 IE.

The benefits:

• We’ll have more high-quality IEs rather than just quantity
• It’ll stop agreements from chasing numbers
• Agreements won’t need numbers to be competitive
• It’ll also promote new agreement projects

"To conquer without risk is to triumph without glory!"

Or perhaps there are simply too many agreements.

Misha: Ou bien y a juste trop d’ententes.

Has anyone ever told you that you’re not stupid?

In any case, until there is a realisation that, with the decline in the number of managers (I’m talking about ‘individual’ and active managers, not clubs set up solely to pick up free players), a league comprising 16 D1 alliances, with alliances potentially bringing together 50 clubs, no longer reflects the reality of the game at all.

But reducing the maximum number of members per alliance (as suggested by some) will not change anything, as many clubs in ‘large’ alliances did not join their alliance for the IE but for all the other benefits they can find there.

And imposing a reduction in the number of clubs per alliance will only cause alliances of 2, or even 3, to balloon, and may even lead to the creation of alliances of 3 and 4 where none currently exist.

The only parameter that needs adjusting is the number of alliances per division.

The move from 20 to 16 was far too ‘insipid’; reducing it to 12 would undoubtedly be just as much so. What would provide a different direction is the move to 8-team divisions with two promotions and two relegations per division (and, in parallel, a league based on the same model exclusively reserved for sister leagues).

When you look at the current league standings, it’s telling
In D1: more than half of the leagues will not have played 100 matches by the end of the season
In D2: the same

There are two reasons for this ‘loss of interest’:

1. The imbalance in fixtures, which means that mid-table clubs from ‘small’ partnerships dare not schedule away games because they know they have an 80 or 90 per cent chance of facing teams far too strong for them
2. the fact that in a 16-team league, three-quarters of the clubs know from the very first matchday that they cannot compete for the title and that, whatever they do, they will not be relegated.
   A league where three-quarters of the participants have nothing to play for is inevitably uninteresting.

With divisions of eight and significant reshuffling each season (two promoted and two relegated), this will give a real boost to many clubs’ motivation for the Inter-League championships.
And as the icing on the cake, a reform of IS matches: 7 IS matches (1 per week) with a high points coefficient against the other 7 teams in the division.

This ties in with your previous post, and I agree with that – and I’ll say it again: even if the suggestions aren’t perfect, I think the majority of the discussions are aimed at making the game more enjoyable, ensuring it remains appealing, and keeping people playing.
The alliance system is one of VF’s strong points; even when you’re fed up with the game, you stick around for the mates who’ll try to help you reach new milestones if you want to climb higher.
In short, would it be possible to set up a poll (limited to members who have been here for at least 6 months) on:
The ideal number of alliances per Division 1 and 2 (or even 3): 6, 8, 10, 12 or the current 16
The number of promotion and relegation spots: 1, 2 or 3
A sister league running in parallel?
The number of matches per season: 50, 60, 80 or 100