I was just listening to a podcast which discussed the breaking of strategy games in where you'll often accidentally (or deliberately) break the games if you have an understanding of the systems in place. This issue isn't the fact you know how to break the game as such but more about how not to use that information in the future as it's impossible to unlearn something you know, unless you have the self restraint to ignore said information. Even more so in a competitive environment like Vibe.
This is a problem I've fell into a few times with FMM, back on the PSP I had a tactic which broke the game completely, as I did on the mobile game from 2013 until I stopped using the OME, and that mobile tactic was especially hard to break away from as absolutely nothing compared to it.
The EME was a tad harder to break but I could name multiple exploits which make the engine a joke and this is without looking for them especially hard (back in the day I did enjoy breaking the game, not so much anymore after destroying 2016 & 17 for myself by making some shocking discoveries). However we're a tight nit community so even if I didn't discover exploits myself from play I'll likely know of them from discussions, articles or whatever else, the information is readily available.
So how do you then play the game without using said information? Since the role system come into play I've had my own tactical principles and go to ideas as the base which have always served me well, even still but whenever I'm building a tactic I'm not doing it blind as I am using the knowledge I've picked up even if unintentionally.
Exploits like the heading bug are easy to ignore as it's something you have to go out of your way to do but with general things which you need to think about like the puzzle of tactic building how do you not use information you know? Sure you can build specific tactics which are typically awkward like a flat 442 but the fact remains that they just won't compare.
I've never been keen on the role system and maybe that's partly to blame via its limitations, we have less to play with so most the time the options select themselves and with knowledge that's hard to ignore its easy to fall into the trap. Then you have the team instructions with a few which are seen as starting instructions with the rest seen as situational in match, this imbalance is realistic but it's sending us down the same path.
With limited options and knowledge that's very useable and effective it's not surprising as a community we can produce tactic after tactic, help article after help article and accidentally make the game easier for everyone. Take a look at the Black Pearl for example, there are reasons why alot of tactics since that was revealed look similar, even if unintentional 99% of people here know that tactic and know it's highly effective.
Yet how do SI counter this? We've seen them try with frustrating and game destroying results but any time the difficulty has naturally increased so for example from the OME to the EME (purely because it was new, the EME isn't harder than the OME as RNG is a bitch) we broke the EME wide open in months if not weeks. All it takes is one discovery accidentally or not and we have the knowledge to take off from to make the game even easier for ourselves.
When @Foxyand myself went about building the Tiki-Taka tactic we went into the process with knowledge of the game and how to achieve what we wanted, it was a time consuming process to get exactly what we wanted but we had the information available to use as a base, which saved alot of time. Then you have the Gegen which was basically made within a hour as we used the information learnt from making the first which made making the second laughably easy and in my personal opinion the Gegen is an excellent tactic. We learnt and adapted what we knew to essentially break the game, and I dunno about Foxy but I've personally used alot of what I learnt then in every tactic since.