Re: Strangling casual players

The issue with only having 12 squad battle matches (that give rewards) though, is that you have next to no room for mistakes, if you want to reach the better rewards. This means that most casual players need to pull out their best teams, instead of having the room to test out different styles, or use the squad battles to complete various objectives.

@thelaebyCasual players don’t have time to play 40 wl 40 squad battles 40 rivals and do sbcs and trade all day. Being able to play only 12 matches gives casuals time to compete.

Forgot 40 friendlies too. At least after the 12 you can keep playing if you have time. You no longer have to play 40. It’s nice ea finally made a change for casuals. 

@RadioShaqs I think you're missing my point, with the lack of opportunity to complete objectives and it being a stressfest etc. 

But at least we can agree in regards to 15 rivals wins being too much (that's if you win every game), compared to the 7 wins last year! 😞

Most people are not saying "they want 40 games in every mode". What people are saying, especially the casual players, is that they want more Squad Battles and less Rivals wins for rewards. For example, EA could've said 20 Squad Battles per week and 10 Rivals wins. But it went more extreme, with 12 Squad Battles, 15 Rivals wins. I'm not considering weekend league because EA has said that Champs is only for the best players, which will not include most casual players. Casual players, by nature, won't be trading all day long and doing every SBC available. EA just seems to have gone out of its way to alienate the majority of its customers, which is a very odd business strategy!

---

@Leelongy73 wrote:

Most people are not saying "they want 40 games in every mode". What people are saying, especially the casual players, is that they want more Squad Battles and less Rivals wins for rewards. For example, EA could've said 20 Squad Battles per week and 10 Rivals wins. But it went more extreme, with 12 Squad Battles, 15 Rivals wins. I'm not considering weekend league because EA has said that Champs is only for the best players, which will not include most casual players. Casual players, by nature, won't be trading all day long and doing every SBC available. EA just seems to have gone out of its way to alienate the majority of its customers, which is a very odd business strategy!

---

I agree. Im a causual player who loves the idea of building a football team with icons and current players and that is the draw of it for me but i dont want the stress or hassle of playing online as it really raises my anxiety levels and i just like to chill and play 5 or 6 squad battles a night and do a few SBC's and i dont care that i dont get a team as good as those who do rivals and champions as my team is for me and nobody else but i also know that if i want a better team its there if i want it. I think that 12 matches is a big loss to the casual player. For me UT was the best way to dive in and play casual matches without having to manage a team or do training as a player and just enjoy playing football. If it stays like this i think this will be my last version.

I agree with the squad battles not having enough games.  The prior amount was probably too much.  I could always make elite 1 in the past if I played all of the games and would make elite 2 playing about 3/4 the games.  This year I have finished in Elite 3 each time because of losing just one game I tried to play at legendary level.  Also the problem is that with one of my recent refreshes I did not get any easy games.  I had two games with 85 rated squads, one with an 87, and one with an 88.  That makes it very difficult.  I think it would be much better to have 20 games available, that is still more than half of what it was previously.  Also EA should make the game refreshes more even for everyone.  Of the four games, the first random squad should be a bronze/silver level, the second random squad should be a silver/ low gold level, the third random squad should be a mid gold around 80 to 84, and the final random game 86/87 or higher.  This would make it so everyone is playing similar level games.

Conduct a survey of casual players, or just read through the posts on here and on social media - I'll wager my mortgage that the majority want to play more Squad Battles and less Rivals. For EA to ignore that...well, as a business strategy, it's condemning itself. 

@Leelongy73If I was ea I would just look at the numbers in game.

It’s obvious what was happening. People played 40 games on beginner and would get higher than someone who played 12 but on say world class or ultimate.

Now everyone is playing 12 so people who play on ultimate are surpassing the people who played 12 on beginner.

Now that more people are playing because it’s only 12 it’s harder.

Again to me when you say causal 12 games helps casual. If you want 40 games to get ahead of people who can only play 12 that’s fine but it’s not for casual players.

Also the whole argument while I understand people are trying to argue for more games your actually make the point for less games. 

You only got a higher rank because other people and I say casuals couldn’t play that many games. 

You can make it 400. 800. 10,000 games if everyone played the same amount you would get the same rank. It only worked before because casuals couldn’t play 40 games. Casuals can now play all 12 games. 

@RadioShaqs You see a decent amount of players all agreeing on the same issue here, even whilst other threads are saying the exact same thing, and yet you're in every other of these threads defending EA and the changes they've made (even the 15 games for rivals). I obviously do not know if you're getting paid by EA, but I shouldn't make assumptions either, as you're in your full right to do so, however, you do seem to be killing your own credibility. 

Some of your statements also seem to be insinuating that bad players just shouldn't be playing the game this year. Especially; "Now everyone is playing 12 so people who play on ultimate are surpassing the people who played 12 on beginner." I would very confidently assume that at least 65% of the playerbase are casual players, who do not play World Class or above, and in tandem with EA's changes and what you are saying in defence of the company, it just seems to push out those 65% of players. Obviously, EA has already made their money from the game purchases, so in reality, they do not really have to cater to these 65% at all. 

@thelaebySee the problem with saying I defend ea is a don’t like that ea made rivals more games. So when I say I like less games in squad battles that doesn’t mean I just defend ea. it means I like less games because I am a casual player.

But yes your right if you play on beginner you shouldn’t t get rewarded more than someone who plays on ultimate. I don’t play on ultimate either but I can still see that the system supposed to reward them better. 

Everyone is basically highlighting that it wasn’t working right last year with more games. Now that more people are playing and everyone is playing the max the system is rewarding people who play at a higher difficulty not who plays more games. 

I am not sure why saying if you play all your games on ultimate you should get rewarded more than someone who plays all their games on beginner is bad. To me that makes sense. That’s not saying people who play on beginner shouldn’t play. 

Your basically saying if your casual you shouldn’t get rewarded for being able to play 12 games on ultimate more than someone hardcore that can play 40 games on beginner. To me that doesn’t make sense.