I am giving it a -0.5/10. Everything is disliked...! I'm not the only one. I've already decided to wait and see how this draft system works in FC Mobile. Unfortunately, if this is going to be the new F2P mechanic, it doesn't seem fair to me. It's a shame because I like the game, but I would never spend money on it. Draft is the biggest scam in FC Mobile history, Sorry to Say.
1. Restore Store Packs.
2. Implement Fair Mechanism: - F2P player cant progress on luck-based draft system
3. Restore Division Rivals Rewards: Grinding is worthless without proper rewards.
4. Fix the League Store and bring back offer-D offers-C offers -B
5. Bring back the shard system.
Don't let them get away with this absurd update.
0 rating out of 10...
razaa_football The Draft, in principle, isn't that bad. There is some logic behind it, however what makes it look bad is the cost and the low rewards return. If tweaked to reasonable levels, it can work quite well (albeit I do prefer shards, less randomness). Some good points for Pulsar to take back. A few points from me, though, as I will play the devil's advocate here.
1, 3 and 4 - This has also been heavily discussed across various forums and passed as feedback to EA devs, as at the moment we literally have no way to obtain tradeable cards outside of the challenges or the market, but then how do you get coins? :D Yeah.
2 - It's RNG at play, so whether you are F2P or P2W doesn't really matter, as you don't get anything guaranteed. I am an F2P player since I do not subscribe to paid for pack luck, but I did draw 117 UT Zico on my 13th draw (mind you that after that I got garbage literally, heh). My league mate, who really plays this for market play, not the matches, drew 117 Dembele and tradeable. Explain that? Some P2Ws got diddly squat, and the only advantage they have on F2P is the fact that they will spend money to get more gems/FP, but that does not guarantee getting a 117 card through draft, only through a costly exchange, where they statistically can get more 113+ cards than F2P because they buy gems/FP.
5 would be nice as I prefer the shard system, but we shall see.
I didn't say that the drafts are really that bad, but current drafts are not like previous events systems like shards... The drafts really need Improvements. Thanks for your answer, I appreciate it.
dzrtr HERO PLz Could you explain the logic to me? My 30K diamonds/gems are gone, and I didn't even get a 117 player.
Only get 116 Owen untradable, which is not helpful ST in-game for a 116 OVR player. Suppose, if it were a Shard system, I could pick the player as per my choice, I would have got it a little late, but atleast i can choose not this pathetic logical great draft system
RAIHANDJ Logic is simple - every time you use a voucher:
You have 2% chance of getting either 116 or 117
You have 18% chance of getting 113, 114 and 115
You have 80% chance of getting the pool C pittance.
To get a guaranteed one of the 6 Pool A players, you need to go through 100 drafts, so that's 300k gems. If you get lucky before the counter reaches 0, it resets. In my case 1st time I got a Pool A player was after 13 drafts, then the counter reset and I have been getting "garbage" and stopped at 50 (63 drafts total).
Owen is a 115 player, so he belongs to Pool B, and you are guaranteed one of the Pool B range 113-115 cards every 10 drafts. Again, the counter goes from 10 to 0 and if you pull a pool B player before it reaches 0, the counter resets.
On top of all that, you have a 1% chance of getting a tradeable card. It does happen, but it's rare and likely you will get something below 113, so it will be almost worthless.
Hope it answers your query
Got to agree withrazaa_football. We can quibble about how to make the draft system less bad (it’s obviously WAY over-priced), but evendzrtr acknowledges that the major weakness (I would argue the Achilles’ heel) is the lack of certainty. Unless EA intends to simply run F2Pers out of the game (or relegate us to permanent second-class citizenhood) then we need some certainty of a reward worth “grinding” for. Otherwise, why put in the time? And if we can’t convert our time into a competitive team, then why play the game at all?
As it stands, I’ve won or bought 30 Pool A drafts and I’ve gotten nothing better than a couple 115 Owen’s. It’s a card that won’t improve my lineup and the conversion rate to Phase 2 tokens is paltry, so I’ve waded into this event and see no clear path to improve my team. Currently, I’m sitting on 100k gems that I have no intention of spending on more draft vouchers because they’d only buy me about 30 more drafts (and likely two more Owen’s) and chances are I would still have no 117 OVR to show for my trouble or a clear path to win one. Again, without the certainty of a top reward to work/play for, what’s the point?
I’ve asked the question and still heard no response from EA, so I’ll ask again: What problem were you trying to solve by discarding the shard system? And why are we now consumed with how to tweak an ill-conceived new system when the old one wasn’t broken?
What do you mean, even I acknowledged the problem, haha. I said from the very start to the EA folk via Mod channel, before the stream had even finished, that the current cost to reward ratio is simply unfair at best for both P2W and F2P players, and it will backfire. That sentiment was echoed by pretty much everyone across all socials, and it is what ultimately drove the lite changes that were posted here earlier, but these changes were not enough.
I mean that you have said now more than once that you think the draft has some interesting/good aspects, but that even though you don’t seem inclined to chuck it out and go back to shards (as I and many other others do), you acknowledge the draft system’s biggest weakness is uncertainty. I don’t think I’m being unfair or inaccurate in this characterization. Maybe you’re just trying to be diplomatic with EA by giving the draft system it’s “due,” but you haven’t come out and said it needs to be thrown out as an ill-conceived “solution” to a non-existent “problem” (as I and others have). If I’m wrong in this characterization then feel free to correct the record.
