[Feedback] - Draft System Discussion

Hey

Imagine you got a 117 ovr player in 1st try. Would you be happy? Definitely not as much as when you work hard to collect shards and you are finally eligible to get it.

My point is that even when the Draft System is great it can't be the main focus. It can only be great as a secondry system. 

I also don't support the idea of retaining shard system but there should be a proper and balanced replacement for it as we all love to explore new things.

I also don't like the exchange conditions of extra time tokens and player items as they don't make any sense and there should be new conditions.

There should be a platform for players regarding the toty event where they can share feedbacks and later all the feedbacks are summarised to improve the next week of midfielders' chapter.

What? What are you talking about? This whole game is about pack opening. Pack opening and card collection is the main focus of this game. And what do you mean with getting a 117 player from the first try? 80% of the post on the forum is about increasing pack luck and how is not fair that some people get high ovr players and some don't when opening the 3000 gems pack. Of course everybody will be happy to get a high ovr player. Getting a high ovr doesn't mean I have to stop grinding. 2 high ovr player are better than 1.

I also love pack opening but there's a balance like 110-115 costed 3000 gems meanwhile 113-115 costed 22.5k. This Draft System is like the 108-115 unlimited packs that costed 2500 gems now costing 3000 gems as 108-117.

About the luck I said, different people have different opinions and I love grinding together with pack opening but not depending only on luck. 

I think this new draft system has potential. I spent 100,000 gems and got 115 Raphinha and some others which is not bad as there are plenty of gems I can still get from division rivals.

However the game feels empty because the only things we can play is the event itself and division rivals, there should be some kind of mode that gives a voucher daily (or a couple every couple days) that has a head to head tournament format, something like that. It will provide a good boost for the event.

Thanks for sharing your feedback. I'll move it to our main thread here. 

U mean additional to Scouting camp coz that's a a H2H tourney but weekly I think

It is not worth it . How are we even going to get the tokens. The maximum we get from this is 114 rated cards and we are wasting our gems(F2P). For P2W players also it is a scam.

Bring the store packs with it and the shard system so we could exchange the fodder.          Now there is only 5 tokens for one player and it takes 300-500 to get 116+ rated players.

The store packs and the shards need to come back immediately.

Thank you

Player System/Choice: I think it was a good attempt at introducing draft system but I agree that it can't be the main one a player has to work for.  If I work hard and be lucky in a shard system atleast I can assure myself of 2 max ovr cards of my choice. Irrespective of your efforts it's a luck based affair in draft.

It was poorly communicated as well.. there could have been an event with both systems before replacing.

Packs:  people r hurt including me at not having the variety of packs as for years people planned according to that system. 

Player ovr: league tokens and star passes both used to give a maxovr-1 card but this time it's maxovr-2

26 phase 2 token is a great idea as they don't expire but the exchange is too low. I don't see many takers for that.

If it ain’t broke don’t fix it! There was nothing wrong with the shard system. Bring it back. Full stop.

I still have yet to hear EA offer a compelling explanation for why they instituted this change. What problem were you trying to fix, EA? Seriously, can we have an answer to that question? 

With the shard system most F2Pers (which is to say most users) had a reasonable certainty of grinding our way to obtaining at least one (sometimes two) meta cards per event. This new system introduces far more uncertainty and seems clearly engineered to compel more spending (in order to obtain the certainty of landing a top player). If someone can show me the math to demonstrate this conclusion is incorrect then please put it out there.

The fundamental problem with FCM is that EA is running it like a casino, and every time we see a change like this it means the odds just got worse for the “gamblers” and better for the “house.” So, to then ask us what we “like” and how we can “improve” it is like asking us to aid and abet the folks trying to pick our pockets!

If you want our money, EA, stop trying to manipulate us with “drafts” and “exchanges” that only serve to obfuscate the ever-poorer odds in this casino and IMPROVE GAMEPLAY! That’s how you create value for customers and EARN our $$$.

You hit the nail on the head! Shard system may not have been sexy, but it offered grinders a clear path to one or two meta players per event. In other words it provided a serious “carrot” to play everyday and to think we had at least a semblance of a chance (after toiling for a month!) of remaining relevant/competitive amid the P2Pers. This new system destroys that carrot and replaces it with a not too thinly veiled stick — spend or have ZERO certainty of obtaining meta players that can help out your squad. 

My league is almost entirely composed of F2Pers, and folks are really upset and dejected about this event and what it portends for the future of the game. And what flummoxes us most is how EA goes through this performative “listening” routine in here but then blindsides us with a change we weren’t asking for. It really highlights the need for a two-way conversation where someone from EA replies periodically to summarize what they are hearing and what they intend to do about community concerns and points of pain. Enough of this “give us your feedback” where it feels like we’re shouting into a void. If the concern for customer satisfaction is truly earnest then the communication needs to be significantly more robust and it needs to be two-way.