Ideas

Nico198x6's avatar
Nico198x6
Newcomer
1 day ago

Magician Playstyle in Player Career mode

Newly created Player Career players using the Magician archetype appear to receive an incorrect or duplicated PlayStyle progression tree.

The issue is reproducible across newly created careers and differs from an older Magician Player Career save created before this problem appeared.

What I observed:

I originally created a Player Career using the Magician archetype because I wanted a technically gifted creative attacking player/number 10.

During the career I eventually realized that the PlayStyles available to my Magician did not correspond to the PlayStyles I expected from that archetype.

In particular, Finesse Shot was missing.

At first I assumed the appropriate Magician PlayStyles would become available later through progression.

They did not.

I then created multiple new Player Career saves to test the archetype system.

Across these tests, several attacking/midfield archetypes appeared to receive the same or an incorrect PlayStyle progression tree instead of distinct archetype-appropriate selections.

I tested archetypes including:

  • Magician
  • Creator
  • Maestro
  • Recycler
  • Spark
  • Finisher

Several of these repeatedly displayed what appeared to be the same PlayStyle tree despite representing very different player archetypes.

Other archetypes/positions could display different trees, which suggests this is not simply a misunderstanding of the archetype system.

At one point Finisher also displayed a tree associated with a different forward archetype.

Important comparison with an older save:

I still have an older Player Career created approximately several months earlier.

That player also uses the Magician archetype.

That older Magician player correctly has Finesse Shot as a normal PlayStyle.

However, newly created Magician players do not receive the same PlayStyle setup.

This means I can have two Player Career players in the same game using the same Magician archetype but with different archetype PlayStyle availability depending on when the career was created.

The older career behaves differently from newly created careers.

Steps to reproduce

  1. Start a new Player Career on PS4.
  2. Create a player using the Magician archetype.
  3. Open the archetype/personality PlayStyle progression.
  4. Check the available PlayStyles.
  5. Repeat by creating additional careers using other attacking/midfield archetypes such as Creator, Maestro, Recycler or Spark.
  6. Compare the available PlayStyle trees.

In my testing, several different archetypes repeatedly received the same or incorrect PlayStyle tree.

Expected behavior:

Each archetype should receive the PlayStyle progression intended for that archetype.

A newly created Magician should have the same correct Magician PlayStyle progression as an existing older Magician save, unless EA intentionally changed the archetype design.

If the archetype was intentionally changed, different unrelated archetypes still should not repeatedly receive duplicated progression trees.

Actual behavior:

New Magician careers receive a different/incorrect PlayStyle setup compared with an older functioning Magician career.

Multiple unrelated attacking and midfield archetypes can display apparently identical PlayStyle trees.

Finesse Shot, which exists on my older Magician player, is missing from newly created Magician careers.

Impact:

This can permanently damage a Player Career because archetype choice is one of the fundamental decisions made when creating the player.

I played a long-term career before realizing that the PlayStyles I expected from Magician were not going to appear later.

There is no practical way on console to repair the archetype progression of an existing long-term Player Career.

The only option is to abandon the career and create another player – but newly created careers reproduce the same problem.

Please investigate the PlayStyle-tree assignment for Magician and the other attacking/midfield archetypes in newly created Player Careers.

No CommentsBe the first to comment