Should chemistry style cards be permanently removed?

1
IAIK7
1541 posts Play-Off Hero
Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

Comments

  • what is still realistic to you in this game (other than those cards)??
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    what is still realistic to you in this game (other than those cards)??

    I knew that somebody would bring this up. I'm soley focussing on the chemistry style cards. There are plenty of other threads where people discuss unrealistic aspects of the game.
  • Bambobär
    227 posts Sunday League Hero
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    what is still realistic to you in this game (other than those cards)??

    I knew that somebody would bring this up. I'm soley focussing on the chemistry style cards. There are plenty of other threads where people discuss unrealistic aspects of the game.

    On the one side im for a yes and on the other side a no because the prices of high rated cards would explode
  • I'm a no. They're good for adapting players to different playstyles and helping some of the lesser rated ones keep up with the big boys.

    I don't amass much coinage each FIFA but chemistry styles are a savour in weekend for me, can really make or break my team's balance.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Bambobär wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    what is still realistic to you in this game (other than those cards)??

    I knew that somebody would bring this up. I'm soley focussing on the chemistry style cards. There are plenty of other threads where people discuss unrealistic aspects of the game.

    On the one side im for a yes and on the other side a no because the prices of high rated cards would explode

    I don't think that they would be affected as much as you might think.
  • Moe_86
    343 posts Sunday League Hero
    Tbh i don’t want them to remove them, actually i want more chem style cards. Tgey are very effective
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Dubba31 wrote: »
    I'm a no. They're good for adapting players to different playstyles and helping some of the lesser rated ones keep up with the big boys.

    I don't amass much coinage each FIFA but chemistry styles are a savour in weekend for me, can really make or break my team's balance.

    Fair point. I don't really think of it that way as I don't use such cards (hope I don't sound arrogant).
  • Monsta
    1789 posts Play-Off Hero
    Surely chemistry should just be removed in general, the boosts were always there just recently you can pick which stats are boosted.
  • Latanaka
    741 posts Semi-Pro
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Bambobär wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    what is still realistic to you in this game (other than those cards)??

    I knew that somebody would bring this up. I'm soley focussing on the chemistry style cards. There are plenty of other threads where people discuss unrealistic aspects of the game.

    On the one side im for a yes and on the other side a no because the prices of high rated cards would explode

    I don't think that they would be affected as much as you might think.

    I think they would explode too unless EA would have a solution for the prices.
  • LeBleuFIFA
    524 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited January 28
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited January 28
    Moe_86 wrote: »
    Tbh i don’t want them to remove them, actually i want more chem style cards. Tgey are very effective

    Can't believe there isn't one to increase: pace, shot and dribble collectively.
  • Latanaka
    741 posts Semi-Pro
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Moe_86 wrote: »
    Tbh i don’t want them to remove them, actually i want more chem style cards. Tgey are very effective

    Can't believe there isn't one to increase: pace, shot and dribble collectively.

    This is the most op combo i guess
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Monsta wrote: »
    Surely chemistry should just be removed in general, the boosts were always there just recently you can pick which stats are boosted.

    Boosts should go but chemistry should remain imo. The teams would just get ridiculous and icons would lose massive value.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Latanaka wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Moe_86 wrote: »
    Tbh i don’t want them to remove them, actually i want more chem style cards. Tgey are very effective

    Can't believe there isn't one to increase: pace, shot and dribble collectively.

    This is the most op combo i guess

    10k a card
  • Renamed123456
    2726 posts National Call-Up
    Get rid of chem and all chaos.

    At the same time I'm kinda for it.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.

    Granted but for me, custom tactics and player instructions are plenty way enough to do exactly that.
  • Stkyfngz
    4836 posts National Call-Up
    Should take out the positions or make it better instead.

    I can play cr7 at CDM on full chem, yet playing a winger on the opposite side won't work.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Get rid of chem and all chaos.

    At the same time I'm kinda for it.

    I'm going to put you in the 'maybe' section for now.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    Stkyfngz wrote: »
    Should take out the positions or make it better instead.

    I can play cr7 at CDM on full chem, yet playing a winger on the opposite side won't work.

    I'm referring more to chemistry style boosts rather than chemistry links. But in so far as what you said, they should only allow 1 position change forward and back. Meaning that, Eriksen could only be a CF, CAM, or CM. And wingers should absolutely be allowed to change wings.
  • LeBleuFIFA
    524 posts An Exciting Prospect
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.

    Granted but for me, custom tactics and player instructions are plenty way enough to do exactly that.

    I disagree, IRL you manage your team outside of just setting up a tactic and instructions, a manager can reposition players and have them improve certain aspects of their game related to the philosophy.

    My more important point Ill answer you with a post of my own mate
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.

    Granted but for me, custom tactics and player instructions are plenty way enough to do exactly that.

    I disagree, IRL you manage your team outside of just setting up a tactic and instructions, a manager can reposition players and have them improve certain aspects of their game related to the philosophy.

    My more important point Ill answer you with a post of my own mate

    In that case, having a player improve instantly st the application of a card would be the problem wouldn't it? An alternative would be something where for every 50 games a player plays for your club, you are given a set amount of attribute points to apply to whatever stat you wanted. That lengthy process would then be akin to real life where imposing a philosophy and improving a player's gameplay aspect can take weeks if not months. Pogba is an exception because of his circumstance.
  • LeBleuFIFA
    524 posts An Exciting Prospect
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.

    Granted but for me, custom tactics and player instructions are plenty way enough to do exactly that.

    I disagree, IRL you manage your team outside of just setting up a tactic and instructions, a manager can reposition players and have them improve certain aspects of their game related to the philosophy.

    My more important point Ill answer you with a post of my own mate

    In that case, having a player improve instantly st the application of a card would be the problem wouldn't it? An alternative would be something where for every 50 games a player plays for your club, you are given a set amount of attribute points to apply to whatever stat you wanted. That lengthy process would then be akin to real life where imposing a philosophy and improving a player's gameplay aspect can take weeks if not months. Pogba is an exception because of his circumstance.

    I agree that is a better solution than what we already have and Im sure we could come up with several other alternatives as well.

    However my point is that outright removing them is worse than what we already have.

    Im not saying chem styles are EAs gift to mankind and that its perfect, just that its better with than without
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    LeBleuFIFA wrote: »
    No chemistry styles makes the game more pay to win so no.

    Also its a way to express yourself tactically and adapt the players to your strategy.

    Granted but for me, custom tactics and player instructions are plenty way enough to do exactly that.

    I disagree, IRL you manage your team outside of just setting up a tactic and instructions, a manager can reposition players and have them improve certain aspects of their game related to the philosophy.

    My more important point Ill answer you with a post of my own mate

    In that case, having a player improve instantly st the application of a card would be the problem wouldn't it? An alternative would be something where for every 50 games a player plays for your club, you are given a set amount of attribute points to apply to whatever stat you wanted. That lengthy process would then be akin to real life where imposing a philosophy and improving a player's gameplay aspect can take weeks if not months. Pogba is an exception because of his circumstance.

    I agree that is a better solution than what we already have and Im sure we could come up with several other alternatives as well.

    However my point is that outright removing them is worse than what we already have.

    Im not saying chem styles are EAs gift to mankind and that its perfect, just that its better with than without

    Fair enough. I actually like my idea above quite a lot. I think it's a good middle ground.
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2161 posts Fans' Favourite
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

    What you are doing here is that you're using a non sequitur of moralizing drivel to represent the entire structure of this game.

    The realism in this game ends with the lineups presentation (which ironically everyone skips).

    The only thing your idea achieves, from a practical point of view, is an escalated pay-to-win driven model and ludicrously expensive endgame cards.
  • LeBleuFIFA
    524 posts An Exciting Prospect
    I agree and it's one of numerous solutions that are better than the current one. I like yours quite alot, its dynamic and interactive.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited January 28
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

    What you are doing here is that you're using a non sequitur of moralizing drivel to represent the entire structure of this game.

    The realism in this game ends with the lineups presentation (which ironically everyone skips).

    The only thing your idea achieves, from a practical point of view, is an escalated pay-to-win driven model and ludicrously expensive endgame cards.


    Firstly, both aspects are inextricably linked so it's not non sequitur. Secondly, it almost definately does not represent the entire structure of the game. Thirdly, this game is hardly p2w and I believe that would remain the same. But I take your opinion on board.
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2161 posts Fans' Favourite
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

    What you are doing here is that you're using a non sequitur of moralizing drivel to represent the entire structure of this game.

    The realism in this game ends with the lineups presentation (which ironically everyone skips).

    The only thing your idea achieves, from a practical point of view, is an escalated pay-to-win driven model and ludicrously expensive endgame cards.


    Firstly, both aspects are inextricably linked so it's not non sequitur. Secondly, it almost definately does not represent the entire structure of the game. Thirdly, this game is hardly p2w and I believe that would remain the same. But I take your opinion on board.

    I'll simplify it for you.
    (1) You are falsely asserting that this game resembles realism.
    (2) We are talking about FUT in a vacuum.
    (3) This game is de facto p2w and I'm absolutely flummoxed by the notion how such simplicstic concept can cause so much confusion.
  • IAIK7
    1541 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited January 28
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

    What you are doing here is that you're using a non sequitur of moralizing drivel to represent the entire structure of this game.

    The realism in this game ends with the lineups presentation (which ironically everyone skips).

    The only thing your idea achieves, from a practical point of view, is an escalated pay-to-win driven model and ludicrously expensive endgame cards.


    Firstly, both aspects are inextricably linked so it's not non sequitur. Secondly, it almost definately does not represent the entire structure of the game. Thirdly, this game is hardly p2w and I believe that would remain the same. But I take your opinion on board.

    I'll simplify it for you.
    (1) You are falsely asserting that this game resembles realism.
    (2) We are talking about FUT in a vacuum.
    (3) This game is de facto p2w and I'm absolutely flummoxed by the notion how such simplicstic concept can cause so much confusion.

    I never said the game was realistic. I was simply suggesting a way I thought the game could go in the direction of realism. If I'm saying that chemistry style cards are unrealistic, then how am I also saying that the game is realistic? There should be elements of the game that represent realism in so far as that it still remain 'fun'. Also, with trading easier than ever and con s being more obtainable than ever, I don't see this game as p2w. There are many people with great squad who have never spent money on the game. I think you've completely missed the point of this thread. And by that, I'm baffled as everyone else at least understood it.
  • lIlIlIlIlIl
    2161 posts Fans' Favourite
    edited January 28
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    IAIK7 wrote: »
    Just curious on people's opinion about this. Personally, I believe they should be removed. It's not that I don't believe that they work; it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game.

    What you are doing here is that you're using a non sequitur of moralizing drivel to represent the entire structure of this game.

    The realism in this game ends with the lineups presentation (which ironically everyone skips).

    The only thing your idea achieves, from a practical point of view, is an escalated pay-to-win driven model and ludicrously expensive endgame cards.


    Firstly, both aspects are inextricably linked so it's not non sequitur. Secondly, it almost definately does not represent the entire structure of the game. Thirdly, this game is hardly p2w and I believe that would remain the same. But I take your opinion on board.

    I'll simplify it for you.
    (1) You are falsely asserting that this game resembles realism.
    (2) We are talking about FUT in a vacuum.
    (3) This game is de facto p2w and I'm absolutely flummoxed by the notion how such simplicstic concept can cause so much confusion.

    I never said the game was realistic. I was simply suggesting a way I thought the game could go in the direction of realism. If I'm saying that chemistry style cards are unrealistic, then how am I also saying that the game is realistic? There should be elements of the game that represent realism in so far as that it still remain 'fun'. Also, with trading easier than ever and con s being more obtainable than ever, I don't see this game as p2w. There are many people with great squad who have never spent money on the game. I think you've completely missed the point of this thread. And by that, I'm baffled as everyone else at least understood it.

    I was tempted to not reply and just leave your last post as a meme for everyones entertainment but nonetheless.

    (1) "it's just that I think they take away an aspect of realism from the game." textbook assertion that this game is realistic in the first place.

    (2) Clearly you have no idea what p2w means. An excerpt from an earlier post of mine:

    "[...]whenever you are able to exchange monetary assets for a competitive advantage is the definition of pay to win models.

    We know that a proper META team is key for competing beyond rat league level by the sheer ubiquitousness of stacked teams in upper echelons. It's also clear that the efficasy of hyper-rated teams is intercorrelated with player's ELO strength and overzealous abuse of game weaknesses."

    (3) The only point to be extrapolated from your thread is a misguided proposal built on false assertions.
  • LeBleuFIFA
    524 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Pros spend several 1000£ to compete. The squads all pros use are worth more than 2 regular monthly checks. Find another game where 1/6 of your yearly income is invested to compete for a maximum of 12 months.

    FIFA is the most pay2win game I know, I love FIFA, but it sure isnt perfect. It being p2w isnt a matter of opinion.
1
Sign In or Register to comment.