The Weekend League Thread *Eddie the 🐐

Comments

  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Orison wrote: »
    15a9f5eadaef6870a88bbbdfdd65e3c7.png

    From that pic @Orison do you think that means 5 players to choose from in a pack or 5 separate player pick packs?

    Impossible to say. The wording doesn't really tell anything.

    I tend to say you have to choose 5 cards, probably get a set of 3 everytime and need to choose one of the 3.

    Ok cheers. That's kinda what i expected. I like this a lot.

    See my edit :joy: I missed the totw pack at first glance. I thought this would replace it so that top 100 players can choose 5 desirable ifs instead of getting 11 trashbags.

    But since the totw pack is still there my guess is that you actually just choose one out of 5 while silver 1 doesn't even get a choice, they get 1 option and either take it or nah.
  • Maverick
    4955 posts Big Money Move
    If it gets reduced to 30 games that would be great for me personally
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Maverick wrote: »
    If it gets reduced to 30 games that would be great for me personally

    Nah, would be awful for almost everyone unless you are a silver 1 and stopping kind of player.

    Considering the win % for elite would be even higher it would give even more meaning to every game and every loss would be even tougher to take and to recover.

    WL shouldn't have been about win totals in the first place.
  • Dan is Clutch
    25456 posts Player of the Year
    Prime Trezeguet on the PS4 market. Primes in packs straight away this year?!
  • Agent Murhawk
    8369 posts League Winner
    Prime Trezeguet on the PS4 market. Primes in packs straight away this year?!
    We can’t keep taking the good news EA
  • Maverick
    4955 posts Big Money Move
    Orison wrote: »
    Maverick wrote: »
    If it gets reduced to 30 games that would be great for me personally

    Nah, would be awful for almost everyone unless you are a silver 1 and stopping kind of player.

    Considering the win % for elite would be even higher it would give even more meaning to every game and every loss would be even tougher to take and to recover.

    WL shouldn't have been about win totals in the first place.

    Yes I do understand the games are more competitive now, but I'll take that over the time of playing 40 games. You may have to consider that with Rivals now it may be easier to make WL too so the player pool might be watered down.

    And yeah your last line sums it up but that's a separate issue in itself.
  • FknPitsy
    239 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Orison wrote: »
    Maverick wrote: »
    If it gets reduced to 30 games that would be great for me personally

    Nah, would be awful for almost everyone unless you are a silver 1 and stopping kind of player.

    Considering the win % for elite would be even higher it would give even more meaning to every game and every loss would be even tougher to take and to recover.

    WL shouldn't have been about win totals in the first place.

    While that's true, regarding the win %, I think most players would welcome having to win less games total with a higher %, than having to play 40 games total.

    I'm personally excited by the prospect of only playing 30 as opposed to 40 on weekends.
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Maverick wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Maverick wrote: »
    If it gets reduced to 30 games that would be great for me personally

    Nah, would be awful for almost everyone unless you are a silver 1 and stopping kind of player.

    Considering the win % for elite would be even higher it would give even more meaning to every game and every loss would be even tougher to take and to recover.

    WL shouldn't have been about win totals in the first place.

    Yes I do understand the games are more competitive now, but I'll take that over the time of playing 40 games. You may have to consider that with Rivals now it may be easier to make WL too so the player pool might be watered down.

    And yeah your last line sums it up but that's a separate issue in itself.

    It's not even about the competitiveness of games.

    If Elite 1 is 27/30 you barely got any room for error. You can't afford to get screwed by the game, because you can't recover the loss. And you've got even less room to lose games "regularly".

    The difference in time between 30 and 40 games is negligible imo. That's like 2-3 hours. Either you commit, then you will put the time in anyways no matter if 10 or 12 hours and if you don't commit then 30 games are as much of a chore as 40, because 30 games in 3 days is still 10 per day which is still way too much for the average player.
  • mjs4p
    11092 posts Has That Special Something
    Prime Trezeguet on the PS4 market. Primes in packs straight away this year?!

    Please let this be true.
  • Skittles67
    563 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited September 2018
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.
  • FknPitsy
    239 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.
  • Skittles67
    563 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    Yh it’s still bad but at least the ranks are scaled better compared to if it was 30 games and only being able to lose 3 games for e1
  • Skittles67
    563 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited September 2018
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Pros may say its too much but they will also be complaining when they miss out on events because the margin of error will be so minuscule. 30 games means with a bit of lucky matchmaking it’s easier to get 29-30 wins for just an elite 1 player
  • FknPitsy
    239 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Pros may say its too much but they will also be complaining when they miss out on events because the margin of error will be so minuscule. 30 games means with a bit of lucky matchmaking it’s easier to get 29-30 wins for just an elite 1 player

    Correct, but that doesn't bother me.

    The point I'm trying to get across is: if people that do this professionally are complaining that 40 games is too many to play in a weekend league, then it's probably too many games to play in a weekend league.

    I'm saying, for the vast majority of players, the 30 game total will be a hell of a lot better.
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    edited September 2018
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up. Pros aren't just saying "40 is too much, make it less", because that would lessen their chance to qualify for events since more people could reach 30/30 than 40/40.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D
  • FknPitsy
    239 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.
  • SocratesMe
    118 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    Orison wrote: »
    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    If you get easy matchmaking you can get through 40 in an hour.
  • AnDrEwThEdOn
    17253 posts World Class
    Good to have you back @Orison :D
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.

    The problem is that neither 30 or 40 games is suited to your "regular player".

    70% of people or so couldn't even qualify normally (not talking about EA handing out qualification for everyone) for WL in 17 as far as I know (like not even once), of those 30% who could there is a very small margin playing every week and out of those an even smaller margin completing all games.

    WL is a mode suited to that 0.1% of players and 32 or 40 games will hardly change that, all it will do is making it worse for the pros while still remaining to be unreachable for the casuals.
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    Imagine if it's this tho, 27/40 games for Elite 1 just so that more people could reach it. Market would be all over the place, people would swim in coins :joy:
  • mjs4p
    11092 posts Has That Special Something
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.

    The problem is that neither 30 or 40 games is suited to your "regular player".

    70% of people or so couldn't even qualify normally (not talking about EA handing out qualification for everyone) for WL in 17 as far as I know (like not even once), of those 30% who could there is a very small margin playing every week and out of those an even smaller margin completing all games.

    WL is a mode suited to that 0.1% of players and 32 or 40 games will hardly change that, all it will do is making it worse for the pros while still remaining to be unreachable for the casuals.

    But it’s not though. The majority of WL players are not pros, they are playing for rewards because the rewards are better than other game modes. As you have said, a ladder system is more appropriate to determine who qualifies for competitive events.
  • FknPitsy
    239 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    edited September 2018
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.

    The problem is that neither 30 or 40 games is suited to your "regular player".

    70% of people or so couldn't even qualify normally (not talking about EA handing out qualification for everyone) for WL in 17 as far as I know (like not even once), of those 30% who could there is a very small margin playing every week and out of those an even smaller margin completing all games.

    WL is a mode suited to that 0.1% of players and 32 or 40 games will hardly change that, all it will do is making it worse for the pros while still remaining to be unreachable for the casuals.

    Ok, let me put it this way.

    It's better for me, so I'm a happy man :D

    edit: if it's actually even less when game is released.
  • RBailss
    12254 posts Has That Special Something
    You're never gonna please everyone, no matter what happens :joy:
  • Orison
    49475 posts FIFA Cover Star
    mjs4p wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.

    The problem is that neither 30 or 40 games is suited to your "regular player".

    70% of people or so couldn't even qualify normally (not talking about EA handing out qualification for everyone) for WL in 17 as far as I know (like not even once), of those 30% who could there is a very small margin playing every week and out of those an even smaller margin completing all games.

    WL is a mode suited to that 0.1% of players and 32 or 40 games will hardly change that, all it will do is making it worse for the pros while still remaining to be unreachable for the casuals.

    But it’s not though. The majority of WL players are not pros, they are playing for rewards because the rewards are better than other game modes. As you have said, a ladder system is more appropriate to determine who qualifies for competitive events.

    @mjs4p uhm if you ever completed 40 games and reached a decent rank you are probably part of that 0.1% club dude :joy: At 20 Million units sold even 0.1% are still 20,000 people. If you take out PC and old gen and whatever I guess you would still talk about 15,000-18,000 people and I kinda doubt that more than that reached Elite in Fifa 18.

    WL is a mode for the elite and hardcore.
  • Primal
    4752 posts National Call-Up
    edited September 2018
    I'm happy at the prospect of them lowering it as it suits me alot better. I use to have to cram most my games in on a Sunday due to work/family. The only issue is when you get to space out your games your record improves. every time they extended it I got 37-38 wins due to not having to rush and being able to take breaks so I'm guessing you'll end up with alot more people on 30-0 being separated by skillpoints which again is pretty random ( that's if match making is the same)

    It's obvious that in the future they'll change to more of an elo type ladder system as the current format puts too much emphasis on a single loss but that being said atleast they've done something.
  • SupaNoodle1990
    26039 posts Player of the Year
    I’m okay with 30 games, even if it does mean I’ll be a lower tier.
  • mjs4p
    11092 posts Has That Special Something
    Orison wrote: »
    mjs4p wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    FknPitsy wrote: »
    Orison wrote: »
    Skittles67 wrote: »
    Nep thinks it could be 32 which makes more sense

    Proper pointless change then. If you got easy matchmaking you can get through 8 games in an hour on a Sunday evening.

    As I said either you commit or you don't, but 32 is as unreachable for every casual as is 40 and that point it doesn't matter anymore imo.

    I disagree. The difference between 30 and 40 isn't negligible at all. For me personally, it's the difference between me finishing all my games and not.

    I get where you're coming from, but 10 games is quite a bit of a change for some people. You can't just say "you're in, or you're not". That's not really a valid point. Why not just make it 50 then and you just have to commit?

    I think 30 would suit a lot more players than it wouldn't. Even a majority of pros were saying that 40 is too much. They've been saying it for 2 years now.

    Wait so you are able to finish 30/32 games, but you aren't able to finish 40? That's a bit difficult to believe tbh. 32 games is still 8-10 hours atleast. If you got the time on your hand and are commited enough to actually play 32 games of Fifa in a 3 day period then you would also have the time to play 40 :D

    The problem isn't that 40 is too much, the problem is that it's the wrong set-up. Win totals and you not being able to recover a loss is just wrong for a competitive set-up.

    I'm sure 10 games of WL would suit even more people than 30 games, but it simply doesn't make sense in a competitive mode. How do you wanna differentiate 50 people who all won 30/30 games? Based on skill points that never got explained? If they go for the 30 games then WL is dead as their "eSports" game mode and they can shift all of that over to div 1 of rivals which will then have an ELO based matchmaking :D

    I'm personally not bothered by the top 0.1% of players and how they qualify for the e-sports championships and such. I'm talking about your regular player.

    Mate, nearly every weekend league I competed in, I played about 30 games before I had to stop. I'm not saying it's the same for everyone, but I'm telling you, I had time to play 30, but not 40. Don't know what else to tell you, but it's the truth haha.

    The problem is that neither 30 or 40 games is suited to your "regular player".

    70% of people or so couldn't even qualify normally (not talking about EA handing out qualification for everyone) for WL in 17 as far as I know (like not even once), of those 30% who could there is a very small margin playing every week and out of those an even smaller margin completing all games.

    WL is a mode suited to that 0.1% of players and 32 or 40 games will hardly change that, all it will do is making it worse for the pros while still remaining to be unreachable for the casuals.

    But it’s not though. The majority of WL players are not pros, they are playing for rewards because the rewards are better than other game modes. As you have said, a ladder system is more appropriate to determine who qualifies for competitive events.

    @mjs4p uhm if you ever completed 40 games and reached a decent rank you are probably part of that 0.1% club dude :joy: At 20 Million units sold even 0.1% are still 20,000 people. If you take out PC and old gen and whatever I guess you would still talk about 15,000-18,000 people and I kinda doubt that more than that reached Elite in Fifa 18.

    WL is a mode for the elite and hardcore.

    You bring up a good point; I’d love to see the numbers. I’d love to know how many people play 20+, 30+, and all 40 games during a weekend league.
  • SergiuLive
    3170 posts National Call-Up
    Maybe they could make 40 games in 3 days only in those 2 months where they qualify for some competition.

    The rest like 9 months out the 11, 32 games in 4 days should be doable.
  • Maverick
    4955 posts Big Money Move
    If the change is true, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out. We already know the general flow with the current format so it’s half speculation what it would be like with a 30/32 game format, especially with other factors considered (matchmaking, player pool possibly watered down, etc).

    I get that 2-3 hours extra doesn’t seem significant in the grand scheme of things, but for me personally it already sounds more ideal. 10/10/10 is much more doable than 10/10/20 or however you want to plan it. Ultimately, it comes down to the person’s schedule. I’m 27 y/o with a girlfriend, I enjoy watching soccer and NFL on the weekends, I have a few responsibilities, and I enjoy some social time. And no I’m not bragging..trust me my life is not worth bragging about :D . I can usually do 10 games on a Friday night. Saturday morning before my day gets started I can fit in 5 and Saturday night when I get home from whatever I’m doing I can fit in 5. And Sunday is usually the same as Saturday, maybe more games at night. Throw an extra 10 games into that schedule and it’s a bit more difficult to balance.

    Like I said, mostly speculation. We'll see what happens.
Sign In or Register to comment.