#Allowing solo play in Clubs Mode will provide both company and customers with benefits

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

ivory agate
#

I've examined the reasons for the rule requiring a minimum of two players for league and playoff matches, and whether it's reasonable.

The first possible reason is that Clubs Mode is defined as a team play mode.
Solo play violates this definition and should therefore not be allowed.
However, what we truly consider team play is a team of at least five players. Of course, everyone has different perspectives, but no one would consider a team of two to be team play.
If so, we should increase the player limit from 2 to 5. However, increasing the player limit would worsen accessibility, resulting in a poorer pool and fewer matchmaking teams. For these reasons, we have no choice but to relax the player limit regulation. But why was the minimum player requirement set at two? Why not one? The reason seems to be related to the following second and third points.

let's examine the second possible reason.
This rule may have been designed with cannibalization.
However, as previously discussed in 14 section, there are clear differences between Ultimate Mode, Club Mode, and Career Mode, so I don't think that's likely.

Let's consider the third potential reason: the rule that only teams of at least two players can participate in league and playoff matches encourages team play.
First, as before, we'll define "team play" as a game played with at least five players. "Non-team play" is defined as four or fewer players. (This is because no one considers two-player teams to be the team play that Club Mode aims for.)

We've also broadly categorized Club Mode players into three groups:

G1 - Team play only
G2 - Both team play and non-team play
G3 - A group that engages in Team Play only when satisfactory rewards are provided.

Regardless of the rule, G1 will only play team play, and G3 will only play non-team play. Therefore, the rule doesn't encourage team play in either group.

#

Finally, G2 can be broadly categorized into three groups:

G2x - Team play is prioritized.
G2y - Both are equally preferred.
G2z - Non-team play is prioritized.

G2x players prioritize team play when team play is possible. When team play isn't possible, they post job openings on the team recruitment board and engage in other activities until they find a team. Therefore, the rule doesn't encourage team play for G2x players.

For G2y players, the rule encourages team play.

For G2z players, the rule also encourages team play.

**In conclusion, the rule does encourage team play to some extent.

However,** even if that rule were to disappear, as discussed in the previous sections(18, 17, 7), providing an AXP penalty for solo play, a mission rewarding players who play a certain number of games in a team of five or more as a less-preferred fullback, and offering titles and stat boosts for playing a certain number of games in a team of five or more would help prevent G2y and G2z from turning to solo play and encourage team play. (G2y, in particular, have an equal preference for team play and non-team play, so these methods work very well for G2y)

#

The developers may then be asking the following question:
"If the rule encourages team play, why remove it and introduce a new reward system to prevent its negative consequences? Isn’t that a waste of time and money?’

I would like to offer the following answer: As mentioned in Section 19, the main customer base of the “EA FC department store" consists of solo customers who prefer 1vs1 in Ultimate Mode, meaning they belong to G3. It's important to circulate consumption within the department store rather than having customers leave and spend elsewhere. Simply having many people inside the store can also attract potential customers who are outside.
However, the third floor—Clubs Mode—does not allow solo entry. Although a drop-in mode is provided, it is merely a trial version. Players cannot use their customized uniforms, stadiums, or tactics, nor can they experience a sense of achievement through skill rating increases or league promotions. Furthermore, because Drop-in Mode primarily focuses on 5vs5 matches, it's not attractive to Ultimate Mode players who belong to G3.
By allowing solo play in league and playoff matches in Clubs mode, we can circulate consumption and by encouraging the use of diverse archetypes, as mentioned in Section 20, it can lead them to spend more in Club Mode and contribute to revenue. (encouraging the use of diverse archetypes can also make players participate in non-prefer positions like defenders, so it could encourage teamplay)
'
'

#

reference -

section 21-
the already existing toggle function that matches teams with a similar number of players can prevent inconvenience to pre-formed groups that might arise from allowing solo entry.

section 20-
To encourage players to use a variety of archetypes, one approach would be to grant the title “All-Rounder” once a player levels up a certain number of different archetypes by a specified amount.
This title could also provide a small stat boost. For example, it could grant +1 point each to attacking positioning and defensive awareness.

#

section 19-
You can compare EA FC to a large, comprehensive department store. On the first floor, there is Ultimate Mode; on the second floor, Career Mode; on the third floor, Clubs Mode; and on the fourth floor, Kick-Off Mode. Customers usually engage in consumption mainly on a specific floor. When they start to feel bored, they may move to another floor and continue their spending activities. From a company’s perspective, it is important to circulate consumption within the department store rather than having customers leave and spend elsewhere. Simply having many people inside the store can also attract potential customers who are outside.

However, the third floor—Clubs Mode—does not allow solo entry. Although a drop-in mode is provided, it is merely a trial version. Players cannot use their customized uniforms, stadiums, or tactics, nor can they experience a sense of achievement through skill rating increases or league promotion.

The main customer base of the EA FC “department store” consists of solo customers. Rather than forcing them to find partners, it would be better to implement various incentive policies that encourage them to voluntarily look for partners. With the methods I proposed to motivate solo customers to find partners in Clubs Mode, and already existing toggle function that matches teams with a similar number of players, it is possible to minimize the side effects resulting from allowing solo play.

Even if some solo customers continue to prefer solo play, they still have sufficient potential to purchase paid items within Clubs Mode, which could positively impact the revenue of the third-floor Clubs Mode.

#

section18-
The fullback position is always lacking in team play because it is the least popular position. It would be helpful if there were objectives that provided benefits when joining a team of 5 or more as a fullback and playing a certain number of matches.

section17-
Another way to encourage players, including solo players, to engage in team play is to award them with a title like "True Team Player" after they join a team of 5 or more and complete a certain number of matches. Furthermore, granting a title with a stat boost that barely impacts performance can further motivate players. For example, simply increasing Composure by one point can be a sufficient incentive. (i think this title is important to activate team play, so boosted stat should be higher than right before i discussed.)

#

section14-
I've been thinking about the potential cannibalization of allowing solo play.

The reason Ultimate Mode is the most popular among EA FC modes is that it allows players to recruit their favorite "real football players" and build a team, which is consistent with its purpose.
Therefore, player licenses, realistic faces, and unique player celebrations and movements are important.

On the other hand, Club Mode, because all players are virtual, doesn't appeal to players who want to own and control real football players.
Even if you create a virtual player who looks like Messi through face customization, players will perceive that player as a fake Messi and not the real Messi.
This is because profiles with real Messi photos, information about Messi's history, and unique movements cannot be applied to virtual players.

Considering Career Mode, Career Mode is currently a single-player mode, fundamentally different from Club Mode, a multiplayer mode.
One of the main reasons people prefer single-player mode is the fatigue caused by competition. On the other hand, the primary reason people prefer multiplayer is the competitive spirit it fosters.

Therefore, allowing solo play is unlikely to encourage players who enjoy Ultimate or Career modes to settle into Club Mode.

#

section7-
If solo play is allowed, issues similar to those seen in Ultimate Team or Rush mode may occur, where some users remain connected solely for the purpose of leveling up without actively participating in matches.

This problem can be addressed in a very simple and effective way.
The experience points earned through solo play can be reduced to at least 50% and up to 90% compared to standard rewards. By doing so, the incentive for exploitative behavior would be significantly reduced, while at the same time clearly encouraging team play through the reward structure.

in short, this approach minimizes abuse, and naturally guides players toward team play

ivory agate
#

Allowing solo play in Clubs Mode’s league and playoff matches will increase EA FC’s revenue. (final)

ivory agate
#

note- I have corrected typos, clarified certain expressions, and revised some sentences to better fit the context.

#

Allowing solo play in Clubs Mode’s league and playoff matches will increase EAFC’s revenue (updated)

ivory agate
#

~~in the main text, I categorized all Ultimate Mode users into Group 3, but that was a mistake. They can also belong to Group 2 or even Group 1. If this is the case, then allowing solo play could not only increase company revenue but also further activate team play. In other words, the rule restricting solo play may actually be hindering the activation of team play

The reason I mistakenly assumed that all Ultimate Mode users belonged to Group 3 was that I believed many of them did not play Clubs mode simply because they preferred 1v1. (This was already discussed in the cannibalization section, but I overlooked it.) However, this reasoning contains an error.

Many Ultimate Mode users do not exclusively play Ultimate Mode solely because they prefer 1v1. There are multiple reasons. The most significant reason, in my view, is the unique characteristic of Ultimate Mode: recruiting “real-life players” and competing with them online. Another possible reason is, as mentioned earlier, a preference for 1v1. Yet another reason may simply be familiarity. It is important to distinguish between familiarity and preference. Even if players are accustomed to 1v1, they may still be willing to engage in team play.

However, team play differs from 1v1 in that collaboration with teammates is essential, and this inevitably leads to conflict situations that some players may struggle to handle flexibly. In addition, there is the inconvenience of investing time to find a team and coordinate schedules. Due to these various reasons, many Ultimate Mode users may end up playing only Ultimate Mode.~~

#

~~Does this mean they have no potential interest in Clubs mode? Not at all. As mentioned earlier, very few people consistently enjoy a single game in only one way throughout the entire year. After some time, they become bored. Although this is a subjective view, SteamDB statistics suggest that EAFC shows relatively low retention. Within just two months of release, the peak daily concurrent users dropped from 100,000 to 55,000. This may indicate that Ultimate Mode users quit the game more easily than expected.

From a corporate perspective, it would clearly be a loss if these players leave EAFC to play other games. Allowing solo play could make it easier to attract Ultimate Mode users who are in a state of boredom. If those users—who may belong to G1, G2, or G3—temporarily engage in Clubs mode, they could contribute to activating 11v11 matches while also purchasing paid items. This would benefit both the company and Clubs mode players~~

fallow garden
#

respectfully ion even think ea will read all that

ivory agate
ivory agate
#

I reconsidered whether users who play UT mode can belong to G1 (those who prefer only team play). If they truly belong to G1, then logically it would seem that they should not have been playing UT in the first place.
However, if we assume that there are users who want to play only team play but also want to use only real-life players, then since there is no mode that satisfies both conditions, they might quit the game altogether. Alternatively, they might choose to give up one of the two preferences. In that case, UT mode users could still belong to G1.
But I am not entirely satisfied with that conclusion. It does not feel intuitive. What if, instead of using the term “prefer,” we use the term “do”? Then the users described above could be classified as belonging to G2.
It seems that further consideration is needed. you don't need to read it.

ivory agate
#

After looking into why many UT players do not play Clubs Mode, the reasons appear to be as expected. They often struggle to resolve conflicts with teammates, feel that they have limited opportunities to touch the ball, cannot play immediately whenever they want, must instead play at scheduled times, and even spend time searching for a team.

In particular, the limited number of ball touches — which prevents players from doing as much as they want — is an inherent characteristic of cooperative football games. Unlike FPS or MOBA games such as League of Legends, where players can generally act continuously and independently within their role, a football game has only one ball. **Because of this structural limitation, not everyone can be directly involved at all times.

For this reason, a large portion of UT players tend to avoid Clubs Mode.**

The only practical solution is to allow solo play. Forcing team play, as is currently done, does not meaningfully help. Instead, players should be encouraged to join team play voluntarily through incentive-based reward systems. If meaningful rewards are offered, they will occasionally participate in team play to earn those benefits.

This approach is a more realistic and effective solution.

ivory agate
#

For reference, unlike UT mode, clubs mode has a unique characteristic of controlling only one virtual player customized by the user, therefore, users who have lost interest in the solo-oriented UT mode are likely to develop interest in the unique solo-play experience offered in Clubs Mode.

ivory agate
#

When considering a group that participates in team play only when satisfactory rewards are provided, it appears necessary to revise the criteria used to distinguish G2. However, this adjustment will not substantially alter the overall logical structure of the argument. I will revise it when I have time. it is resolved by redefining G3

karmic torrent
#

Sounds to me you don’t have friends?

ivory agate
# karmic torrent Sounds to me you don’t have friends?

i believe that allowing solo play in league and playoff matches in clubs mode + some new panelty/rewards system provide both company and customers with benefits. By increasing the meaningful team play pool, players can reduce matchmaking wait times, also they can more easily form a team or recruit team members, by increasing retention in EAFC, and increasing paid item sales in Club Mode, the company can earn more profits.

karmic torrent
#

What you want is a different mode for solo play like an open world game like in 2k

ivory agate
# karmic torrent What you want is a different mode for solo play like an open world game like in ...

The answer to your first question has already been addressed under “the first possible reason” in the main text. Please refer to that section.

I am not very familiar with the details of 2K’s open-world mode. In any case, allowing solo play does not turn Clubs Mode into a solo mode. This point was also discussed under the “third potential reason,” but to summarize briefly: the two-player minimum rule only encourages team play among certain users in the G2y and G2z segments. In other words, even if the two-player restriction were removed immediately, the majority of existing Clubs Mode users would not suddenly abandon team play and settle into solo play.

Furthermore, if solo play were allowed alongside an AXP penalty for solo participation, and if the reward structure continued to favor team play (e.g., playing in teams of five or more), this would be sufficient to almost completely prevent G2y users from shifting to solo play. In fact, it could lead them to engage in team play more frequently than before.

I am not proposing the simple allowance of solo play in isolation. I have anticipated the potential side effects of permitting solo play and have presented corresponding mitigation measures. For further details, please refer to the main text.

dull root
#

Sadly this will never happen, but don't stop dreaming

ivory agate
#

If solo play is not allowed, but the other proposed features are implemented—such as improved reward systems, an integrated job board, instant club switching through the job board, shorter refresh intervals for club listings in Club Finder, displaying vacant positions in club listings, and introducing a team board within the lobby—what would the outcome be? Would these changes be sufficient to retain users who are growing fatigued with UT mode and are on the verge of leaving the game?
The proposals presented so far would be effective in preventing existing Clubs mode players from settling into solo play and would help reinforce team-based participation. However, they would have limited impact on users who have only played UT mode. Players who already engage with Clubs mode generally exhibit higher tolerance for interpersonal friction or derive intrinsic satisfaction from cooperation. They differ behaviorally from users who play only UT.

For that reason, allowing solo play is essential if the objective is to attract and convert UT-only users.

#

There’s no need to implement everything at once. For now, simply maintaining the stability of the existing Clubs ecosystem while retaining UT-only players would already be a meaningful achievement.
As discussed earlier, encouraging them to engage in team play is not easy due to the structural limitations inherent in a cooperative football game and the essential characteristics of users who play only UT mode. It would be more realistic to approach this gradually, step by step.

ivory agate
#

If solo play is allowed in Clubs Mode to attract users who play only Ultimate Team (UT), what types of incentives would be sufficient to motivate them to tolerate aspects they typically avoid—such as interpersonal conflict with teammates and reduced ball involvement—and participate in team play (e.g., matches with five or more human players)?

These users are fundamentally UT-oriented. Therefore, offering UT-related rewards may be strategically effective. For example, granting a certain amount of UT coins could serve as a direct, tangible incentive. Such rewards may also create a cyclical engagement pattern, where users temporarily shift to Clubs Mode, earn benefits, and then re-enter UT with renewed motivation.

ivory agate
#

I revised the definition of G3 to better reflect reality.
The current definition of G3 is “a group that engages exclusively in non-team play under all circumstances.” However, in practice, such a group scarcely exists. It would not be unreasonable to say that it effectively does not exist at all. If individuals in that category were promised one million dollars in cash in exchange for participating in team play, every one of them would choose team play.
Therefore, it is more rational to define G3 as “a group that engages in team play only when satisfactory rewards are provided.” Under this revised definition, the group that 'participates in team play only when sufficiently rewarded' and otherwise engages exclusively in solo play — most users in the UT-only group — can be logically included within G3 without contradiction.
(Note that the 'most users in the UT-only group' defined above does not refer to the entire UT-only group. There may be some users who avoid Clubs mode and ultimately leave for that reason alone — the excessive time required to find teammates. However, I consider such users to constitute a negligible minority and therefore exclude them from this analysis.)

severe glade
ivory agate
severe glade
#

I personally wouldn't want to play 1v but i have no problem if other people do

ivory agate
# severe glade I personally wouldn't want to play 1v but i have no problem if other people do

Because I mostly play late at night, it's difficult to find a teammate. Even when playing during peak hours, it's difficult to find teammates who prefer my tactics. Most players prefer fast, aggressive playstyles, but I prefer practical tactics like Mourinho's. If solo play is allowed, I plan to play solo and continue recruiting teammates. I'll keep recruiting until I find the right teammate. If solo play isn't allowed, I'll sadly have no choice but to leave. actually i sometimes play UT too. the ratio of frequency between UT and clubs mode is 3:7. but the main content i played become impossible so i cant play UT anymore too

ivory agate
#

Allowing solo play in Clubs Mode will provide both company and customers with benefits

ivory agate
#

As section 5 which was discussed in a previous thread (not in this thread), users who only play Ultimate Team and eventually quit EAFC tend to have more difficulty tolerating team conflicts than existing Clubs users. They are also more likely to derive enjoyment from self-centered play rather than from cooperation itself.

If solo play were allowed, giving them sufficient ball involvement to satisfy their desire for individual control, they may gradually become interested in a different kind of enjoyment — cooperative play.

When they become fatigued by conflicts with teammates during cooperative play, they could temporarily return to solo play. Viewed differently, this would function as a psychological refuge that allows them to step away without fully leaving the mode.

While in this refuge, some of them may naturally reflect on the conflicts they experienced during cooperative play. When they attempt cooperation again, they may demonstrate more improved behavior than before.

Of course, not everyone would follow this pattern. There are individuals — myself included — who hold firmly established preferences. However, such individuals are relatively rare. Therefore, the “refuge function” of solo play would likely be effective overall.

actually, I don’t think I would continue playing solo forever just because I can’t find teammates. In fact, I used the hot join function to join other teams for about five matches as a fullback and a CDM, and I genuinely enjoyed it. However, because I have a strong desire to implement my own tactical ideas, I ultimately couldn’t continue in that setup.

Introducing solo play and implementing reward penalties alone could still potentially help promote team play.

ivory agate
#

As discussed in Section 15 in a previous thread (not this one), we need to think about what a definition really means.

Let’s assume that Clubs mode is defined as a mode where only team play is allowed. Of course, as mentioned earlier in this thread, that definition has practical problems and is not very reasonable. But regardless of whether it’s reasonable or not, let’s just accept that definition for now.

Now let’s examine the argument that, because Clubs mode is defined as team-play-only, solo play must not be allowed. The conclusion is that this argument is not logically valid. The reason is simple: definitions are not fixed forever. They can be changed by people at any time.

Let’s look at Ultimate Team as an example. UT was originally an online mode where you could freely sign real-world players, build your dream squad, and play 1v1 matches against other users. This is a definition that most people would agree with. However, co-op was introduced in FIFA 21, and last year Rush mode (a 5v5 cooperative mode) was introduced in EA Sports FC 24. These features clearly go against the original definition of UT. But no one can reasonably argue that these features should not have been introduced just because they didn’t fit the old definition. Definitions can change whenever necessary.

Therefore, arguing that solo play cannot be allowed in Clubs mode simply because of its current definition is not valid.

ivory agate
#

Now what we really need to think about is what kind of side effects and benefits introducing solo play into Clubs League and Playoff matches could bring.

This has already been discussed in the main text, so I’ll summarize it in four sentences.

By applying reward penalties (such as coins and AXP) to solo play, we can prevent abuse and maintain the cooperative spirit

By using a toggle feature that allows you to be matched only against opponent teams with a similar number of players,, users can avoid being matched against solo players if they want.

By bringing solo players into Clubs mode, some of them may occasionally play cooperatively, which could increase the overall team-play pool.

also If solo players in Clubs spend money and overall revenue for Clubs mode increases compared to before, the company may provide more content for Clubs mode, and the mode could become more enjoyable than it is now.

median meteor
#

im glad to hear that… i think.

ivory agate
# median meteor im glad to hear that… i think.

thx for your support. In addition to those, things like title rewards which increase attributes for participating in team-play and for using various archetypes help to encourage players to engaging in team-play.

It may also be a good approach to forcibly disable the “any position” feature during solo play. This would further help preserve the spirit of team play.

In addition, by maximizing the distinction from Ultimate mode, it could stimulate a more active cycle of consumer engagement.

Furthermore, when playing solo without "any position," players will feel the need for teammates more strongly, which encourages participation in team play and fosters the composure necessary for team play. Of course, this may reduce the number of ball touches, which could lead to a decline in solo players. However, overall, I believe the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.