I've never really understood the distance of the EA/UT team from the customer-base. It comes across as either 1) arrogance, 2) they're trying to hide something/don't know their own game, or 3) they're too thin-skinned to take any kind of criticism.

If you look at other large successful companies like Ubisoft, their developers and forum staff are all over the - many times tiny - glitches and minor details of their titles.

Like you say, all it takes is a Dev to make a thread- 'Here is the info. on the new chemistry guys.. x,y,z.. we're really excited about it, hope you are too'- lock- problem solved. You would have thought it was fairly basic customer relations, and would cut off all the speculation before it arises. Maybe they like the controversy? 

Cheers and excuse the rant. Still none the wiser as to why some players are 9 and others 10 in a team with no dead links, but at least feel a bit better now 


edit: hadn't read the comments in the UT14 thread on this prior to posting. I now have. Lol.

Ah ... bought a Sniper card (950c) for our starter park Zarate.



Only noticed too (when I was taking screenshots) that the starter pack players get 45 contracts.

Yeah Dutty - good comments.

Also, in UT13 they were on about the "invisible upgrades" ... things we could not see. Being a stats person, we always looked at the IG stats. Really don't want to go in-depth again, but we proved that there was no difference in the IG stat we see, whether a player was on 0 chem or 9, had low or full morale, etc. In a nutshell - we couldn't see but they did play worse. Fact.

Now ... who knows if you don't get it "right" with a team. Is it a crap team, your opponent's OP team, poor connection? I for one would certainly like to think that I can build a decent team (quality players, height in CBs, pace, WRs, whatever). Now, if they don't perform what can we possibly have as the reason for that.

Suppose I don't want to be negative before playing the first game.

Yeah Dutty - good comments.

Also, in UT13 they were on about the "invisible upgrades" ... things we could not see. Being a stats person, we always looked at the IG stats. Really don't want to go in-depth again, but we proved that there was no difference in the IG stat we see, whether a player was on 0 chem or 9, had low or full morale, etc. In a nutshell - we couldn't see but they did play worse. Fact.

Now ... who knows if you don't get it "right" with a team. Is it a crap team, your opponent's OP team, poor connection? I for one would certainly like to think that I can build a decent team (quality players, height in CBs, pace, WRs, whatever). Now, if they don't perform what can we possibly have as the reason for that.

Suppose I don't want to be negative before playing the first game.

Exactly. The lack of transparency leads to questioning, which turns into conspiracy. I watched the whole handicap/scripting drama and couldn't really believe what I was reading. Ok, attack your customers for apparently getting it all wrong, how about getting your heads out of the sand and dealing with things like connection issues which would negate most of the speculation anyway.

Sorry I digress.. though I guess it's kind of relevant; I mean, why is there any need to have the chemistry boosts kept invisible in the first place: is it voodoo or some magic heavily-guarded formula like KFC seasoning? 

Trying not to be negative but this new 10 chem system with weak nation/league links and only 2 of a possible 3 boosts from loyalty and manager (league/nationality) seems (unless I'm missing something) limiting and a bit flawed.

Fair play to that guy for attempting to help people, but damn that's convoluted.

I'm going with anything less than a green link somewhere into a dead link and it's game over for full individual chem. It's more complicated for 3 links plus but whhhatever 

It looks like there may be some dead links to contend with in these new formations too, going by some of the comments in that thread.

They do/it does. Maybe the font helps but it's much easier to read than the one in the other thread.

Was typing fast in the previous post, and meant 'broken links to contend with in the new formations' rather than 'dead links'. My bad 

cuz , read thru the EA forum, you are spot on... actually seems to me that hybrids will still be alive, even easier than past, that we will see...
couple of remarks from that long chem summary:

• Substitute Chemistry

The following equation is used to work out the chemistry a substitute will be playing on in-game. A substitute DOES NOT automatically receive the chemistry of the replaced player.
 Note: Substituting a player on in the wrong position will result in reduced chemistry.
 
 Example: Substituting on a ST at ST will yield (Team Chemistry / 11) chemistry for that player. However, substituting on a ST at RW will reduce his chemistry (after the above calculation is made). A specific reduction value is not available.
 
 

• Console Chemistry vs Web App Chemistry

Any differences between the Console Chemistry and Web App Chemistry have been corrected. Therefore, there are NO differences between Console Chemistry and Web App Chemistry.

• Do H2H and Ultimate Team Stats Vary?

Yes, H2H and UT stats differ. For the purpose of this question, stats are split into 2 values:

• UT (Pre-Game): These are the stats displayed when viewing players from the Team Management Screen before going into a game. The stats resemble those of H2H players, and are not correct UT stats.

• UT (In-Game): These are the stats displayed when viewing players from the Pause > Team Management Screen during the game. The stats displayed are correct UT stats.

 Note: UT stats are typically 1-3 points higher than their H2H counterpart (however, there are exceptions where this difference exceeds +6). Vision and Attack Positioning do not differ between H2H and UT stat versions.
 
 

• Are the Stats Displayed by Online Databases (Such as FutHead and FutWiz) Correct?

The stats displayed by these sites are H2H stats, and therefore not correct UT stats.

Yeah OT ... it will be interesting what the IG stats will be with a chem style card applied.

However ... one thing that bugs me. We did not see big increases in IFs last year. Now these chem style cards appear.

Example ... Reus


So, good to see they've given some nice increases on his IF. However, will that IF feel as good as his NIF with a Sniper/Hawk/Hunter card being applied.

Lastly, an IF with a chem style - does not balloon them to a point where their stats are mental and so OP? Or, will we be back again where IFs feel sluggish because the combination of stats make them slower, etc.