Electronic Arts · Primly Community

Electronic Arts senior / L5 system design interview, what to expect and how to frame your answers

staff_steph · 5 replies

Went through EA's senior engineer loop twice in my career, different studios, different teams, and the system design round has a pretty consistent flavor. Writing this up because the advice floating around is mostly generic and EA's context is actually specific enough to matter.

The setup. You get one system design round in the onsite, 60 minutes, one or two interviewers. The problem is almost always game-adjacent or at least live-service adjacent. Common prompts I've seen or heard about: Design a player progression/XP system for a live game Design a notification/event fanout system for a multiplayer title Design a leaderboard service at scale (this one comes up a lot) Design a game telemetry/analytics ingestion pipeline

Notice the pattern. These aren't generic "design Twitter" or "design a URL shortener" questions. They're anchored in the domain. You should know what makes game traffic patterns different from typical web apps: spiky concurrency around launches and events, lots of write bursts, need for eventual consistency in some places (fine if the leaderboard lags by 30s) and strong consistency in others (player inventory, purchases).

What they're evaluating at senior / L5 level. At this level EA expects you to drive the problem. Don't wait to be guided. Clarify requirements quickly, state your constraints out loud, propose a design, then proactively bring up tradeoffs. They're watching to see if you self-organize or need hand-holding.

A common failure mode I saw when I was on a hiring loop there: candidates who knew distributed systems cold but treated the problem as a whiteboard exercise rather than an actual product. "What would you do if player count 10x'd next month?" is a real business scenario, not a hypothetical. Treat it like one.

Depth they expect. Somewhere between breadth-first and a deep-dive into one component. Sketch the overall architecture, then go deep on the highest-risk component. For a leaderboard: go deep on the write path and the Redis sorted set approach. Skip spending 15 minutes on auth, they know you know that.

Things that hurt candidates. Jumping to "we'll use Kafka" without justifying why. Not knowing rough latency numbers or order-of-magnitude estimates. Not knowing when eventual consistency is acceptable vs. not.

Preparing a Redis sorted set walkthrough and a basic event fanout sketch will cover a large fraction of what they'll ask at the senior level.

5 replies

de_derek

The telemetry/analytics ingestion one is real, I got that exact prompt for a data engineering-adjacent SWE role at EA a while back. Very much a "design a firehose" question with game events as the source. Kinesis or Kafka as ingestion, S3/data lake behind it, then some real-time aggregation layer.

quietquit_quincy

Does the level calibration happen in the system design specifically or across all rounds? Asking because I'm coming in at what I think is their senior band but I'm worried about getting pushed down to mid-level.

staff_steph

All rounds contribute but system design and the behavioral "scope of impact" stories carry the most weight for senior vs mid-level calibration in my experience. If you're worried, make sure your behavioral stories have org-wide or cross-team scope, not just "my team shipped a thing."

hardware_hugo

Slight pushback: most companies say "we want you to drive" but then the interviewer actually does heavy guiding if you pause. I'd adjust the advice to: start driving, but don't panic if they jump in. It's not necessarily a signal you're failing.

pm_priya

The framing here also applies to the PM system design variant some teams run (tech depth round for senior PMs). Good to know they're thinking about actual product constraints rather than LeetCode-flavored system design.