Team Profiles and Depth Charts

[Marauders]

One problem that game owners have is keeping the team profile and depth charts in line. That is, making sure the number of players in a position on the depth chart match the number of players listed in the team profile.

I understand the need for profiles, as AI teams would have problems creating well rounded teams without them, but it would be nice if it wasn't so easy to mess up the roster with a simple move or two.

If the team profile and roster screens showed how many players were asked for by the profile and actually on the team, it would help.

What would also help is if there were some sort of wild card or give in the numbers. Perhaps if the team roster could be certified with X-1 being acceptable as the minimum number of players needed for any position with X being the number in the profile. That is, if the profile asked for 6 DB's and a team had 5 DB's on the roster, it would still be certified for game play.

If wild card players were available, they could be used like the inactive players are used on the roster; they wouldn't count either way. A roster of 53 players could have three players, as an example, that do not count toward the team needs. The game would just read the first 50 slots to get the minimums. That would allow some slack or give when moving players on or off a roster.

Either of the X-1 or wild card ideas would help, and having the numbers listed, so one knows if the team is set with the profile would keep a team owner from having to go between screens and manually count players, would make the roster much easier to manage.

On a side note, the TE/SB position doesn't look to be using the profile to sort players on the depth chart.

[DirkGildun]

Instead of the exact number of players needed for each position, the Profile could have the mimimum number of players needed for each position.

That way, the team owner/manager/coach could fill in the remaining slots (assuming the minimum total is less than the roster total) as he sees fit.

[rcleslie]

Your suggestions make a lot of sense to me. I vote "yes"!

[Marauders]

DirkGildun stated: Instead of the exact number of players needed for each position, the Profile could have the mimimum number of players needed for each position.

That way, the team owner/manager/coach could fill in the remaining slots (assuming the minimum total is less than the roster total) as he sees fit.

This was debated in beta. There were some of us who wanted minimums, and others that thought minimums could end up creating rosters like FBPro had with five QB's and three DB's. Also, a team that ran a power running game would need different personnel than a team that ran a spread. Even with those caveats, with a large enough roster, there could be some minimums that were pretty stable. The various viewpoints all had merit, but it was pretty late in the process to get done with 2.2.

Finding a compromise that could be coded relatively easily would have been great. There just wasn't time for it before David locked down 2.2.

[rcleslie]

Will these wish-list items be considered for version 3.0?

[Marauders]

rcleslie asked: Will these wish-list items be considered for version 3.0?

I have no idea. I don't talk with David anymore.

This topic had been brought up before, and it didn't get resolved in a way that was satisfactory in my opinion, but one never knows what the future will bring. Heck, I don't even know if 3.0 will have any career mode at all.