I believe they could play an adjacent position with no penalty, but I really don't remember for sure. But that's beside the point, which was that there was no player-specific consideration, just position.

I think allowing guys like Bol and Muggsy to play multiple positions at 100% is unrealistic, but like I said if the majority wants it that way we'll consider it.

You think its unrealistic because that's what your stat program spits out...I'm proposing that Muggsy be able to play SG and that Bol be able to play PF...not Muggsy at C and Bol at PG...those are the extreme cases, however there are a ton of borderline guys that are only allotted 1 position with a high 90 at another, which quite frankly I find ridiculous...Johnny Moore comes to mind...100 at PG...99 at SG...that's a dumb system if you ask me. The Dennis Rodman seasons are screwy as well...some seasons he's not 100 at SF...some he's not 100 at PF...or C...its frustrating when I go to draft a guy who I think is going to fit a position, yet he's rated a 94 or 96, something like that, then I have to move along. Playing a non 100 guy will always be a waste of sim cash...even if its only slight.

I didn't mean Muggsy at C and Bol at PG. I don't think Bol should be able to play PF at 100% or Muggsy SG at 100%.

Its not that big of a stretch and it REASONABLY adds more combinations one can use in the game...but if you'd rather take needless heat about why Dwight Howard isn't 100 at PF as well as other legitimate and well justified arguments, then sobeit...I just don't want to see you complaining about why people are getting on you for X player not being 100 at X position.

Like I said, drum up support for it.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008I didn't mean Muggsy at C and Bol at PG. I don't think Bol should be able to play PF at 100% or Muggsy SG at 100%.

I agree with this but the risk seems to be letting height considerations assume too weighty a role in the profiling

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008Like I said, drum up support for it

Nah, I'll just stop playing for a bit...you'd find a way to screw it up anyhow...

I wish I knew what all the weights were, but we don't save that information (and I'm not sure we even can). Height probably is a pretty strong indicator of position, I just don't know how strong it's effect is.

maybe the question is what height range is right and whether that range fluctuates over the eras

certainly there are at least a handful of 6' - 6'3" guys who play more like SGs than PGs

and more than one team has had to throw a 6'7" or 6'8" guy out there at center over the years

Seble how many changes are we requesting here? I don't see the problem really. It's a handful of players like MJ for one season, Rodman for a few where he should be 100% at SF along with PF & C. Maybe Stoudemire and Howard 100% at both PF and C for ALL of their seasons. We are not asking you to adjust EVERY player in the SIM, only a handful WHICH WILL MAKE THE SIM MORE USER FRIENDLY!! We are asking for an improvement and yet you keep denying the request with BS unacceptable answers about height and weight and some damn program that spits out what positions the players should play. You CLAIM you know bball, than you should know that Howard can play PF and that MJ played PG in 88-89, so why not make the change???Stop deferring to a program and use common bball sense.

I don't agree with the players being able to play 2 positions, sorry C19 I don't think that helps when you have Spudd Webb and Bogues being able to play SG.

The problem is setting the precedent. Then every time somebody requests a player be changed, we have to do research to determine if it's a valid request.

Let me just leave open the possibility that before this batch is released we MAY manually change a few. Why don't you start a separate thread and organize a list of potential changes, with some evidence to support each request.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008The problem is setting the precedent. Then every time somebody requests a player be changed, we have to do research to determine if it's a valid request.

Let me just leave open the possibility that before this batch is released we MAY manually change a few. Why don't you start a separate thread and organize a list of potential changes, with some evidence to support each request

So basically start a thread with a wishlist of players we think should be re-examined for pos effectiveness? I will start one right now, let's see if it's a few or if it gets out of hand. IF it's a handful of players, say in the 12-20 range will you strongly consider manually changing them before the release?

Yes, we'll strongly consider.

Quote: Originally Posted By seble on 8/27/2008Yes, we'll strongly consider

Done check forums I started the thread, thanks for the idea. Asked the guys to not get out of hand with a ton of changes, try to keep it limited