The unrealistic nature of not being able to train (or pay a few rubies) to add a new position to a player is becoming increasingly frustrating. If it requires a certain amount of matches, or whatever it may be, I’ve had some players in their “unnatural” positions for years. I feel like by now they’d be comfortable in their new role and make it their primary and preferred position.

Being able to change a players side (LC to C – RC to C – L to LC) would vastly improve the transfer market too. People would be willing to SPEND some of the money they seem to horde since they know w player might soon be useful ion a new role, rather than being saddled with an LC when they really need an L or a C.

I don’t think moving a player from an L to an R is a good idea, as this is kind of a major change to their playstyle, even in real life.

But:

LC -> L
LC -> C

Those would make sense.

Could even make C players be able to go LC or RC, but note on their profile they are originally C players, and therefore cannot be changed to L or R after they have been trained in LC or RC. Same with LC or RC who have been changed to C; they’d be unable to go LC -> C and then over to RC.

Give players sides (L or R) and let them train (or pay) or play a certain number of matches in a C LC/RC or L/R role so they can be 100% proficient in their new position.

Just getting a bit frustrated with buying or training up players who refuse to play a couple yards outside their comfort zone after years of training.

I’ve mentioned this before and I agree. It would be a good way for the game developers to make more income too.

Will, I think you are incorrectly reading the way sides and positions work. Let’s consider each “row” in the field has 5 sides, let’s call them L, LC, C, RC and R. A player with L side can play both on L and LC positions with no penalties. A player with LC side can play in all positions except R, without penalties. So a player having multiple sides is actually a good thing, as it gives him more options. The same is true for multi-position players (DM, MD, DA, AD, MA, AM), they can play in both positions with no penalties. There is a topic in our game manual about setting up the formation that mentions this.

That said, I still agree it is a good idea to be able to “train” a player into a new position or side. Maybe that makes sense only if the player is not already multi-side or multi-position? For example you could train a D into a DM or DA, but if he was already DM you could not change it. What do you guys think?

I’ve made sure this task was moved higher up in our priority list so we evaluate it sooner rather than later.

That sounds like a good enough idea, I personally would just like to be make players from say MR into MC or ML. The problem with changing position toDM or AM is teams would have no players that are just standard positions

I rather prefer the option to train players from L to LR or LRC.

For me players with a double position like DM or AM have more value in the game. They have to be rare to find. If everyone can change players to a double position a key aspect of the game gets lost.

One exception could be if a player has a secondary skill of an other position (def, pas, sho) that’s higher than his primary skill he should be able to be trained to a new position.
F.e. A defender with D85 and M 94 could become a M or DM afer serious training.

First off: I’m a moron.

Secondly: Thanks for listening!

@Will you are not a moron! This tells me we need to make the way multi-position and multi-side works more evident.

@Joseppi and Dirk: maybe we can start with side only and allow a change from single side to single side or from multi-side to multi-side. In other words, if your player is L he can be trained to be C or R, but not LC or LR. If the payer is LR, you could train him to LC or RC. Does that make sense?
In the future the same approach could be done to player positions, and also maybe taking into account the the main skill for the new position must be no more than 5 points less than the current’s position main skill. For example, a D with 90 tackle, 85 passing and 82 shooting could be trained to become M, but not A.