I believe that last year I read that it was an issue with dic space (same reason we don't have FCS teams). I just don't get how FIFA games can have so many teams, but disc space isn't a problem for them. Is this the true reason we have limited rosters/teams, or is it something else?
Yes, it is a issue of disc space. Look at the number of player on a team in FIFA. Now look at the number of players on a team in NCAA. Large difference in number of players. Sure, going from 70 to 85 seems minor, until you do that for 123 (now that we have UMass and the other teams coming up from FCS) teams, and you're looking at 1,845 extra players that you have to make room on the disc for. That a pretty large amount of extra players and extra disc space needed for just a seemingly minor extra 15 players per team.
1: 122 teams (I think) adding 15 players per team = almost 2,000 more players!!!!!! That's on top of 8500 that are already in the game, not including thousands of recruits.Originally Posted by cmckinnon15
2: I still don't see the need for 85 man rosters in game. I don't see 70 players in NCAA as a limited roster when I carry like 56 on a Madden roster.
I've never had a problem with 70 man rosters. Like you said Jayrah, I've only struggled with the smaller NFL rosters but there isn't a single recruit I've ever missed that I cut due to being limited to 70.
Pretty much every recruit that I cut when over the 70 player limit, are the shitty 1 star players that are all 50-something overall players. Never missed any of them and even if I kept them on my team with an 85 man roster, none of them would have any hope of even seeing the light of day on the playing field until their senior years if they were lucky, if ever.
Totally agree Smooth. Those guys never see the field but the real problem is people recruiting on the lower difficulty levels and hoarding the talent from the cpu. I'd rather see some of the decent recruits you get when you are a powerhouse actually go to a team that can use and play them. A team like Michigan never has to settle for less than a 3* recruit in the game but I don't want to sign them and then either cut them or never play them.
Roster size doesn't bother me but maybe we should have less recruits we can sign? Each year I have to CUT a number of players I signed due to roster size. Maybe 20 recruits would make more sense with 70 man rosters?
pretty much the only case you can make for having 85 man rosters, is if you've played like 10+ minute quarters. i could see them moving towards 85 man rosters when the new consoles come out, but i dont think there's a need for em right now.
If injuries were realistic, 85-man rosters would be a priority to me. As it is, my depth is never challenged.
I'd love to see players who I cut end up going to another school.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
+1
+2
Simple answer is that would be a huge undertaking. We're talking the addition of almost 2,000 players in the game, not to mention the recruiting databased would have to be increased too. It could very well be disc space (360), but the resources and cost of doing so could be too high.
People complain enough about the initial rosters EA puts out. Adding 15 more players per team to bitch about is not something EA is looking forward to, especially since this is a feature that would generate no extra sales or revenue.
They could add 15 slots without actually adding in 15 more players for each team's default roster (many of the default team rosters don't even fill 69 (every roster has a space for RTG)) and the change to the default rosters would be minimal.
I don't think disc space is the issue. However, there could be other constraints (memory) that make it a lot harder than we like to imagine. There's no way that the roster file is large enough to move the needle on the disc (the save file is ~7 MB). However, the amount of data that must be stored in the active database while in dynasty would be a different story.
Twitter: @3YardsandACloud
I have hated the fact that you can sign a significant amount more than the allotted amount of players to your roster. I think there should definitely be a 73 maximum signing (to leave room for signing players for position minimums, as well as still giving the option to have an extra player spot in case you're fighting for a guy that you're not sure you'll get). So if you have 10 seniors on your 70 man roster, you can only sign 13 guys (and then you have to cut 3). The 25 max signing is the most unrealistic thing when the cpu loses the chance at those players over your roster size.
On the other hand, if the cpu and/or other users in OD picked up your first year cut players (like how the transfer system works with the player maybe going to his second highest school at the time he signed his LOI) and got the chance to pick them up that would be cool. A roster minimum would then not be necessary and if the player gets cut by the 2nd receiving team THEN he can disappear. If the player was already on your team for a year and gets cut he can still disappear regardless.
LOL, no it's not disc space, each player record in the DB is about 120 bytes, meaning the required save file would have to grow ~240 KB. they've been using the same DB since NCAA 2004 at least, it's probably so brittle they don't want to touch it
Just looking for something concrete from someone at EA or who has talked to someone at EA.
It seems to be that we think it would be hard because 2,000 but we don't really know that.
Adding 2,000 new catch animations would be very hard. Adding 2,000 rows to a database might not be as hard.
Just looking for a concrete answer.
It's been several years ago (maybe for NCAA10?) but I asked in the past about 85 man rosters and remember being satisfied with the answer. Obviously that doesn't answer your curiosity but it's been several years ago so I apologize.
I imagine one of the bigger hurdles is that it's not just a matter of changing the limitation and then walking away. In order to do it, they'd have to make sure their recruit generator that builds the recruits would build enough, at the right skill levels. As well, they would also have to revamp their recruiting logic to ensure that teams took into account the new limitations. I'm not saying that's the reason and I'm not saying it's a good reason but just explaining that it is more than just changing one number from 70 to 85.
All that said, the demand for it has been even greater this year than it has in the past. Before, a lot of people put it on their wishlist, but this year seems like everyone has reached the point that it's a bigger issue. I think the mindset of "it's not for Texas, it's for Texas State" is the right one. In the past, everyone just said "85 man rosters" but now some have actually given the right aspect of "it's for those small teams to be able to redshirt and built up their players over time".
Man, I have players on my 70-man roster that don't play. Not that mind 85 but that would give me a lot more bottom feeders.
But, if injuries were done well, that would change a bit. That's what I want. Fix the injuries and challenge my depth. Then give me a bigger roster.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks