Custom Teams Minimum Roster Size Restriction

[OsFan73]

Hi,

I had this crazy idea to play a “Best of '83” (1883, that is). The idea was to create 8 custom teams using players from both the NL and the AA and then play a bunch of games. Since the game was so different back then, each team only needs about 12-13 players (and 13 is pushing it!). Is there any way to lift the restriction? At first I thought there may be some issues with the MicroManager creating such small teams, but, on the other hand, I would be able to play against the computer using the “stock” teams. I know I can get around it by just adding a bunch of players to get to the 25, but then I have to keep track of which players are the “real” ones and which to avoid. Just something to add to the list!

Just to keep it positive: I did find the “Manage” Team screen well done: I liked both being able to see the player stats at a quick glance using the “+” and the Player Card as well. It took a few minutes for me to find the most efficient way for my use case (had the rosters defined, needed to locate the players) but it was pretty fast after that. In my case, I used the player name for the search, then selected the player, scrolled down to “Add” and then looked at the card. I found that if I looked at the Player Card first, I had to do an extra scroll because of my screen real estate. (Also, if you had a tab “All Players” the player name search would be perfect, and I could do Pitchers and Position Players in the same group.) Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Thanks,
Bob

[APBA GO Jeremy]

@osfan73 Hi and thanks for the feedback!

• team size limits - this request is already on the list and will be changed in the future
• adding a card link from the roster display - this work is done and will be in the next deployment
• combining pitchers and position players - separated to preserve screen real estate (searches for both types of player have different criteria) and performance (splitting the search by player type reduces the number of results by (very) roughly half)… so we’ll probably not implement this

Keep the good ideas coming Bob!

Thanks,
Jeremy

[OsFan73]

Jeremy,

Thanks for the reply. I definitely understand the reasoning on the 3rd bullet point, and am glad to see that the first one is on the list (I’ll try to be more diligent on searching the forums before submitting a duplicate request!), and that the second one is on its way.

Bob