@TwoHeadedTOM I definitely hear ya. All I want as well is for this mode to be in an enjoyable state and it still isn't.
Unfortunately, this year they have been playing from behind since the release and each month they have had to fix game breaking bugs. Scouting, chemistry, edit lines, trade values and the record book have all had to be fixed this year so its safe to say the pandemic has hit this mode extra hard.
I'm a broken record on this:
the easiest catch-all solution to all their non-gameplay bugs (many of which they've had in previous games, so it's not just Covid) is maximum customization.
Allow us to not only edit position in Franchise mode, but also roles... even names, faces, nationality, ratings, potential. Allow us to force trades and make CPU-CPU trades; allow us to block CPU-CPU trades (that way we could have CPU trades turned on, thus allowing some realism, while merely vetoing the most outlandish trades; I'd honestly not do that, I'd just spend several hours going over rosters at the start of the preseason, then again at the deadline, and make several targeted trades. It'd be less realistic, but more satisfying for me, and that's more important, honestly. But I absolutely think other players should have that option even though I, personally, wouldn't choose it.) Allow us to veto retirements, or force retirements.
Being able to edit those would solve problems with positions being wrong (like right-handed defenders being listed as LD, or defenders with the now-outdated "D" and no secondary position, or goalies with secondary positions), it'd allow us to fix those infuriating bad names (like the Polish-born Greg Liston and Marvin Jones not having traditionally Polish names)... we could just jump into a Franchise mode without having to spend hours fixing their inaccurate roster ratings; we could just fix a couple players' ratings/potential here and there as we notice them, in between games. We could fix ratings to reflect what their development was to counter-act the buggy decline. We could fix positions for players that've spent several years at RW; it's dumb that one year at LW in juniors means you're a LW even if you spend over a decade in the NHL as a RW. Sometimes forwards get moved to defense, and vice versa, yet EA thinks that we shouldn't be allowed to do that. ("If it's in the game" * you, I guess. Because we don't want to allow you full control, because you may, *gasp*, "cheat" and have a good time. I mean... I'd do it largely to make the game *more* realistic, but even if I cheated in every possible way... so what? It's a video game, the point is to have fun, right? If that's fun for somebody, then why does EA feel compelled to police how they enjoy it?)
And again, we should even be allowed to edit stats. I just want it 99% because I create a player that I draft in year 2 or 3, and I want his juniors stats to be what my Be A Pro got, rather than the underwhelming simmed stats... but also: at the moment both Sami Vatanen and Ryan Suter have a combined 0 goals and 2 GWGs in my Franchise, and uh... I guess that's an impressive ratio. That needs to be fixed. And even if EA fixes it *moving forward*, there's no way they'll be able to retroactively fix GWGs. But you know how it *could* be fixed? Maximum customization.
It wouldn't solve *every* problem, but it would solve *so many* of them, and in the easiest way possible for them and the most satisfying way possible for us (because we'd be able to choose which solution works best for us).
Also, this is off-topic, but...
why do players have silhouettes rather than faces? I mean, I get it with the relatively few players who are real but for whatever reason don't have portraits, but... your Be A Pro has a portrait, right? Clearly they have the technology to do that. So why don't all created players (both player created and CPU-generated prospects) have that feature? Why is it that the game essentially condemns you to have a team that is 90%+ silhouettes by year 15-20 of your Franchise mode? It's not functionally important, but... it's just dumb. It's easily fixed.
I was personally excited when I saw that they introduced the ability to choose your draft class quality this year. Ever since they introduced scouts I have found it too easy to build strictly through the draft and there wasn't much need for trades or free agents other than placeholder spots while your prospects develop. I get that most guys like just drafting/developing and that's cool too, at least we had options this year. Now of course what is happening is not a good thing and is clearly a bug as putting up good stats need to grow appropriately, especially the franchise and elite potential players. I have yet to be able to test out the different options to see if there are in fact or prospects that don't develop into what they are supposed to or these options only control how many elite players are in later rounds. Once the turnover of real players is complete, it seems the mode will be basically over (so 8-10 years...), but I am still going to get into a franchise now and see if I can notice if this is happening to all cpu generated players if of course I get that deep into it before the next patch. (the roster turnover may just be too much for me to handle as well, we shall see)
I will say this. I am more than ok with prospects not reaching their potential. In fact, I encourage it as long as its reflected in their stats which is not the case we have here. In real life there are way more players drafted that don't pan out than those that do including some higher picks. If I pick a guy with franchise potential first overall I'm ok if they don't develop into a 95 overall and I'm even ok if they are a complete bust as long as the reasoning makes sense and its not due to a bug. If they only put up 20-30 points a year I don't think they should grow very much at all. You don't want stats to matter and would prefer if your players always developed? Great, give us the option to turn it on/off or have difficulty settings. As @SchulzEricT has been saying, give us more options on how we want to play the game.
@SkylerJames13 I get what you are saying. I definitely think we are all pretty much on the same page here.
First things first, let's get the bugs worked out.
