Heidstra said:
I like the idea of versatility increasing for a position as a player plays that position and gains experience in doing so.

As an example, let's say I have a LIM who I want to play as an IM. His versatility is at 55%, so he drops quite a bit when playing slightly out of position (Yellow - IM or LM etc.) and even more if he's way out of position (Red - RW or RB etc.). I think it makes sense that the more I play him out of position, the better he gets at adapting, maybe he gets 1% better at a Yellow position every game he plays that position, and 1% better at a Red position every time he plays three games in that position. After playing a season at IM, he's now up to 93% versatility for playing IM and doesn't drop so much.

I think this makes sense, because it shows a learning curve for players rather than something that happens over night. A LB who never plays out of position suddenly being comfortable as a CDF, without ever playing there, seems a bit farfetched to me. I also like the risk/reward factor. At first you face losing motivation and having a lower averaged player start, but in time you have a player who can train fully in two positions (yes, I'm also suggesting versatility impacts motivation), apply their unique stat arrangement to that situation, and you don't need a substitute for every person. Thoughts?

solirocket said:
All i want from this is for morale not to decrease by much when i use a player in another close position (like OM in IM) because it sucks when a player who is in starting line-up but in a slightly different position has lower morale than a player who is benched.