Major Error w/DFA in 6.12 Patch!

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 11:48 AM

This is listed in the descriptions of fixes:

- Players cannot be moved directly from the active roster to the DFA area now

This needs to be fixed and reversed. In MLB you can place a player on DFA and then decide what you want to do with him.

If you need to make room for a player on your 25 man roster you can send him to DFA and decide to do with him after the next sim. Just because you put a player on DVA does not mean he has to go on waivers. You can send him to AAA if he has options left, you can release him or put him on waivers.

TM

treedom · 03-20-2005, 11:49 AM

So this is so big it needed a second thread, eh?

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 11:51 AM

The first thread didn't have the appropiate title once I looked at it and I couldn't delete it.

<o> · 03-20-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomamon

This is listed in the descriptions of fixes:

- Players cannot be moved directly from the active roster to the DFA area now

This needs to be fixed and reversed. In MLB you can place a player on DFA and then decide what you want to do with him.

If you need to make room for a player on your 25 man roster you can send him to DFA and decide to do with him after the next sim. Just because you put a player on DVA does not mean he has to go on waivers. You can send him to AAA if he has options left, you can release him or put him on waivers.

TM

It's listed in the fixes, but did you try to do it?

Gil Thorp · 03-20-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomamon

This is listed in the descriptions of fixes:

- Players cannot be moved directly from the active roster to the DFA area now

If true, seems to be a regression rather than a fix.

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <o>

It's listed in the fixes, but did you try to do it?

Sure did and it said invalid transaction... Why in the world would this be implemented??? Makes me think about not using this patch at all for our online league.

Joshv02 · 03-20-2005, 12:09 PM

Lets wait until an actual release comes out. Then a more informed discussion can take place.

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshv02

Lets wait until an actual release comes out. Then a more informed discussion can take place.

Actually, I hope it's not the official patch so they can take this rediculous feature out before it's officially released.

<o> · 03-20-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomamon

Sure did and it said invalid transaction... Why in the world would this be implemented??? Makes me think about not using this patch at all for our online league.

Maybe it was the only way he could fix the LOOPHOLE!!!!!!111!!!! I dunno though.

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by <o>

Maybe it was the only way he could fix the LOOPHOLE!!!!!!111!!!! I dunno though.

I would much rather have the loophole which I never even heard of until recently.

Vris · 03-20-2005, 03:07 PM

Hahaha Loophole!!1111!!1

Ben E Lou · 03-20-2005, 05:33 PM

Based on the other thread, and this one, it would seem that the concept of a *beta* version of a patch is a bit lost on people.

thomamon · 03-20-2005, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Based on the other thread, and this one, it would seem that the concept of a *beta* version of a patch is a bit lost on people.

Yeah, well... Isn't it a good idea to point something out that looks like it's being worked on for a patch that is totally rediculous so it can be removed before the final version is released?

rem · 03-20-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Based on the other thread, and this one, it would seem that the concept of a *beta* version of a patch is a bit lost on people.

10 bucks says that the difference between the beta version and the final version is small to none.

Ben E Lou · 03-20-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remangiii

10 bucks says that the difference between the beta version and the final version is small to none.

That hasn't been the case in any other beta patch-to-final patch that I've seen so far. That's not to say that I know what Markus plans to do with this one--I don't. Maybe there'll be little to no difference, and maybe there'll be significant difference. All I know is that with one of the patches (can't remember which), I took to calling the betas 6.10a, 6.10b, 6.10c, 6.10d, 6.10e, 6.10f, 6.10g, etc., because there were so many versions--some with significant new changes.
Recall that 6.04 (never released with that number) became 6.10 because there were several things added during the beta.

jbmagic · 03-20-2005, 05:54 PM

readme dated 3/20/05 and download dated 3/18/05

any case if it was meant to be a beta, then it should of not been there for the public to download.

and if its going to be there available for download, then title of file should be 6.12beta version.

Ben E Lou · 03-20-2005, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

readme dated 3/20/05 and download dated 3/18/05

He almost always dates the readme on the date of desired release, so he doesn't have to change it with every single beta version.

Quote:

any case if it was meant to be a beta, then it should of not been there for the public to download.

Do you *really* think that it was intended to be downloaded by the public?

BigCity · 03-20-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbmagic

readme dated 3/20/05 and download dated 3/18/05

any case if it was meant to be a beta, then it should of not been there for the public to download.

and if its going to be there available for download, then title of file should be 6.12beta version.

You forget that no one was supposed to have gotten their hands on it, so it's not like someone thought about what it should be named.

Malleus Dei · 03-20-2005, 06:48 PM

I just saw that Markus didn't make the scouting report/player history able to be toggled, either. Bummer.

endgame · 03-20-2005, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Maybe there'll be little to no difference, and maybe there'll be significant difference.

Agreed. Regardless of its placement in the directory in which it was found, that doesn't clearly identify it as anything. Could be THE patch, could be an earlier version of a beta: simply nothing that designates its exact status at all.

Nevertheless, given the excitement and bustle of the day's exchanges, I will admit to a little finger tapping now in anticipation. But I'm equally prepared for an announcement that says testing failed to affirm its integrity and be willing to wait another two weeks or such. .... fine .... I'm in accord with an earlier remark by MD, "better to get it right than to get it fast."

Edit: and as long as we're dipping into the wish/regret list for the patch, I was sure hoping (and still am, but not optimistically) to see AI management sliders returned to human-controlled settings that stick AND some mitigation on the AI's sign and release fervor.

03-20-2005, 11:48 AM	#1
thomamon Global Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 5,274	Major Error w/DFA in 6.12 Patch! This is listed in the descriptions of fixes: - Players cannot be moved directly from the active roster to the DFA area now This needs to be fixed and reversed. In MLB you can place a player on DFA and then decide what you want to do with him. If you need to make room for a player on your 25 man roster you can send him to DFA and decide to do with him after the next sim. Just because you put a player on DVA does not mean he has to go on waivers. You can send him to AAA if he has options left, you can release him or put him on waivers. TM __________________ Thomas A. Montalto Please check out my Stupid Little Blog - http://www.stupidlittleblog.com

03-20-2005, 11:49 AM	#2
treedom Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Transylvania Posts: 2,900	So this is so big it needed a second thread, eh? __________________ A rake and a roustabout.

03-20-2005, 11:51 AM	#3
thomamon Global Moderator Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 5,274	The first thread didn't have the appropiate title once I looked at it and I couldn't delete it. __________________ Thomas A. Montalto Please check out my Stupid Little Blog - http://www.stupidlittleblog.com

03-20-2005, 12:09 PM	#7
Joshv02 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: , " Posts: 3,082	Lets wait until an actual release comes out. Then a more informed discussion can take place. __________________ Brookline Maccabees. RIP

03-20-2005, 03:07 PM	#11
Vris Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere where I don't know where I am Posts: 3,251	Hahaha Loophole!!1111!!1 __________________ None Blog it.

03-20-2005, 05:33 PM	#12
Ben E Lou Front Office Football Central Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Souf Cackilacky Posts: 1,762	Based on the other thread, and this one, it would seem that the concept of a beta version of a patch is a bit lost on people.

03-20-2005, 05:54 PM	#16
jbmagic Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,417	readme dated 3/20/05 and download dated 3/18/05 any case if it was meant to be a beta, then it should of not been there for the public to download. and if its going to be there available for download, then title of file should be 6.12beta version.