Closed Thread

RebelFan · 08-14-2008, 10:39 AM

I'm confused as to why this thread was closed.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...sion-flaw.html

It apparently was because I did not make a response in 5 days. The only reply to my original posting, from Tony, said "I'm not sure if it is a bug - would have to see what Markus says about the way it works." So I was waiting patiently and checking every day or two, to see what Markus had to say and he hadn't said anything. There was really nothing more for me to say and I know you guys have a lot of issues to look at. I posted what I thought and still think is a problem and was waiting for someone to say it will be looked at or it won't be looked at.

I understand if more information is requested from the original poster and not provided, the thread should be closed out. But, that wasn't the situation here. I don't mean to be a smarta** about this, just trying to understand the protocol for getting possible problems addressed.

Thanks.

Commo_Soldier · 08-14-2008, 11:57 AM

I see no reason for it to be closed. When I do say a two year contract extension and my next years extension limit is x then the second year I can offer 2 times x. So long as the second year does not put me over what the projected cap limit would be.

Carplos · 08-14-2008, 12:10 PM

They close threads if there are no responses within five days regardless. You can have it reopened by PMing a mod if you have more to add to it.

Nutlaw · 08-14-2008, 07:03 PM

As I wrote when closing the thread: "Yeah, at present this is a design limitation."

It is not a bug, as the game is not programmed to be able to handle that level of sophistication at present. Yes, it does not work in an ideal manner here, but no, it is not attempting to.

So in short, that's just the way it is for now. Can we help you with anything else?

RebelFan · 08-14-2008, 09:08 PM

I do find it strange that version 2007 was able to "handle that level of sophistication" yet the new version can't. I still think this is bug. My reason is that the statement you get from the game says "The owner does NOT approve this deal. The reason is that your projected payroll is a future season is higher than the current budget." That simply is not true in the situation I described in my original posting. While I don't expect it to fixed anytime soon, by closing out the thread it will never be looked at so that it can be fixed to work properly, as it did in version 2007.

Don't worry though, I won't bother you again!

Commo_Soldier · 08-15-2008, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

As I wrote when closing the thread: "Yeah, at present this is a design limitation."

It is not a bug, as the game is not programmed to be able to handle that level of sophistication at present. Yes, it does not work in an ideal manner here, but no, it is not attempting to.

So in short, that's just the way it is for now. Can we help you with anything else?

It works like he described for me on a PC using 9.1.6

Nutlaw · 08-15-2008, 06:50 PM

I believe that this is intentional behavior because the game doesn't want you to backload contracts in future years. OOTP doesn't give a projected budget room more than one season ahead of time, so it prevents you from signing backloaded contracts if one of the contract years would put you over next year's budget. I believe that this was changed from a previous version due to the potential for abuse.

Discussion is no bother whatsoever. If you truly feel strongly about it, I can log it, but my impression is that it is working as intended at present.

RebelFan · 08-16-2008, 09:03 AM

No need to log it. It sounds like it's working the way Markus has designed it to work.

Maybe something for him to consider for a future version. I agree that a contract extension of say, 1 million for the next year and 3 million for the following two years would be unrealistic. Maybe some percentage limit on back-loaded contracts. Say the second year of an extension couldn't be more than 10 percent higher than the first year. Just a thought.

Thanks for the explanation.

Nutlaw · 08-16-2008, 11:22 AM

Okay. Closing this one out again, then. However, if anyone wants to discuss it or anything further, please don't hesitate to post in Tech Support. Thanks.

08-14-2008, 10:39 AM	#1
RebelFan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Valley Posts: 63	Closed Thread I'm confused as to why this thread was closed. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...sion-flaw.html It apparently was because I did not make a response in 5 days. The only reply to my original posting, from Tony, said "I'm not sure if it is a bug - would have to see what Markus says about the way it works." So I was waiting patiently and checking every day or two, to see what Markus had to say and he hadn't said anything. There was really nothing more for me to say and I know you guys have a lot of issues to look at. I posted what I thought and still think is a problem and was waiting for someone to say it will be looked at or it won't be looked at. I understand if more information is requested from the original poster and not provided, the thread should be closed out. But, that wasn't the situation here. I don't mean to be a smarta** about this, just trying to understand the protocol for getting possible problems addressed. Thanks.

08-14-2008, 11:57 AM	#2
Commo_Soldier Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 102	I see no reason for it to be closed. When I do say a two year contract extension and my next years extension limit is x then the second year I can offer 2 times x. So long as the second year does not put me over what the projected cap limit would be.

08-14-2008, 12:10 PM	#3
Carplos Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Idaho Posts: 2,884 Infractions: 1/0 (0)	They close threads if there are no responses within five days regardless. You can have it reopened by PMing a mod if you have more to add to it.

08-14-2008, 07:03 PM	#4
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	As I wrote when closing the thread: "Yeah, at present this is a design limitation." It is not a bug, as the game is not programmed to be able to handle that level of sophistication at present. Yes, it does not work in an ideal manner here, but no, it is not attempting to. So in short, that's just the way it is for now. Can we help you with anything else?

08-14-2008, 09:08 PM	#5
RebelFan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Valley Posts: 63	I do find it strange that version 2007 was able to "handle that level of sophistication" yet the new version can't. I still think this is bug. My reason is that the statement you get from the game says "The owner does NOT approve this deal. The reason is that your projected payroll is a future season is higher than the current budget." That simply is not true in the situation I described in my original posting. While I don't expect it to fixed anytime soon, by closing out the thread it will never be looked at so that it can be fixed to work properly, as it did in version 2007. Don't worry though, I won't bother you again!

08-15-2008, 06:50 PM	#7
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	I believe that this is intentional behavior because the game doesn't want you to backload contracts in future years. OOTP doesn't give a projected budget room more than one season ahead of time, so it prevents you from signing backloaded contracts if one of the contract years would put you over next year's budget. I believe that this was changed from a previous version due to the potential for abuse. Discussion is no bother whatsoever. If you truly feel strongly about it, I can log it, but my impression is that it is working as intended at present.

08-16-2008, 09:03 AM	#8
RebelFan Minors (Single A) Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Valley Posts: 63	No need to log it. It sounds like it's working the way Markus has designed it to work. Maybe something for him to consider for a future version. I agree that a contract extension of say, 1 million for the next year and 3 million for the following two years would be unrealistic. Maybe some percentage limit on back-loaded contracts. Say the second year of an extension couldn't be more than 10 percent higher than the first year. Just a thought. Thanks for the explanation.

08-16-2008, 11:22 AM	#9
Nutlaw Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 9,538	Okay. Closing this one out again, then. However, if anyone wants to discuss it or anything further, please don't hesitate to post in Tech Support. Thanks.