Financial Issue 4 to 5 years in

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Pretty much mirrors FM, the gold standard of sports sims, in how their game is released and worked on after. It is the nature of the beast even for FM, with Sega, huge sales and a large development team. People may not like it, but it is what it is. I can't think of a sports game that doesn't go through this in some fashion or other? NBA2k, Madden (obviously), The Show, FM, etc. Hell, most of those don't know when to stop patching. IE they get the game playable but continue to tweak and break it again.

It's the same every year for OOTP, FM, and all(?) other sports titles too. There is one user here, EC, that buys on release but never plays until the last patch. There are users that wait until later in the patch cycle to buy, and get the game on sale. Both ways are valid and may be something you want to do in future? It would at least let you avoid feeling like part of the QA team.

Thanks, you just won me a bet; Dr. Pavlov, take a bow. Remind me: Is this The Template? Or is it The Other Template?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jcard

Thanks, you just won me a bet; Dr. Pavlov, take a bow. Remind me: Is this The Template? Or is it The Other Template?

Do you ever post anything of value? Or just your normal inane crap?

Talk about a template. Pot meet Kettle.

You stay classy.

[Le Grande Orange]

I've got plenty of real-world financial data that could be used for reference. For example, this includes, but is not limited to, financial statements for the 1945 Yankees, 1950 Indians, 1957 White Sox, 1959-60 and 1962-63 Giants, 1968 White Sox, 1996-98 Indians, simplified statements for other teams and seasons, league financial reports, as well as statements and simplified reports for some minor league teams.

Then there's other financial data such as the luxury tax payrolls for MLB teams going back to 1997, final team payrolls, average salaries, etc.

[Dijon-Main]

This is really prevalent in games that go into the 2030's. It also means that there are good players (60 grade) on the free agent market that end up getting paid far lower than their ability and statistics suggest because teams simply don't have enough money to throw around. It's really a gamebreaking issue.

[PSUColonel]

I would suggest creating fictional player salaries and fictional team finances after that and see what happens with the 2023 MLB roster set.

[jcard]

[QUOTE=Sweed;5000707]Do you ever post anything of value? Or just your normal inane crap?

Talk about a template. Pot meet Kettle.

You stay classy. [/

As someone who appreciates irony, however unintended, thank you for not forgetting to use your smugly condescending emojis. Though the grade-school metaphors and pejoratives hurt my pride; I believe I am owed better insults than that.

Nevertheless, I feel upon reflection that accuracy was not necessity, and I would have done best to keep my own counsel. By all means, feel free to continue repeating the same post ad nauseum. It is your time, after all, and you are free to waste it as you desire.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Pretty much mirrors FM, the gold standard of sports sims, in how their game is released and worked on after. It is the nature of the beast even for FM, with Sega, huge sales and a large development team. People may not like it, but it is what it is. I can't think of a sports game that doesn't go through this in some fashion or other? NBA2k, Madden (obviously), The Show, FM, etc. Hell, most of those don't know when to stop patching. IE they get the game playable but continue to tweak and break it again.

It's the same every year for OOTP, FM, and all(?) other sports titles too. There is one user here, EC, that buys on release but never plays until the last patch. There are users that wait until later in the patch cycle to buy, and get the game on sale. Both ways are valid and may be something you want to do in future? It would at least let you avoid feeling like part of the QA team.

I don’t really agree with this at all. FM certainly isn’t perfect upon release, and they do have multiple updates throughout the year, but it’s usually in very reasonable working order and without game-breaking issues.

I’d say the SI development cycle is different from OOTPD in that after they release the final update, they move onto the next version. They have also been working on the next version while nailing down bugs simultaneously.

I think they just released the final patch for version 23 a few weeks ago. So they will keep patching for about 4 to 5 months after release. OOTP is still patching a good 7-8 months after release. Last year it went even later.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

FM certainly isn’t perfect upon release, and they do have multiple updates throughout the year, but it’s usually in very reasonable working order and without game-breaking issues.

I don't want to be rude, but you seem to have very little experience playing FM on release. It always has the type of game-breaking issues that everyone complains about for OOTP. They also end with pretty big bugs by the time the update cycle is over. You can mention any FM version you would like and I can cite at least one pretty big bug for that version that would impact the realism of long-term saves.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I don't want to be rude, but you seem to have very little experience playing FM on release. It always has the type of game-breaking issues that everyone complains about for OOTP. They also end with pretty big bugs by the time the update cycle is over. You can mention any FM version you would like and I can cite at least one pretty big bug for that version that would impact the realism of long-term saves.

Sure…what do you think is huge in this cycle 23)?

[mtopham]

Originally Posted by DrSatan

There's a couple threads about this. It's a problem.

Where?

The financial changes have made this a mess when importing an existing league from v23 to v24. If it was a simple as moving the data on revenue sharing into the previous years balance sheet (where, one could argue technically it belongs), then it should be easy to adjust for and calculate changes for subsequent years - but that's not the case. Data is mixed up, placed in wrong line items. Team's cash lines under the hood don't exist, or show figures that are wrong.

Do we have an explanation for what was done - and/or the intent, and what we should be seeing, because the first year post-import is acting all wonky and following the math of 'what should be' is not working further down the line.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jcard

As someone who appreciates irony, however unintended, thank you for not forgetting to use your smugly condescending emojis. Though the grade-school metaphors and pejoratives hurt my pride; I believe I am owed better insults than that.

Nevertheless, I feel upon reflection that accuracy was not necessity, and I would have done best to keep my own counsel. By all means, feel free to continue repeating the same post ad nauseum. It is your time, after all, and you are free to waste it as you desire.

One doesn't need an emoji to be smug, look at your posting history for instance.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Sure…what do you think is huge in this cycle 23)?

There are two huge ones, both carrying over from the previous version.

https://community.sigames.com/bugtra...squads-r11184/
https://community.sigames.com/forums...pment-newgens/

Basically, a combination of bad AI squad management and a broken reputation system means young players can't phase out older players.

The second huge one is that the game creates too few players in all leagues, but especially in non-active leagues, so the game world shrinks as the years go along. In 20-30 years teams start fielding "grey" players because there aren't enough.

Also, international management has been broken for more than five years, a few of the scouting options have not worked for at least three years, and in several leagues the finances break easily.

[AlpineSK]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I don't want to be rude, but you seem to have very little experience playing FM on release. It always has the type of game-breaking issues that everyone complains about for OOTP. They also end with pretty big bugs by the time the update cycle is over. You can mention any FM version you would like and I can cite at least one pretty big bug for that version that would impact the realism of long-term saves.

Couldn't disagree with this more. The majority of the issues that I encounter year to year with FM are not "Game breaking" financial breakdowns like what is being talked about here. The game is largely playable from day 1. In fact, I still have my day 1 save active in 2028-29 without any functional issues.

My bigger issues in recent years have been the handling of Brexit and not allowing the player to determine how much they want it influencing their save and the handling of the Russian Premier League, however last year if you had a save before the update it would still function "normally." SI never went back and edited people's data.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

There are two huge ones, both carrying over from the previous version.

https://community.sigames.com/bugtra...squads-r11184/
https://community.sigames.com/forums...pment-newgens/

Basically, a combination of bad AI squad management and a broken reputation system means young players can't phase out older players.

The second huge one is that the game creates too few players in all leagues, but especially in non-active leagues, so the game world shrinks as the years go along. In 20-30 years teams start fielding "grey" players because there aren't enough.

Also, international management has been broken for more than five years, a few of the scouting options have not worked for at least three years, and in several leagues the finances break easily.

One would think their beta team, that dwarfs OOTP's, would catch those issues before release. Go figure

[Statsman1]

Come on, dudes, it is no longer real news when a software company releases something new in order to let their customers perform the REAL beta testing.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Sweed

One would think their beta team, that dwarfs OOTP's, would catch those issues before release. Go figure

Not to mention that the game doesn’t have so much different setting configurations.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Not to mention that the game doesn’t have so much different setting configurations.

Which is why I have often suggested the number of settings OOTP has could often be more of a hinderance than a help. That argument however has fallen on deaf ears.

[jcard]

The “FM does it too” argument is irrelevant. No other industry operates that way. All the comments about common practice do is reflect that these games, unsurprisingly, have an overlapping and similar customer base- unsophisticated and impulsive. THAT is what has enabled the current model. While some would say I am too negative about OOTPD, the truth is that they are acting exactly as any other company would if given a similar customer base. Unfortunately, we each only get what the majority deserve.

I can not think of anything else on which people boast of spending money before getting any information on the product. Or buy it knowingly months in advance of intending to use it while they wait for presumed defects to be rectified. Do you pay regular-season prices for spring training games? Spend money to watch a guy play himself into shape? Arrive early so that you can help sweep the aisles and pick gum off of the seats? Sure, software, especially for a smaller company, does require some time in customer hands for broad enough use to find all bugs and test different settings. That does not mean that upon release default settings should have major problems that are found quickly and widely among users.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by Sweed

One would think their beta team, that dwarfs OOTP's, would catch those issues before release. Go figure

Both OOTPd and SId are aware of these types of bugs or things to improve. It's just that both OOTP and FM are massive games with hundreds of thousands of moving parts, so fixing these bugs is never easy. I know for a fact that SI are aware of the bugs I listed, they just have not been able to solve them yet.

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Which is why I have often suggested the number of settings OOTP has could often be more of a hinderance than a help. That argument however has fallen on deaf ears.

The argument has not fallen on deaf ears. The devs, and I would guess most veteran players, simply disagree.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by jcard

The “FM does it too” argument is irrelevant. No other industry operates that way. All the comments about common practice do is reflect that these games, unsurprisingly, have an overlapping and similar customer base- unsophisticated and impulsive. THAT is what has enabled the current model. While some would say I am too negative about OOTPD, the truth is that they are acting exactly as any other company would if given a similar customer base. Unfortunately, we each only get what the majority deserve.

I can not think of anything else on which people boast of spending money before getting any information on the product. Or buy it knowingly months in advance of intending to use it while they wait for presumed defects to be rectified. Do you pay regular-season prices for spring training games? Spend money to watch a guy play himself into shape? Arrive early so that you can help sweep the aisles and pick gum off of the seats? Sure, software, especially for a smaller company, does require some time in customer hands for broad enough use to find all bugs and test different settings. That does not mean that upon release default settings should have major problems that are found quickly and widely among users.

How full of yourself do you have to be to write that first paragraph?
Of course you followed it with a paragraph full of false premises and dumb reasoning.