OOTP 24 public beta patch (version 24.8.76) available!

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

You're allowed to always offer arb, but that doesn't mean you should be allowed to completely ignore finances.

Lets say you have arb estimates for a total of $75M, and are projected to be -$5M. The game acknowledges that you can offer arb to all your players even though it will lead to you being in the red. That doesn't mean you should be allowed to offer $70M in FA contracts then also offer arb to all your players and go to -$75M though.

edit-

To your last point, the offer is only "taken off the table" once the arb hearing passes. But if you do want to take it off the table earlier in the off-season, just release the player. That will free up his arb money immediately for you.

Releasing the player could (depending on popularity) have a negative impact on the fan modifier right? Whereas letting them walk to FA delays that impact until they sign somewhere else.

[snepp]

Next problem for team budgets that needs to be addressed...

Players that are in the last year of their contract that are no longer on the team, but have had salary retained, are having that salary counted against the following season's payroll during the period from the first day of the offseason, until the arbitration hearing date. This can result in the inability to offer contract extensions leading up to the start of free agency.

First two screenshots are from the first day of the offseason. The accounting budget shows 160.25m in player salary for the upcoming season. The player salary page shows 121.1m in upcoming salary obligations.





The two players with retained salaries are still being counted against 2021.

121.1 + 27.4 + 11.7 = 160.2m



These two are the same screens on the arbitration hearing date, the retained players obligations no longer "on the books".

[Cactusguy21]

Aaron Hicks is on the Yankees in the game, not the Orioles.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by Cactusguy21

Aaron Hicks is on the Yankees in the game, not the Orioles.

Is this a Live Start comment? Because he was a Yankee on Opening Day and that's when a Standard Game beings.

[The_Niddler]

We just converted from OOTP23 to OOTP24....

Below is one example of what we are seeing and can you let me know why or if there is a way to help get closer to OOTP23 numbers?

Looking at 24...I know finances are an issue right now, but I am seeing things like, Baltimore Orioles...
In OOTP 23, player expenses projected for the year 2030 are $76,390,000
In OOTP24, player expenses projected for the year 2030 are $99,555,000

Player payroll, when you look at the salaries screen:
$100.4 Million in OOTP24 for the year 2030
$76.6 Million in OOTP23 for the year 2030.

Arb shows as completely different amounts in 24 compared to 23.

So Elly De La Cruz, he is on the Baltimore Orioles in the league I run.
He makes $700k in 2027 and $700k in 2028.

OOTP23 arb shows as:
2029 - $3.7M
2030 - $7.7M
2031 - $11M

OOTP24 arb shows as:
2029 - $6.4M
2030 - $12.6M
2031 - $18.5M

Could this be in the league settings? Something with contract amounts? I looked and did not see anything obvious.

I applied the patch and the numbers are darn near identical.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by The_Niddler

We just converted from OOTP23 to OOTP24....

Below is one example of what we are seeing and can you let me know why or if there is a way to help get closer to OOTP23 numbers?

Looking at 24...I know finances are an issue right now, but I am seeing things like, Baltimore Orioles...
In OOTP 23, player expenses projected for the year 2030 are $76,390,000
In OOTP24, player expenses projected for the year 2030 are $99,555,000

Player payroll, when you look at the salaries screen:
$100.4 Million in OOTP24 for the year 2030
$76.6 Million in OOTP23 for the year 2030.

Arb shows as completely different amounts in 24 compared to 23.

So Elly De La Cruz, he is on the Baltimore Orioles in the league I run.
He makes $700k in 2027 and $700k in 2028.

OOTP23 arb shows as:
2029 - $3.7M
2030 - $7.7M
2031 - $11M

OOTP24 arb shows as:
2029 - $6.4M
2030 - $12.6M
2031 - $18.5M

Could this be in the league settings? Something with contract amounts? I looked and did not see anything obvious.

I applied the patch and the numbers are darn near identical.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Most likely the new version simply has him value himself more, and will expect a higher free agent salary.

[The_Niddler]

I appreciate the reply, but it is not just this one player, it is tons of teams going from what would have been a positive total next season or the season after in OOTP23 to now being projected to be in the negative by 10M-15M.

[Poonox24]

Originally Posted by The_Niddler

I appreciate the reply, but it is not just this one player, it is tons of teams going from what would have been a positive total next season or the season after in OOTP23 to now being projected to be in the negative by 10M-15M.

So I downloaded the beta. My team had $32 MIL in budget space. The game had already accounted for that.

After the next SIM, I had NEGATIVE $3 Million. Nothing has changed. What is going on?

Any thoughts??

[Poonox24]

Originally Posted by Poonox24

So I downloaded the beta. My team had $32 MIL in budget space. The game had already accounted for that.

After the next SIM, I had NEGATIVE $3 Million. Nothing has changed. What is going on?

Any thoughts??

There is a major issue with Gate Share lost. All of a sudden my team lost
$39 MIL in gate share after the new patch.

[Matt Arnold]

Nothing should have changed in relation to the gate share. Did this change in projected money, or in some other line item? If you can share a screenshot, that would be good. Also obviously worth double-checking that for whatever reason, the gate share hasn't changed in your game.

[snepp]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Nothing should have changed in relation to the gate share. Did this change in projected money, or in some other line item? If you can share a screenshot, that would be good. Also obviously worth double-checking that for whatever reason, the gate share hasn't changed in your game.

Appears nothing to do with gate share, it was league revenue sharing that became enabled after importing.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/....php?p=5031709

[Markus Heinsohn]

Patch is live! https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=348959

We will have another patch soon with more fixes and tweaks

[The_Niddler]

Can you guys explain what happened to the Cash field in OOTP24?
I heard it was removed, but not sure where it went and why?

And I see it is gone, but then why do you have a Cash Maximum field in the League Settings - Financials tab if there is no longer Cash?

What happened to the Cash that teams had in OOTP23?

If there is somewhere I can learn about that, please post a link.

[kidd_05_u2]

Hey Matt. Revenue sharing is still not working well.

In a standard MLB save, some 20 low-revenue teams run massive profits every season.
The rich teams run massive losses every season [this is after revenue sharing].

This isn't realistic: the rich MLB teams are not bleeding money every year due to revenue sharing.

The above has a big negative impact on the finances that matter: some 20 low-revenue teams go into every year with positive cash balances equal to the cash maximum, and big teams go into every year with negative cash balances equal to the cash maximum.

The big problem is the game's truncated financials are fine-tuned to work without revenue sharing.
Without revenue sharing, every team has revenues broadly in line with their budgets and run balanced accounts or close.
Include ex-post revenue-sharing and you get big teams bleeding money, small teams swimming in profits.

A quick fix proposal: reduce the standard cash maximum for standard MLB saves to 5mn-10mn and don't let big teams have a negative cash balance.

[mtopham]

No attempt to fix the transactions loading for online leagues? This is an important oversight, I would think.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by mtopham

No attempt to fix the transactions loading for online leagues? This is an important oversight, I would think.

What are the issues you are still seeing with that? I would suggest to backup the local league, clear it out, and fully download the league file from the server. Then you should check that the various txt and/or html files are in the local folder after the league update.

If they're there, but still not showing up properly in-game, if you can send over the link in downloading the league file again (often best if you simply forward to us a copy of the quick-join message), we can have another look through. But the latest changes should prevent the client from over-writing the file from the server.

If that is still not working, and we still cannot track through (or there's another issue, like if there are multiple commish/sim accounts and you get the files when one of them sims but not the other), then as suggested in one of the threads, I would move the league files over to use the in-game database rather than the html files. That should ensure that all the files are transferred and handled properly. On upload it will still generate the html files if you are using an online server to browse and view, but that's the best method in-game to handle moving that history around.

[Marcus75844]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Patch is live! https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=348959

We will have another patch soon with more fixes and tweaks

Do you have an estimate on the release date for the next patch?

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Hey Matt. Revenue sharing is still not working well.

In a standard MLB save, some 20 low-revenue teams run massive profits every season.
The rich teams run massive losses every season [this is after revenue sharing].

This isn't realistic: the rich MLB teams are not bleeding money every year due to revenue sharing.

The above has a big negative impact on the finances that matter: some 20 low-revenue teams go into every year with positive cash balances equal to the cash maximum, and big teams go into every year with negative cash balances equal to the cash maximum.

The big problem is the game's truncated financials are fine-tuned to work without revenue sharing.
Without revenue sharing, every team has revenues broadly in line with their budgets and run balanced accounts or close.
Include ex-post revenue-sharing and you get big teams bleeding money, small teams swimming in profits.

A quick fix proposal: reduce the standard cash maximum for standard MLB saves to 5mn-10mn and don't let big teams have a negative cash balance.

No response to this post in almost two weeks. I have to assume there is no solution/fix. The financials are completely unrealistic with revenue sharing turned on, as you pointed out and for the reasons you expressed. Adding revenue sharing was just another 'tweek' that actually made an element of the game in need of some serious attention even more unrealistic.

[tm1681]

It could be that there is a solution/fix, but it's taking a while to tweak and figure out.

I've brought this up before, but I've been a credited researcher on Football Manager since 2007 specializing in American soccer at the levels below MLS. One thing that I can tell you for certain from testing the game for 15+ years as part of that work is that any time a new financial element from Major League Soccer has needed to be coded into the game it has introduced weird issues and knock-on effects that took a while to iron out. Sometimes more than one edition.

By "issues", I'm talking about test games where MLS teams in the game were doing things like releasing all of their highest-paid players on the last day of the preseason even though they're under the salary cap - stuff like that.

For some reason, coding in different financial parameters for AI in sports games can easily cause issues that end up difficult to fix. Why? I don't know.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by Dave Stieb II

No response to this post in almost two weeks. I have to assume there is no solution/fix. The financials are completely unrealistic with revenue sharing turned on, as you pointed out and for the reasons you expressed. Adding revenue sharing was just another 'tweek' that actually made an element of the game in need of some serious attention even more unrealistic.

Matt replied to me elsewhere and said the following:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

If owners control budgets, basically nothing has changed between now and before the various recent changes. Revenue sharing props those teams up, and the owners take away the profits.

Given the current financial model, it probably would make sense to tone down the revenue sharing piece, I guess that might be something to think about.

If you play modern MLB, I'd recommend setting revenue sharing at 10%-20%.
For me, the key is to calibrate the numbers such that rich teams not paying luxury tax don't go into the 2024 season with a negative cash balance. If revenue sharing is pushing these teams into losses that are bigger than the cash max, then the revenue sharing number needs to go down.