OOTP 24 public beta patch (version 24.8.76) available!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Important: This patch is only for OOTP 24 versions which were purchased directly from us or resellers who use our version. It is also available via the Steam client with the public password below.
It is NOT compatible with the Mac OSX AppStore or Epic version!

Hi everybody!

Unfortunately, the last patch introduced an issue with revenue sharing that we'd like to fix, so here is a new public beta, version 24.8.76. Please give it a try if you'd like to help

Use this at your own risk! Please back up important league files before loading them in this beta. This patch is compatible with the previous patch for online leagues - exports will work between versions, however both clients and the commish need to update to benefit from the online league fixes.

Changelist (24.8.76):
Fixed some issues of over-counting future Luxury/Revenue sharing when owner controls budget
Adjusted the various financial widget displays to be more consistent in calculations
PT: Added 2B/3B factors to detailed tournament description

How to access the beta on Steam:

• Quit OOTP 24 if it's running.
• Open Steam client -> Library
• Right click on Out of the Park Baseball 24
• Click on "Properties" at the bottom of the menu
• Click on the beta tab. Here, enter the following code / password: ootp24betapt
• Click on "Check code"
• Open the beta pull-down and select "publicbeta".
• Close the Steam client (Steam menu -> Exit)
• Open the client again. It should then download the beta build.

Update Info for our webstore customers: To apply the update, simply download the setup file and install it over your current installation. There is no need to uninstall or unlicense your current copy! However, you should quit the game before installing it, of course. Updates always contain all the changes from previous updates. Saved games are compatible between different versions.

Download link for PC Beta (Fastspring Webstore Version):
Main server: PC Installer

Here's a PC installer (Fastspring) that installs into a single folder, which is useful for external HDs for example. Or for creating a second test install of the game, so you can try the patch out without the risk of messing up your main install of the game if something is wrong in the patch:
PC Single Folder Installer

Download link for Mac (FastSpring):
Main Server: Mac OSX Installer

Please post here if you have any issues or if you run into major bugs. Thanks!

Cheers,
The OOTP Team[/QUOTE]

[mtopham]

Perhaps the transactions issues with online leagues could get addressed, too?

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by mtopham

Perhaps the transactions issues with online leagues could get addressed, too?

They should have been fixed in the 24.8.75 patch. Are there still issues with that?

[mtopham]

Yup

[coljesep]

I'm not sure what the transaction issues are/were but, I am finding inconsistency in the arbitration/extension process.

Here is an example:

The salaries page lists a player's Arb estimate as "556k(A)"
The arbitration page lists it as 555,500 and the Team Offers page is pre-populated to that amount.

When the team offers that player a 1 year extension for that exact amount, they get a message that the Owner does not approve it because they do not have enough money.

However, in the exact same situation but for $650k, the team is able to offer the player a 1 year extension to avoid arb. This offer was made AFTER the 555k example.

So that is issue #1 in terms of inconsistent management of funds.

Issue #2 If the Front Office accounting tab is determining available money based on projected salary and it is including arb estimates for that projection... then shouldn't it deduct funds from the projected expenses when/if a team selects to withdraw an arb offer?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by coljesep

The salaries page lists a player's Arb estimate as "556k(A)"
The arbitration page lists it as 555,500 and the Team Offers page is pre-populated to that amount.

I'm guessing it just being rounded to fit the format of the salaries page.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm guessing it just being rounded to fit the format of the salaries page.

Same Here

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'm guessing it just being rounded to fit the format of the salaries page.

Of course, but I think you missed the point of me providing that info.

Perhaps I wasn't clear though. If the salary page and such align rounded or not, why wouldn't a team be able to offer that salary as a 1 year extension to avoid arbitration if those funds are already attributed to the expense budget? And it's inconsistent... one player the "owner" allows it, and another the owner does not.

And, if a team decides to withdraw that $ from their arb screen, shouldn't those funds be taken out of the projected expense budget? If they are added as a projection, why wouldn't they be subtracted as a projection?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by coljesep

Of course, but I think you missed the point of me providing that info.

Perhaps I wasn't clear though. If the salary page and such align rounded or not, why wouldn't a team be able to offer that salary as a 1 year extension to avoid arbitration if those funds are already attributed to the expense budget? And it's inconsistent... one player the "owner" allows it, and another the owner does not.

And, if a team decides to withdraw that $ from their arb screen, shouldn't those funds be taken out of the projected expense budget? If they are added as a projection, why wouldn't they be subtracted as a projection?

Yep, took it as it's own separate issue.

Never had the other situation you are describing with the offer. You say the owner doesn't allow it for one but does for the other. Maybe since the new contract would actually be an extension, not arbitration, the owner likes the idea of signing one and not the other? He thinks the prepopulated estimate for the arb offer, to the one he doesn't want to extend, is too high? Maybe the text description file is not adequate and doesn't have an "I don't approve extending Joe Baseball" option, so goes with "not enough money"? Maybe it has both responses and the bug is it picks the wrong one? IDK, I can only guess. Matt or Markus will have to answer, and I would have left it to them, but you asked me.

[coljesep]

Here is an example.

Now, I know what someone will say. The $ left if ext signed is in the negative and that is why it cannot go thru. (Revenue controls budget)

But that isn't correct.

Because the $ available is already assuming that this player is receiving an arb offer of 2.4m from the salaries page to account for the expenses that lead to that number.

So if I made an offer of 2.5, I'd agree that it should be stopped. But, financially it makes no sense - logically it doesn't either because this player will be allowed to go to arb and likely get more than his estimate from a hearing.

Further, If I change his arb offer to a $0, that $ available stays the same. It shouldn't. Not if its totaling a projected arb value against the $ avail.

[snepp]

I have seen that occur on occasion as well with no explanation for why it will happen at one point, but not another, in the same circumstance.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by coljesep

Here is an example.

Now, I know what someone will say. The $ left if ext signed is in the negative and that is why it cannot go thru. (Revenue controls budget)

But that isn't correct.

Because the $ available is already assuming that this player is receiving an arb offer of 2.4m from the salaries page to account for the expenses that lead to that number.

So if I made an offer of 2.5, I'd agree that it should be stopped. But, financially it makes no sense - logically it doesn't either because this player will be allowed to go to arb and likely get more than his estimate from a hearing.

Further, If I change his arb offer to a $0, that $ available stays the same. It shouldn't. Not if its totaling a projected arb value against the $ avail.

Until a developer chimes in I'd go back to the possibility that the owner doesn't approve offering this guy that amount of money in what it sees as an extension. In arbitration the team is free to offer him less and take their chances. Maybe he gets more, maybe he doesn't.

Now I don't think the Owner/AI is looking at both situations, at least my guess is it's not that sophisticated for this particular transaction. But I do wonder, is it possible the owner doesn't think the player is worth 2.4 mil. and kills the offer? IDK. I also don't know if an owner has ever withdrawn/ not allowed an arbitration offer? Too me, if he doesn't think he' worth the money he should be able to use the withdraw option and disallow us, as the GM, the ability to offer arbitration at all. But, like above, I don't think it's that sophisticated. Ie arbitration is it's own "mini game" for us, the user. Where extending, or trying to extend a contract, then involves the owner. This is all speculation, but would explain the owner denying one deal while allowing another.

I do think if one withdraws the offer (not just change it to $0) the money should become available. I assume if one just changes it to $0, one can still go back and enter an amount. Maybe the developer has locked those funds for the arb period to avoid conflicts of changing it to $0, using the money somewhere else, then coming back and trying to put an offer back in? IDK, just more speculation.

I do see what you are getting at, and don't really disagree. Just speculating on why it is happening. Is it a bug? Is it by design? IDK. Until the developers answer your post all we have is speculation.

I hope you get an answer soon.

[Sweed]

And while I'm here I'll let Matt know that in my game the hot fix for the financials seems to be working.

Thanks.

[Steps]

Glad to hear a lot of people are having positive experiences when trying this. My question is when can we expect this to become an actual patch? I ask as an online league commissioner who is 1 sim away from uploading the amateur draft classes for some teams who have no money to sign their draft classes. Thanks!

[Matt Arnold]

You should be able to offer up to the arbitration amount. Maybe next time try offering 1$ less than the arbitration amount and see if the owner likes that

The hotfix likely won't officially go live until Monday. Please do keep letting us know of any issues you see.

[jmuelly]

Originally Posted by Sweed

And while I'm here I'll let Matt know that in my game the hot fix for the financials seems to be working.

Thanks.

same. Just need to advance it a a day and it takes effect.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

You should be able to offer up to the arbitration amount. Maybe next time try offering 1$ less than the arbitration amount and see if the owner likes that

The hotfix likely won't officially go live until Monday. Please do keep letting us know of any issues you see.

Thanks Matt, I'll try that.

What are your thoughts on the arb $ impacting the expense subtotal?

If a player is arb eligible and his projection is 2m, I understand why that 2m is being counted against the available money.

But if I set that arb offer to $0, shouldn't I have 2m more to spend elsewhere?

Because even if I change my mind later, if I used that 2m on another signing elsewhere then it still balances out.

[thesmokeshow]

I dont think so. Because someone could try and game the system. Set arbitration to ‘0’ and sign someone else. And then go back and re-offer arbitration and there’s no way the game could not allow arbitration in thay scenario. While I understand your point, I think it makes sense that it ‘keeps’ that money off limits until arbitration day passes.

[coljesep]

Originally Posted by thesmokeshow

I dont think so. Because someone could try and game the system. Set arbitration to ‘0’ and sign someone else. And then go back and re-offer arbitration and there’s no way the game could not allow arbitration in thay scenario. While I understand your point, I think it makes sense that it ‘keeps’ that money off limits until arbitration day passes.

But you are always allowed to offer arb whether you are in the negative or not. So in your gaming the system method, the team would just be more in the negative anyway. Further, nothing would stop them from moving forward with a traditional arb offer.

If you are counting the money against the balance before it's officially offered - then you shouldn't count it if the offer is taken off the table.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by coljesep

But you are always allowed to offer arb whether you are in the negative or not. So in your gaming the system method, the team would just be more in the negative anyway. Further, nothing would stop them from moving forward with a traditional arb offer.

If you are counting the money against the balance before it's officially offered - then you shouldn't count it if the offer is taken off the table.

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.