1.10 patch?

[osubeavs721]

Re: 1.10 patch?

FA list in Spring Training start of yr3 (2013):

I see a couple players (one is 25, other is 23) B rated RPs that were not signed. They were not incredibly high rated, about as good as your worst ML middle reliever you would keep in the majors. A couple teams in the offseason had pop ups that they were maxed out on Budget (Yanks were 1), so that may be where they came from.

Looking at the transactions from the offseason, all top FAs are being signed to realistic deals by the first week of Feb, and most much earlier than that. There aren't any MLB ready FAs lasting longer than this, and with a quick glance, I am not seeing any prospects changing teams in the offseason.

Now simming yr 3 (2013)

so do we have to control all 30 teams? cause i just want to control 1 team,

[ImTellinTim]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Hey I hope I'm wrong and it is fixed in this patch. But we all know what will happen if someone claims it is fixed and later someone else sees it still there....

Madness will ensue and people will blame everyone

One thing I noticed when looking at the Roster Foundation screen after season 1 of my RTTS is that all the resigned players (including me) were listed as signed as "free agents" that joined the team in 2012. Was this occuring in your franchise tests as well? That might be a quick way to check if anything has changed in they way that they are handled.

[PsychoBulk]

Re: 1.10 patch?

and two, maybe that offseason was already predetermined because the season was in progress before the patch.

I would think that would be the case, but as you say, who knows.

No doubt people will run plenty of sims with this new patch to see if this issue is truly fixed with single team control, budgets on.

[WAZ]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Does SCEA usually tell us what exactly are addressed in each patch? Hopefully, so we don't have to speculate...

But without speculating about everything SCEA does, what would we talk about?

[Braves Fan]

Re: 1.10 patch?

They usually pin a thread with everything it contains.

This is unlike them.

Are we sure the franchise logic was fixed?

[IAHawks1903]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Ok, a bit disappointed here.

Offseason between yrs 3 & 4 has several unsigned high quality players. One thing I can point out, though, is that they are nearly all 30+ yrs old. It appears teams are keeping their young guys and renewing them cheaply, but it doesn't look like that has stopped the excess FAs.

Most teams have avail budget between 5-10M to start 2014, so that is not stopping them from signing the FA.

[Russell_SCEA]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Patch went live a little earlier than expected I'll post the fix list shortly.

[Braves Fan]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Patch went live a little earlier than expected I'll post the fix list shortly.

Thanks!

This at least gives me hope it's a real patch. Can't wait to see all that was fixed.

[Fictionix]

Re: 1.10 patch?

I wonder if they fixed the throw down to first base with the catcher to try and pick off a runner who was off base a bit but the CPU then advances to second and doesnt allow you to throw to second to get him out. Instead it just tosses it back to the pitcher and thats it and the CPU gets a free base

[PsychoBulk]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Ok, a bit disappointed here.

Offseason between yrs 3 & 4 has several unsigned high quality players. One thing I can point out, though, is that they are nearly all 30+ yrs old. It appears teams are keeping their young guys and renewing them cheaply, but it doesn't look like that has stopped the excess FAs.

Most teams have avail budget between 5-10M to start 2014, so that is not stopping them from signing the FA.

The thing is though, there should be some decent Free Agents no? You do get in reality too, Werth/Lee to name but two from this offseason, some star players want to test the market, especially over 30, isnt that realistic, or am i way off track here?

A Free Agent list with no good players in it is surely even more unrealistic?

[xx19kilosoldier]

Re: 1.10 patch?

The thing is though, there should be some decent Free Agents no? You do get in reality too, Werth/Lee to name but two from this offseason, some star players want to test the market, especially over 30, isnt that realistic, or am i way off track here?

A Free Agent list with no good players in it is surely even more unrealistic?

Its realistic if they eventually get a deal from a team. If they flounder on the FA list into the next season, then, no, and thats the problem.

[jrich730]

Re: 1.10 patch?

The thing is though, there should be some decent Free Agents no? You do get in reality too, Werth/Lee to name but two from this offseason, some star players want to test the market, especially over 30, isnt that realistic, or am i way off track here?

A Free Agent list with no good players in it is surely even more unrealistic?

It's whether or not those freeagents actually get signed that was the problem

[IAHawks1903]

Re: 1.10 patch?

I agree 100% with your assessment. The FAs I am talking about are in the FA pool after Spring Training starts.

They are also nearly all starters:
J.Johnson
Halladay
Hamels
Vazquez
Marcum
Arroyo

[DirtyJerz32]

Re: 1.10 patch?

Patch went live a little earlier than expected I'll post the fix list shortly.

Thanks Russell. Can't wait to hear what was addressed.

[Neolithic]

Re: 1.10 patch?

It's whether or not those freeagents actually get signed that was the problem

And if those players should have even become FA's.