Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Hey guys,

I have some time tonight, so I'm going to put up a stream that will be Part 1 of a 2-part series covering the OSFM rosters and how the contracts behave in-game between OSFM v1.0 and v1.75. Seems to be a hot topic folks have some questions about.

I figured some people in this thread might want to come chat and ask questions and put in requests for me to take a look at. I will be posting this around a few threads where folks might have an interested in stopping by instead of waiting for the archive to go up on Operation Sports.

I plan to remain unbiased as I'm sure there's a solution for everyone to enjoy these greats rosters, and I'm hoping the conversation simply helps people out. I plan to examine the two saves I've run, and would love for some folks to stop in and chat.

The stream will be up in a few minutes on my YouTube channel or the link will be Tweeted out from mikelowe_OS on Twitter.

Talk to you all soon!

[bravesfan1984]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

If anyone's interested, I just ran a test w OSFM v1.0 versus v1.75 to examine how trading was handled up through the trade deadline. Everything auto, injuries and suspensions turned off for testing.

I was thinking of putting a video together sharing what was seen, if folks would be interested.

I'll give you a little hint though...not as much as you may think.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

So, it appears to be fine rolling with real contracts? That's good news!

[Skyflame21]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Last years game I used an OSFM set not sure which but then did all contracts at half of their value and it kept the teams budgets pretty close to real life. Only thing that was effected was morale as players were upset about pay levels but I looked at if all players had a dip due to morale it still kept all players at same separation with their ratings.

Didn't anyone test that for MLB 17? Just wondering if that was an option this year.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

So, it appears to be fine rolling with real contracts? That's good news!

Not in my test.

Without going into a long explanation let me simply put it this way.

With 1.75 or even the 1.5 that was edited with default contracts but correct years, the trade engine alone was night and day.

The trade block with 1.0 or 1.5 was dead.

Activity (I play with the trade slider at 10 with 30 team control and 29 teams set to auto on trades) now with default $ but real years is excellent.

That alone convinced me to restart.

I was only 11 games into franchise. Early enough to restart and I do plan I playing and carrying this file for at least 4-5 seasons so it is vital the engine works properly.



Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

[bravesfan1984]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Not in my test.

Without going into a long explanation let me simply put it this way.

With 1.75 or even the 1.5 that was edited with default contracts but correct years, the trade engine alone was night and day.

The trade block with 1.0 or 1.5 was dead.

Activity (I play with the trade slider at 10 with 30 team control and 29 teams set to auto on trades) now with default $ but real years is excellent.

That alone convinced me to restart.

I was only 11 games into franchise. Early enough to restart and I do plan I playing and carrying this file for at least 4-5 seasons so it is vital the engine works properly.



Sent from Palm Trees and Paradise using Operation Sports

I'll trust your word on this issue, as I said before, I respect your opinions so much. I'll definitely roll with default contracts then! Thanks for chiming in on this!

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Even simming ahead to the offseason, I'm seeing morale adjust properly for whatever contract setup you choose. Also, the trade block has players added to it using either roster. My concern with using the default rosters is potentially having an entire league of underpaid guys if SSD ever updates the way contracts are handled (make them more closer to real life). Minor concern perhaps, but if it happens, you're league will break.

To me, the issue stems 100% from the trade engine itself, but that's truly hard to judge completely because--as I mentioned in the video--we have a game suddenly trying to make sense of 30 teams built by humans.

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Even simming ahead to the offseason, I'm seeing morale adjust properly for whatever contract setup you choose. Also, the trade block has players added to it using either roster. My concern with using the default rosters is potentially having an entire league of underpaid guys if SSD ever updates the way contracts are handled (make them more closer to real life). Minor concern perhaps, but if it happens, you're league will break.

To me, the issue stems 100% from the trade engine itself, but that's truly hard to judge completely because--as I mentioned in the video--we have a game suddenly trying to make sense of 30 teams built by humans.

Hey Mike. I ran one test so far. The trade block with real contracts was barren compared to what I saw with default contract $$$ with proper year edits. Also trade activity was not what it should be with my trade slider set to "10"

Once I went to default contract money with edited correct years it opened up the game big time.

The trade activity using 30 team control but with 29 teams set to "auto" for trades was night and day.

Disclaimer.

I play 30 team control the following way

CPU Profile everything set to auto except:

Lineups
40 Man roster

If I see a trade that makes no sense for now or the future I reverse it. Otherwise every thing goes.

I also do not handle the off-season for the other 29 teams. So free agency and the exclusive signing period is all auto.

I use 30 team control for the following reasons:

1) Line up integrity for all 30 teams

2) 40 man roster integrity for all teams so A and B prospects are not exposed to the rule 5 draft that should not be.

3) Being a trade commissioner/Czar


Other than that.....I let it all rip and the universe has a life of it's own. I also play multiple years (typically 4-5 max with carryover saves factored in as well).

I want the trade engine working properly and it looked to me with real contract $$$$ amounts it was compromised.


If you are a one season player....this all does not matter.

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Hey Mike. I ran one test so far. The trade block with real contracts was barren compared to what I saw with default contract $$$ with proper year edits. Also trade activity was not what it should be with my trade slider set to "10"

Once I went to default contract money with edited correct years it opened up the game big time.

The trade activity using 30 team control but with 29 teams set to "auto" for trades was night and day.

Disclaimer.

I play 30 team control the following way

CPU Profile everything set to auto except:

Lineups
40 Man roster

If I see a trade that makes no sense for now or the future I reverse it. Otherwise every thing goes.

I also do not handle the off-season for the other 29 teams. So free agency and the exclusive signing period is all auto.

I use 30 team control for the following reasons:

1) Line up integrity for all 30 teams

2) 40 man roster integrity for all teams so A and B prospects are not exposed to the rule 5 draft that should not be.

3) Being a trade commissioner/Czar


Other than that.....I let it all rip and the universe has a life of it's own. I also play multiple years (typically 4-5 max with carryover saves factored in as well).

I want the trade engine working properly and it looked to me with real contract $$$$ amounts it was compromised.


If you are a one season player....this all does not matter.

Good stuff, A&S. The tests I ran had trade slider set to default (all sliders at default) and had one with 23 trades through July 31, the other had 17. I forget which was which, but it seemed the same to me.

As for it not mattering if you play just one season (which is what I do), that's where I think it may matter the most--if SDS ever increases a game's contract base to a more realistic amount, it's going to create a severe imbalance in the game with these smaller contracts. Maybe they'll simply allow us to edit contracts or have carryover saves automatically adjust, but I did not see any issues to morale using either 1.0 or 1.75.

The whole thing to me is this: I don't think it matters what roster and contracts you use. The game handles it fine. The issue is that the trade engine still does some things that we might feel is odd, but I am still trying to figure out how much of that is the game adjusting to make sense of 30 teams built by real-life human GMs.

[Maverick09]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

The problem with edited real-life contracts is that the team budgets get inflated since players in real-life contracts are much higher than the default contracts.

During the off-season and free-agency, players are going to be asking for default contract values. The high end guys (Bryce Harper, Arietta and such) are going to be asking for something similar to real life, however the lower rated guys (85 OVR and below) are going to be asking for much lower contract values than is typically offered in real-life.

What ends up happening several years down the road is that team budgets are set to real-life values, but players are aking for Default contracts, which are much lower than real life. Every team therefore has excess budget in the off-season.

The edited contract values also mess-up the morale system in the game. It makes it so that contracts are much higher than what is expected from the player.

All in all, the games budget and morale systems are calibrated for default contracts.

[Mike Lowe]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

The problem with edited real-life contracts is that the team budgets get inflated since players in real-life contracts are much higher than the default contracts.

During the off-season and free-agency, players are going to be asking for default contract values. The high end guys (Bryce Harper, Arietta and such) are going to be asking for something similar to real life, however the lower rated guys (85 OVR and below) are going to be asking for much lower contract values than is typically offered in real-life.

What ends up happening several years down the road is that team budgets are set to real-life values, but players are aking for Default contracts, which are much lower than real life. Every team therefore has excess budget in the off-season.

The edited contract values also mess-up the morale system in the game. It makes it so that contracts are much higher than what is expected from the player.

All in all, the games budget and morale systems are calibrated for default contracts.

Makes sense. The same argument could be used to not use OSFM rosters at all though because of a potential league-wide age imbalance they may create, or any other issue that may be out there (guys sitting in A-ball...affects progression, etc.)

To me, you can find a reason for anything--use what makes you enjoy the game the most and realize that it's just a game. If you're truly worried about something--anything--breaking, I'd use the rosters the game ships with.

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I was one who really pushed to have editable contracts at community day. The devs really wanted real contracts as well, but they were restricted.

The game logic for free agency and trades is based off the game dynamic of player value based on age, potential, position and overall.

All things being equal a higher potential player will garner a higher salary.

My complaint has been salaries do not inflate. A players worth on year 1 of a franchise is the same in year 15.

Trade logic is also representive of salary. A player that makes 15 million "real" life may only have value to the cpu as a 5 million player. That is why when the cpu makes trades with real contracts it is mostly arbitration and renewable players traded.

I hope one day to have true real contracts. If SCEA is not allowed to do it, logic that scales with the adjusted contracts would work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Operation Sports mobile app

[dutchy25]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Makes sense. The same argument could be used to not use OSFM rosters at all though because of a potential league-wide age imbalance they may create, or any other issue that may be out there (guys sitting in A-ball...affects progression, etc.)

To me, you can find a reason for anything--use what makes you enjoy the game the most and realize that it's just a game. If you're truly worried about something--anything--breaking, I'd use the rosters the game ships with.

I agree with this. I think their is errors in the franchise logic overall that are going to upset people no matter what.

If you're a guy who only plays one or two seasons, the real contracts should be fine and you'll have a good experience.

However, if you like to go multiple years like myself running with the default contracts will help the flawed free-agency logic.

Every franchise experience will be different and it's guaranteed you'll see something that doesn't quite make sense. But it's a video game and supposed to be fun. So choose what set-up will allow you to have the most fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports

[Armor and Sword]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

I was one who really pushed to have editable contracts at community day. The devs really wanted real contracts as well, but they were restricted.

The game logic for free agency and trades is based off the game dynamic of player value based on age, potential, position and overall.

All things being equal a higher potential player will garner a higher salary.

My complaint has been salaries do not inflate. A players worth on year 1 of a franchise is the same in year 15.

Trade logic is also representive of salary. A player that makes 15 million "real" life may only have value to the cpu as a 5 million player. That is why when the cpu makes trades with real contracts it is mostly arbitration and renewable players traded.

I hope one day to have true real contracts. If SCEA is not allowed to do it, logic that scales with the adjusted contracts would work.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Operation Sports mobile app

Here was something that really stood out in my test of using default contracts (only edited for real life years remaining on the contract).


In using that OSFM 1.5 roster which was edited to default $$$ contracts the Colorado Rockies were clearly having a rough season.

They put the following players on the block to trade:

Carlos Gonzalez
DJ Lemahieu
Charlie Blackmon
Jake McGee

All guys with expiring contracts. Obviously looking to see what haul they could get in prospects knowing full well they probably won't be able to resign them all.

Tried the same test with OSFM V1.5 with real contracts and again, a struggling Rockies team in the standings.

Not one of them were on the block in that test.

That was compelling to me and evidence the trade engine went FUBAR using real contracts.

I want activity and offers galore. That is half the fun for me in franchise. The big push at the All-Star break, rent a player type deals, teams rebuilding, teams looking to make that push for a pennant etc.

My advice.....go with default contracts as the games franchise engine was built on that contract/budget logic.

[Maverick09]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

My complaint has been salaries do not inflate. A players worth on year 1 of a franchise is the same in year 15.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Operation Sports mobile app

Good post. Have you had the chance to test whether this is still the case in this years version of the game? Do teams still have excess budget in future years like in MLB 16 (due to budgets increasing faster than what players ask for)?

[tabarnes19_SDS]

Re: Real Contracts vs. Default Contracts

Good post. Have you had the chance to test whether this is still the case in this years version of the game? Do teams still have excess budget in future years like in MLB 16 (due to budgets increasing faster than what players ask for)?

I haven't had a ton of time, been finishing the basement and will be done tomorrow then can dive, but in limited testing it is so hard to tell what a team has for a budget now.

There are no email alerts telling the budget increase. When looking at budgets it tells weekly and is difficult to gauge how the system works or is supposed to work.

I honestly hate this year's budget system. It may be great under the hood, but I can't figure out what a yearly budget is without a complicated formula, and even with that who knows if that is correct.

I like some of the intentions by allowing extra spending in season for trades, but as far as off-season I'm lost. When trying to make offers to free agents I never know how much I have to work with.

I really hope in the patch they bring back the old style of yearly budget breakdown in the off-season. Right now it is kind of a deal breaker for me. Too confusing and I am having a difficult time understanding it. I can only imagine what a new player who is trying to sign a free agent is experiencing.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Operation Sports mobile app