OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

[RaychelSnr]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5dIOqMAbtqY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

In this video, Mike Lowe takes a look at which contract setup in OSFM's 1.0 vs. 1.75 rosters is the right one for you. Mike discusses the merits of each and in the lengthy discussion really hits on several topics that will help you figure out which contract setup is the best for you...until the new version of OSFM arrives that is.

Be sure to Subscribe to Operation Sports on YouTube.

Also, be sure to check out the OSFM rosters if you haven't already on the Operation Sports Forums.

[BillPeener]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

Thank you, Chris. One suggestion: in the future, consider putting the big takeaway at the beginning of the video for people who might not have time to watch the full video. Especially when the ultimate conclusion is that there is no good answer.

The biggest takeaway is at 46:30:

It's not about the contracts or the rosters. This is a game, and it's about having fun.

In my view, the worst thing we did as baseball fans is try to make these games authentic to MLB. I remember when games didn't even have real rosters or put much of any time into realistic details. I wanted realism, so playing with fictional players or unrealistic simming was annoying. That is, until I gave up on realism and learned to enjoy the game for the game.

I agree with Chris: maybe we're better off not getting so worked up over making the game as realistic as possible. Because of the way the game simulates, we're better off saving ourselves the headache and just play how we want.

What I'm currently doing is making a completely fictional roster where every player has 99 speed, 99 power, 99 potential, and 99 durability. Everything else is 0. Pitchers get 99 movement and 99 potential. Yeah, maybe it's stupid, but I'm going to have a lot of fun simming through. Imagine the 2nd year when new players come in with much higher ratings for contact, fielding, velocity, stamina, and so on. That first year players will be considered unicorns 10-15 years in when they're still around with ridiculous speed and power (and who knows what other inflated ratings they acquired thanks to their 99 potentials), but they'll also still be frustrating if their fielding hardly improved beyond 0.

I'm finally excited to play again. Forget MLB - it's not something this game (or other games for that matter) can realistically simulate. There will always be more and new glaring issues.

[Caulfield]

real contracts for me, please.

[HolyStroke3]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

The biggest issue with real contracts is with the way budgets are set, you can't trade big money players. Honestly that's really a problem with budgets but for now that's what we have

[ML]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

Not being able to eat a portion of the contract when trading away players really hurts...

[Bondsfan]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

I don't understand why 1.5 is left out of this argument. 1.0 is real contracts. 1.5 was default contracts. 1.75 was contracts adjusted to lower than default. So why are we comparing 1.0 to 1.75, when 1.5 was contracts matching the default SCEA contracts?

[Mike Lowe]

I agree that it would help some to have the ability to offset part of a hefty contract. At the same time, I don't think it's rare to see the game not being able to trade high-priced players. That's what happens in real life--no one wants those guys! (ie Josh Hamilton, for example).

[TattooedEvil]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

I don't understand why 1.5 is left out of this argument. 1.0 is real contracts. 1.5 was default contracts. 1.75 was contracts adjusted to lower than default. So why are we comparing 1.0 to 1.75, when 1.5 was contracts matching the default SCEA contracts?

cuz 1.75 has the real years

[TattooedEvil]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

i will say u dont throw secondary positions into account at all. Phillips to the Pirates with Harrison there....u dont mention that Harrison can play everywhere, so maybe thats why Pitt gets Phillips so that Harrison can cover an injury to say maybe Cutch. Schwarber to the Mets, u only talk about LF...well they may use him at C since D'arnaud is made of glass. Just pointing that out.

[Mike Lowe]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

i will say u dont throw secondary positions into account at all. Phillips to the Pirates with Harrison there....u dont mention that Harrison can play everywhere, so maybe thats why Pitt gets Phillips so that Harrison can cover an injury to say maybe Cutch. Schwarber to the Mets, u only talk about LF...well they may use him at C since D'arnaud is made of glass. Just pointing that out.

For sure. The game doesn't handle secondary positions very effectively, and there is currently no implementation for a player to ever have a secondary position overtake as the new primary position.

One of the game's biggest flaws is it's inability to progress or learn new positions.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[TattooedEvil]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

For sure. The game doesn't handle secondary positions very effectively, and there is currently no implementation for a player to ever have a secondary position overtake as the new primary position.

One of the game's biggest flaws is it's inability to progress or learn new positions.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

totally agree

[Bondsfan]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

cuz 1.75 has the real years

I guess then, I wonder why they went with different contract values then the for 1.75. As opposed to default values but just corrected the number of years. The contracts all seem way lower than default contracts when you compare 1.5 to 1.75. I have no interest in the 1.0 and real contracts because i'm certain it'd imagine that would break the system over multiple seasons. You would think, default values would be best since that is based on the actual default SCEA values. I wasnt sure what prompted going the other way and lowering the values from the scea default. Maybe that's better, but to me it just seems like it's opening the possibility to break in the system in the long run. It's just not something that I've seen discussed here, it seems like everyone seems to reference 1.75 when referring to "default contracts" when they clearly are much lower than actual default contracts.

[TattooedEvil]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

I guess then, I wonder why they went with different contract values then the for 1.75. As opposed to default values but just corrected the number of years. The contracts all seem way lower than default contracts when you compare 1.5 to 1.75. I have no interest in the 1.0 and real contracts because i'm certain it'd imagine that would break the system over multiple seasons. You would think, default values would be best since that is based on the actual default SCEA values. I wasnt sure what prompted going the other way and lowering the values from the scea default. Maybe that's better, but to me it just seems like it's opening the possibility to break in the system in the long run. It's just not something that I've seen discussed here, it seems like everyone seems to reference 1.75 when referring to "default contracts" when they clearly are much lower than actual default contracts.

i havent looked completely but from what i heard they are because they wanted to make the team payrolls close to real life

[Brandwin]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

cuz 1.75 has the real years

I figured 1.5 was real years as well. Oh well, not starting over now. Guys will just become free agents when they become free agents.

EDIT: When I brought up 1.5, I meant the one nyfan84 made. I believe contract years are correct, unless they weren't correct with the roster he used. I dunno too much!

[BillPeener]

Re: OSFM 1.0 vs. 1.75: Which Contract Setup is Best For you?

3 key points:

1. No roster set is ever going to be perfect.
2. Once we accept that, we then accept that no current roster set is even close to perfection, partly because of the game engine interfering with realism (for example, the SP stamina bug might result in fewer innings or fewer wins, resulting in less realistic stats and thus we misperceive ratings as wrong).
3. Currently available are a few predominantly accurate roster sets, each offering its own advantages.

From there, we read each roster set's descriptions, check reviews, and test them out. This particular thread is about deciding which roster set's contract setup is what you prefer.