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

[TattooedEvil]

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by TattooedEvil

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mike Lowe

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by TattooedEvil

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bondsfan

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]

Quote: Originally Posted by TattooedEvil

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]

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.

[RidinDwnKingsley]

Quote: Originally Posted by Bondsfan

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.

Not sure what you are talking about with the contracts as 1.75 is 1.50 with more fixes and the guys whos contract were originally missed in 1.5 adjusted. Other than that its the same.... so im assuming thats why be used 1.75, its the better one.


Sent from my iPhone using Operation Sports