<t> I think Wolverine made its mistake with a poorly thought out announcement and release process. The announcement was a little vague and should have included the following things - the price of Puresim 2, any accomodations for current Puresim owners, and a complete explanation of the differences b...

<t> Finally got a chance to try this one out. Good work, Shaun! In looking at the amateur draft it looks like the scrub selection problem is much better. In my 20-team association in 1.85 had on average 15-22 scrubs selected out of 100 draft picks. In my first draft in 1.86 only 2 scrubs were select...

<t> I don't know whether to post this one here or in the Draft AI thread . . . but since I'm now using 1.85a I will post here. In a fictional association, the AI is still drafting scrubs in the amateur draft. Again, these teams have no financial constraints - they are only using less than half of th...

<r> <QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: puresimmer<br/> <br/> <QUOTE><s>[quote]</s>ORIGINAL: eric517<br/> <br/> I'm in favor of eliminating scrubs from fictional player associations. I can understand the need for them in historical associations as KG stated, but there is no need that I see to have them i...

<t> I'm in favor of eliminating scrubs from fictional player associations. I can understand the need for them in historical associations as KG stated, but there is no need that I see to have them in fictional player associations. I have seen big problems with scrubs being drafted each year in the am...

<t> Oh, yes, I'm seeing it, too. See my comments in the 1.85 thread. Granted I am using fictional players and my issue has been with the amateur draft between seasons, so the situation may be a little different, but I do see the problem. In some amateur drafts I have seen as much as 20% of the draft...

<r> Just looking for some opinions here . . . In considering starting a new association I have reached a block and can't decide whether to start one with finances on or with finances off. I will first say that I have <B><s>[b]</s><e>[/b]</e></B>never<B><s>[b]</s><e>[/b]</e></B> played without financ...

KG -

Yeah I decided to not use it anymore. My point is that reducing the scale did not cause a problem in previous versions of the game. I'm just curious as to why it's not working the same anymore.

<t> A few things I'm noticing - <br/> <br/> After six seasons in a fictional 20-team association, I'm still seeing some very poor drafting in the amateur draft. Of the 100 picks each year I'm seeing anywhere from 6 to 22 scrubs being selected. These guys are in the 30+ age range. The teams are not u...

<t> <br/> [/quote]<br/> <br/> Is it possible to convert what I have to a psc file? Is it something I could do? I know I am an oddity here (I do not use historical reply) but I really would prefer not to play the same sked over and over again....Thanks<br/> [/quote]<br/> <br/> So does this mean that ...

<t> Okay, here is my review of the 1973 amateur draft with 20 teams selecting . . . <br/> <br/> <br/> 1st Round - 2 Scrubs<br/> 2nd Round - 3 Scrubs<br/> 3rd Round - 8 Scrubs<br/> 4th Round - 13 Scrubs<br/> 5th Round - 8 Scrubs<br/> <br/> Why would a team select any of these scrubs? These are guys w...

<t> I have always been able to do this through the xml by setting the yearly inflation range to 1d-1 on each range. In 1.84 rc4 inflation is still happening despite this being the setting. Yes, I can manually adjust teams' budgets but why go through that extra step each off-season?<br/> <br/> Any an...

<t> A couple of things I am seeing. I am running a fictional association starting in 1972.<br/> <br/> There is a problem with the financial structure. Teams are only spending half of their budget . . . but they can't spend anymore than that since the player demands are too low. I don't have high-pri...

<t> Actually, I did not complete a season. It had problems making it through the initial draft. Teams ran out of money quickly and had to draft scrubs. This was a fictional association. If I don't mess with the salary scale in the set-up, there were no problems. But, no I did not complete a season. ...

I have had an issue with the "scaling" feature when setting up associations. I have used it in fictional set-ups. Seeing an issue with historical leagues . . . is there a problem with this feature? It always worked for me before 1.76.

<t> Granted, alot of the new features and improvements introduced in recent upgrades have centered on historical play. But, I wouldn't think that should cause this feature (scaling of finances down regardless of start year) to suddenly be broken. This feature has always worked. If the feature can't ...

<t> I'm using fictional players . . . and I let the teams/regions be randomly generated by the game. I have only attempted this with 60-man rosters and have not tried smaller roster sizes. In my last test, I found that of the large number of players with the smallest contracts were not all scrub pla...

<t> Okay, I've upgraded to 1.77. Same problem still exists.<br/> <br/> In four team association (teams have around 55 million to spend), there are 11 position players that make over 179,000 with the highest being at 12 million. The rest all make an even 62,000. Of the pitchers, 30 make over 92,000 w...

<t> I usually wait until the newest release becomes official before upgrading. I'm not necessarily looking for an exact replication of a specific era . . . just a roster that is not composed of 15 legitimate players and 35 scrubs. I'm not sure what happened between 1.51 and 1.75 that this would be o...

<t> After a few more tests . . . running 4-team associations. I found that adjusting the scaling percentage seems to be a factor in the problem. When I leave it alone it runs fine. When I scale finances down from what the game suggests it then runs into problems. I also noticed that the drafting spe...