Draft pick compensation compensates the wrong draft picks

Westheim · 02-26-2016, 05:17 PM

I’m either dumb or something is broken with draft pick compensation. I’m playing under the old rule set (NOT under the CBA 2012!), and the game always states in the salary arbitration screen that the first half of the first round picks are protected.

Well, that didn’t stop OOTP this offseason from compensating teams with top 12 picks in the 24-team league. I noticed, when my Raccoons got the #10 pick as compensation, which should be impossible. In fact, it’s the third instance in this offseason, where the wrong draft pick is compensated, all with the red X. The green X marks slots of teams that lost their second-round pick, so it DID work with the Blue Sox’ first round pick.

I also can’t find a setting where I could – in an act of idiocy – accidentally have changed the number of protected picks. Any help / insight / opinion would be appreciated.

Lukas Berger · 02-26-2016, 07:46 PM

Could be wrong but I suspect those are comp picks for unsigned picks from the previous year.

Westheim · 02-26-2016, 08:18 PM

No, advanced signings are off. There can't be any such picks.

The three picks in question where compensation for the signing of type A free agents.

Lukas Berger · 02-26-2016, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Westheim

No, advanced signings are off. There can't be any such picks.

The three picks in question where compensation for the signing of type A free agents.

Hmm, that's weird then

Guess I can't help you, sorry

bwburke94 · 02-26-2016, 10:01 PM

What CBA change moved the unsigned-draftee compensation to the current format? I know it used to be part of the sandwich round.

Westheim · 02-27-2016, 04:03 AM

That should be CBA 2012, but it can't be the issue here, since draft pick negotiations are off.

Help? Anybody?

TGH-Adfabre · 02-27-2016, 09:47 AM

I thought it was the top 1/3rd not the top 1/2. In our 20 team league the first 7 picks were protected. My memory may be faulty.

Westheim · 02-27-2016, 10:48 AM

But even then the #8 pick (of 24) would be protected, and it has always been the top half for me. You say you have a leage where 7 of 20 are protected, so there must be a setting *somewhere*, I just can't find it at all...

It has to be something about the number of protected picks. I thought that at some point there might be an issue with teams receiving normally protected picks after losing their own first round pick, but that is only true for the Raccoons, and not for the two others.

This madness has to be stopped. I hate gaining an advantage I don't deserve because of a bug, but while I could potentially reset the draft order to the correct one, this looks like hours of work and has a high risk of me fudging up even more.

And then, that #10 pick won't help the Coons any. My history of first-rounders is pretty embarassing.

NoOne · 02-27-2016, 01:58 PM

pre-2012 it was the top-half. maybe the game doesn't account for this. tbh, i don't verify this stuff. i just let it happen. it's possible it says one thing and still does the other, regardless of advanced signing rules enabled or not.

unless you can remove picks, i think it would be quite difficult to fix that draft order. find an easier compromise. swap from rounds you consider worthless and do not worry about moving all the picks up one to erase the extra pick that was added. you can minimize the effect to the point of being negligible, which is good enough for somethign that isn't going to cause a profound change.

Westheim · 02-28-2016, 11:04 AM

One last desperate bump before I will retreat to cry over all the bad stuff always happening to me.

02-26-2016, 08:18 PM	#3
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 11,903	No, advanced signings are off. There can't be any such picks. The three picks in question where compensation for the signing of type A free agents. __________________ Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.

02-27-2016, 04:03 AM	#6
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 11,903	That should be CBA 2012, but it can't be the issue here, since draft pick negotiations are off. Help? Anybody? __________________ Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.

02-27-2016, 09:47 AM	#7
TGH-Adfabre Hall Of Famer Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 2,599	I thought it was the top 1/3rd not the top 1/2. In our 20 team league the first 7 picks were protected. My memory may be faulty. __________________ You mock me, therefore I am My wife

02-26-2016, 05:17 PM	#1
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 11,903	Draft pick compensation compensates the wrong draft picks I’m either dumb or something is broken with draft pick compensation. I’m playing under the old rule set (NOT under the CBA 2012!), and the game always states in the salary arbitration screen that the first half of the first round picks are protected. Well, that didn’t stop OOTP this offseason from compensating teams with top 12 picks in the 24-team league. I noticed, when my Raccoons got the #10 pick as compensation, which should be impossible. In fact, it’s the third instance in this offseason, where the wrong draft pick is compensated, all with the red X. The green X marks slots of teams that lost their second-round pick, so it DID work with the Blue Sox’ first round pick. I also can’t find a setting where I could – in an act of idiocy – accidentally have changed the number of protected picks. Any help / insight / opinion would be appreciated. Attached Images __________________ Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.

02-26-2016, 07:46 PM	#2
Lukas Berger OOTP Developments Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France Posts: 19,901	Could be wrong but I suspect those are comp picks for unsigned picks from the previous year.

02-26-2016, 10:01 PM	#5
bwburke94 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Belchertown, MA, USA Posts: 4,446	What CBA change moved the unsigned-draftee compensation to the current format? I know it used to be part of the sandwich round.

02-27-2016, 10:48 AM	#8
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 11,903	But even then the #8 pick (of 24) would be protected, and it has always been the top half for me. You say you have a leage where 7 of 20 are protected, so there must be a setting somewhere, I just can't find it at all... It has to be something about the number of protected picks. I thought that at some point there might be an issue with teams receiving normally protected picks after losing their own first round pick, but that is only true for the Raccoons, and not for the two others. This madness has to be stopped. I hate gaining an advantage I don't deserve because of a bug, but while I could potentially reset the draft order to the correct one, this looks like hours of work and has a high risk of me fudging up even more. And then, that #10 pick won't help the Coons any. My history of first-rounders is pretty embarassing. __________________ Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.

02-27-2016, 01:58 PM	#9
NoOne Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,167	pre-2012 it was the top-half. maybe the game doesn't account for this. tbh, i don't verify this stuff. i just let it happen. it's possible it says one thing and still does the other, regardless of advanced signing rules enabled or not. unless you can remove picks, i think it would be quite difficult to fix that draft order. find an easier compromise. swap from rounds you consider worthless and do not worry about moving all the picks up one to erase the extra pick that was added. you can minimize the effect to the point of being negligible, which is good enough for somethign that isn't going to cause a profound change.

02-28-2016, 11:04 AM	#10
Westheim Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Germany Posts: 11,903	One last desperate bump before I will retreat to cry over all the bad stuff always happening to me. __________________ Portland Raccoons, 83 years of excell-.... of baseball: Furballs here! 1983 * 1989 * 1991 * 1992 * 1993 * 1995 * 1996 * 2010 * 2017 * 2018 * 2019 * 2026 * 2028 * 2035 * 2037 * 2044 * 2045 * 2046 * 2047 * 2048 * 2051 * 2054 * 2055 1 OSANAI : 2 POWELL : 7 NOMURA \| RAMOS : 8 REECE : 10 BROWN : 15 HALL : 27 FERNANDEZ : 28 CASAS : 31 CARMONA : 32 WEST : 39 TONER : 46 SAITO Resident Mets Cynic - The Mets from 1962 onwards, here.