There are two ways a player can be offered a contract - from the drop down on a player card and from the drop down on the actual full player page.

AVOID SELECTING THE OPTION FROM THE PLAYER CARD.

I'm digging into an issue I noticed, where incorrect values are populated particularly for the bonus. I've observed this is an issue for the player card > offer contract option but NOT the player page > offer contract route.

I've passed the info on including network traces.

If you are sending multiple contract offers by clicking on a player, then from the player card selecting the offer contract option, the years and requested bonus will be populated with the previous offer you made to any player (not tested if you logout then back in).

WORKAROUND: Drag slider bonus to 0%.

This forces a call to the server and you get a message like this :-

A multi-year offer requires a bonus
This player will not renegotiate for a bonus less than $13,782,447
A 4-year contract must include a signing bonus of at least $197,576

$13,782,447 is the true minimum bonus. Manually enter that into the bonus box.

Testing has shown that this problem ONLY occurs when offering contract through the player card. If you click the player to get the card up then select View to get the full player page displayed, this problem was not observed when selecting offer contract from there.

Thank you for your efforts but why should we have to do workarounds? Things should work like their supposed to without jumping through hoops to get there.

In an ideal world...

It's an issue, it's been found and reported.

End of the day, it's one guy doing this who has imo put together a good game, keeping it running whilst working full time. I don't judge him to the same standards as say EA.

Let's be blunt, if EA ran this game, you'd have to pay to make each draft pick.

What's really happening is that the AI wants you to put the base amount in first, and then it fills in the contract and recalculates the bonus after the fact. So it *is* easier, just different. Here's a procedure to do it the new way:

1. Move the bonus slider all the way to 0%. You'll get an error message telling you what the minimum bonus is.

2. Multiply the minimum bonus by 4/3. Thus reverse engineering what the base+bonus should be.

3. Divide that amount by the length of the contract. Thus pro-rating the amount you're paying. So long contracts are quite a bit cheaper than short ones.

4. Move the bonus slider back to 75%. You should end up with the bonus you started with.

Yes, we all know it's a 1 man band but he's also "cashing our checks". As paying customers we expect at a minimum, a properly working product and we aren't getting that.

The process in general, yes.

The problem as proven is that state is preserved across contract offers, so the initial bonus, years populate in the offer screen would be the previous one. You need to force that error to get the real bonus required to be displayed.

Which is a valid view. I'm just a lot more relaxed on it because it's a vicious cycle.

Games doesn't generate enough to bring in other developers - bugs can be slow to fix if non-trivial - takes up time driving game forward - people leave - game doesn't generate enough.

I'm sure JCB would love to be able to work on this full time rather than working full time job and doing this when he can. We're where we are, unfortunately.

Even with the bugs, I still find the game enjoyable. Some are annoying, absolutely, but there had to be a massive infrastructure change to enable development to push on.