I greatly respect the opinions of The Wolf and others who recommend a stats-only style of play. However, I find myself agreeing with OFG when he says:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldFatGuy
. . . given that one of its mottos is "It's your game, play it your way" I would like to play it with ratings, with no house rules, and have it challenging.
|
I'm wondering about these two quotes . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmknpk2
I use the default of 30/50/15/5. I kind of use that same evalution scale when I evaluate players.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isura
That could be the issue. Increase the weighing of ratings. That tends to make the AI smarter
|
and whether more people who have stayed with ratings find better AI results by giving ratings a much higher weight in AI Player Evaluation.
For example, I have always played, up until now, with the default AI Player Evaluation weights. In eight years, I have assembled a powerhouse franchise that won 120 games last year and is on pace to win even more this season.
Take a look at the player below. After reading in this thread about finding five-star potential minor-league players being neglected by the AI in the free agent pool, I went to look and sure enough there were several guys like him hanging around.
This player was released in June after a poor performance in SSA last year and not playing at all this season. With these potentials (my scout is highly talented, so they are probably accurate), why has nobody else signed him?
I agree with OP; this is one of the reasons why I can be so successful after only a few seasons. Seasons gone by, I would have snapped up this player but now I'm going to leave him and the others alone. I want to see what happens if I make a change.
What I am going to change is the AI Player Evaluation to give much higher weight to ratings. If the AI uses only 30% of its "brain" to the ratings that I am seeing, leaving 70% (really just
15% in this case) to focus on only one partial year of year-old stats, no wonder I have an advantage. The AI and I have to be on a level playing field if we are both going to be looking at ratings in our player evaluations.
We've heard convincing arguments for no-ratings gameplay. Anybody care to speak up for AI "ratings evaluation enhancement" style of play?