[One Post Wonder]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

Changing it from a standard that most games use (can anyone name more than a single other game that uses more than 5 levels of AI difficulty?)

Humans will always be able to take advantage of the AI which is why AI is one of the most discussed parts of games. It's always either to easy or to hard.

That's the thing. It is always done a certain way and it is always wrong. I can't name any games off the top of my head that have more than 5 difficulty levels, but I can name a lot of games that I didn't enjoy as much as I could have because level x was too easy for me and level x+1 was too hard.

This especially sticks out in OOTP because trade is so important in baseball, you can't overcome mediocrity or underperform because of your fast twitch controller skills, and a game of OOTP runs a lot more seasons than most other GM management simulators.

So sure, adding levels isn't a common solution but I think on this occasion, it would work well.

Though another way would be perhaps keeping just 5 levels, but narrowing the gaps between them by reducing the extremes (does anyone play on 'Very Easy')? It's all about the size of the gaps for me... I'd like the gaps to be as small as possible or at least considerably smaller than they are now.

What needs to be done is have more ability to see why the AI is turning down trades. What does the AI know about a player that as a human player we don't see

This idea would be great if there were a way of implementing it well. How would you lay that out? Perhaps something where it tells you the weighted value of each player and why - like a breakdown of what the AI likes and doesn't like. But if you hand out too much numerical information, the process gets gamey. If you try and present it in a human way, it won't look quite right and you'll sometimes get statements that sound illogical.