Quote:
Originally Posted by Déjà Bru
- Give the AI cheats like being able to see true coach ratings while human players fumble with fuzzy nonsense in evaluating coaches.
- Penalize human players so that the AI looks "smarter, more cunning" but in reality:
- Human scouts are dumber than ever.
- Draft choices go bust much more often than not.
- Players for human teams seem to suffer performance penalties which are often immediately lifted when they are traded or released and play for AI teams
- Players do not develop well, even with excellent coaches (obtained by editor subterfuge)
- And here is the kicker: Number 2 is most often noticeable after human success. Three times, three different leagues, the same thing happened: In the inaugural draft, I select the best SP's available, win in the first few years, then a cloud descends and nothing, but nothing goes right. World Series rings, followed by five straight years of 100-loss seasons? Five straight number one draft choices go bust? Nobody is ready to move up to the ML from any draft round in five years? Like it was choreographed to offset initial success.
- Meanwhile, I think they also ramped up and now overdo the player unhappiness module so that you end up in a death spiral: Bad seasons = bad moods = bad performances = bad seasons, no matter what leadership you bring in.
|
Uhm. Simple answer: No. Of course the AI does not cheat... even coding a cheating AI would be pretty time-consuming and simply would not make sense at all.
So, what you state is just a case of small sample size and some bad luck. Nothing else.
