OOTP Developments Forums - View Single Post

Cobby · 07-17-2017, 03:40 PM

A couple thoughts about trading...

So, after building up my team to a dynasty, I turned over control to the AI and watched with some fascination as the AI destroyed the dynasty.

Oddly, although the trades the AI made were not what I would have done, none of them seemed to me to be completely terrible individually. But there was no sense of strategy behind them. The biggest mistake the AI makes, I think, are in trades *not* made. Basically, the AI held on to aging players too long instead of trading them for prospects. So eventually, the prospect pool gets depleted and the former dynasty sinks into mediocrity.

The AI doesn't seem to have a sense for anticipating even just a few years into the future. One of the first trades the AI made after I turned over control was to trade a nearly-ready pitching prospect for an older shortstop. It wasn't a completely terrible trade - we did have a weakness at shortstop and our rotation was strong. But we also had three 30+ year old pitchers in the rotation. That young pitcher wasn't needed at the moment but was going to be vital in a few years. There weren't many young pitchers available either, and I had worked hard to get him.

Which brings me to my second point. Nearly every trade I make as a human GM, my assistant GM tells me I'm getting a bad deal and I should ask for more. Yet I end up building a dynasty while still seeming to losing every trade on points according to the AI evaluation.

Now, possibly the difficulty wasn't with the AI in general but with that particular GM. All of the GMs have ratings for how they evaluate players - like how much they favor prospects vs veterans, or how much the appreciate player loyalty, or offense vs. defense or hitting vs pitching, etc. But, even so - I think that ratings like that ought not to override common sense.

As an aside - one thing that might be cool to implement would be that when an assistant GM is working with a legendary human gm, that any time the human gm makes a trade that the assistant disagrees with, then some of these GM parameters get tweaked in such a way to make the assistant gm more likely to approve of the trade. So, there could be a sort of mentoring relationship and then when the assistant gm quits and goes to another team, he's evaluating trades now more like the human would have.

One could apply this gm parameter tweaking also to winning vs losing with computer teams too. GMs whose teams are deteriorating could start changing their parameters until their teams start improving or something like that... Or even when an AI gm trades with another more highly rated AI gm. If both are agreeing with the trade then the maybe the less successful gm is being taken advantage of and could tweak his parameters to make him less likely to accept futer trades like that...

Anyway...

07-17-2017, 03:40 PM	#28
Cobby Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 252	A couple thoughts about trading... So, after building up my team to a dynasty, I turned over control to the AI and watched with some fascination as the AI destroyed the dynasty. Oddly, although the trades the AI made were not what I would have done, none of them seemed to me to be completely terrible individually. But there was no sense of strategy behind them. The biggest mistake the AI makes, I think, are in trades not made. Basically, the AI held on to aging players too long instead of trading them for prospects. So eventually, the prospect pool gets depleted and the former dynasty sinks into mediocrity. The AI doesn't seem to have a sense for anticipating even just a few years into the future. One of the first trades the AI made after I turned over control was to trade a nearly-ready pitching prospect for an older shortstop. It wasn't a completely terrible trade - we did have a weakness at shortstop and our rotation was strong. But we also had three 30+ year old pitchers in the rotation. That young pitcher wasn't needed at the moment but was going to be vital in a few years. There weren't many young pitchers available either, and I had worked hard to get him. Which brings me to my second point. Nearly every trade I make as a human GM, my assistant GM tells me I'm getting a bad deal and I should ask for more. Yet I end up building a dynasty while still seeming to losing every trade on points according to the AI evaluation. Now, possibly the difficulty wasn't with the AI in general but with that particular GM. All of the GMs have ratings for how they evaluate players - like how much they favor prospects vs veterans, or how much the appreciate player loyalty, or offense vs. defense or hitting vs pitching, etc. But, even so - I think that ratings like that ought not to override common sense. As an aside - one thing that might be cool to implement would be that when an assistant GM is working with a legendary human gm, that any time the human gm makes a trade that the assistant disagrees with, then some of these GM parameters get tweaked in such a way to make the assistant gm more likely to approve of the trade. So, there could be a sort of mentoring relationship and then when the assistant gm quits and goes to another team, he's evaluating trades now more like the human would have. One could apply this gm parameter tweaking also to winning vs losing with computer teams too. GMs whose teams are deteriorating could start changing their parameters until their teams start improving or something like that... Or even when an AI gm trades with another more highly rated AI gm. If both are agreeing with the trade then the maybe the less successful gm is being taken advantage of and could tweak his parameters to make him less likely to accept futer trades like that... Anyway...