Should AI GMs have limited 'patience' when dealing with human GMs?

robc · 05-14-2010, 02:23 PM

I am interested in getting some opinions on this idea. It is essentially the same as my post in the trade AI thread, but that thread seems to have fizzled out.

This may be a way to make trading a little harder without having to revamp the AI. I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea but here it is.

1) Make AI GMs have a 'patience' factor.
2) If the human player makes an absurd trade offer, it reduces that GMs amount of patience with you. Maybe the player can get away with a little bit before they get cranky, depending how bad their offer was.
3) When the patience gets reduced enough maybe that GM breaks off talks and doesn't talk to you for a while.
4) Each GM can have a different patience threshold.
5) Perhaps if you have enough of a bad reputation, other GMs become more reluctant to accept your offers.

This way people can't have unlimited tries to get a deal working. This is kind of like when dealing with player contract negotiations. It might make it more difficult to lowball the AI since you risk them breaking off the talks.

A potential problem with this idea is that if the AI doesn't have reasonable terms for what it calls rediculous it could get frustrating for the human player.

Thanks

RchW · 05-14-2010, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robc

I am interested in getting some opinions on this idea. It is essentially the same as my post in the trade AI thread, but that thread seems to have fizzled out.

This may be a way to make trading a little harder without having to revamp the AI. I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea but here it is.

1) Make AI GMs have a 'patience' factor.
2) If the human player makes an absurd trade offer, it reduces that GMs amount of patience with you. Maybe the player can get away with a little bit before they get cranky, depending how bad their offer was.
3) When the patience gets reduced enough maybe that GM breaks off talks and doesn't talk to you for a while.
4) Each GM can have a different patience threshold.
5) Perhaps if you have enough of a bad reputation, other GMs become more reluctant to accept your offers.

This way people can't have unlimited tries to get a deal working. This is kind of like when dealing with player contract negotiations. It might make it more difficult to lowball the AI since you risk them breaking off the talks.

A potential problem with this idea is that if the AI doesn't have reasonable terms for what it calls rediculous it could get frustrating for the human player.

Thanks

This already exists with the players in contract negotiations. Seems that this could be a logical outgrowth of the personality settings for each AI GM.

injury log · 05-14-2010, 03:04 PM

Thing is, what you're suggesting would bring us back to the trading situation that existed in OOTP-2006, where you needed to actually 'submit' an offer before receiving any reply. Users hated that, and rightly so; it should be possible to get an instant response to all but the most evenly balanced trade proposals. And right now, of course, you don't normally submit proposals at all; as you add players to either side, the AI GM immediately responds to your changes. To implement your suggestion, that instant feedback would need to be removed altogether (since when you add a player to a trade, you wouldn't always want the game to consider that a final trade proposal), and I don't think many people would care for that at all.

If the trade AI were perfect (free of exploits), there would be no need for such a system anyway, since with a perfect AI it wouldn't matter how hard you tried - you'd never get away with lowballing the AI GM. We're not there yet, but that's the goal we should be striving for, I think. We shouldn't make trading more inconvenient for the user just to cover up the fact that the AI makes some dumb decisions.

kingcharlesxii · 05-14-2010, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

Thing is, what you're suggesting would bring us back to the trading situation that existed in OOTP-2006, where you needed to actually 'submit' an offer before receiving any reply. Users hated that, and rightly so; it should be possible to get an instant response to all but the most evenly balanced trade proposals. And right now, of course, you don't normally submit proposals at all; as you add players to either side, the AI GM immediately responds to your changes. To implement your suggestion, that instant feedback would need to be removed altogether (since when you add a player to a trade, you wouldn't always want the game to consider that a final trade proposal), and I don't think many people would care for that at all.

I don't see why you couldn't enter a group of guys to trade, hit submit and then get an instant response. For this type of proposal, that would seem to work well.

robc · 05-14-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by injury log

Thing is, what you're suggesting would bring us back to the trading situation that existed in OOTP-2006, where you needed to actually 'submit' an offer before receiving any reply. Users hated that, and rightly so; it should be possible to get an instant response to all but the most evenly balanced trade proposals. And right now, of course, you don't normally submit proposals at all; as you add players to either side, the AI GM immediately responds to your changes. To implement your suggestion, that instant feedback would need to be removed altogether (since when you add a player to a trade, you wouldn't always want the game to consider that a final trade proposal), and I don't think many people would care for that at all.

If the trade AI were perfect (free of exploits), there would be no need for such a system anyway, since with a perfect AI it wouldn't matter how hard you tried - you'd never get away with lowballing the AI GM. We're not there yet, but that's the goal we should be striving for, I think. We shouldn't make trading more inconvenient for the user just to cover up the fact that the AI makes some dumb decisions.

Edit: King Charles post was similar to mine, he beat me to the punch.

I didn't consider that (delayed feedback) and that is a good point.

I also agree that a much much better solution is improved trade AI, I just don't know how much we will see of that. I think that should be the goal, but if we can get smaller, improvements in a timely manner that by all means do it.

I would suggest this modification to my idea.

1- You can still get immediate feedback from your own manager reguarding the trade being constructed, but not the AI.
2- When you submit the trade, you can get immediate feedback from the AI where they can still outright reject it (and possibly get cranky from a lowball offer) or accept it immediately. The AI may still take some time to consider some offers as it does now.

This way the user is penalized for lowballing, can get realistic feedback from their own team when initially mulling over a trade (I imaging your own scout factors into this I hope), and you can't have unlimited tries at trying to steal from the AI.

I'm not sure this is a good way to handle this, but I'm just brainstorming. Maybe the whole idea is a wash because in the end if the users don't like it, it isn't a good idea. But with this modified approach you don't need to wait for days to get feedback, but you do have to wait until you officially say 'here consider this offer'.

fintach · 05-14-2010, 04:48 PM

Okay, I'm new here (somehow only just heard about OOTP and have had it for less than a week), so I can't speak from a position of experience. Still, it seems to me that if GMs had limited patience, I'd want to be able to get a scouting report on their trade history and tendencies.

That way, I could know the hard bargainers from the soft touches, and have a better idea of what kind of starting point I want to use for my offer.

It would be pretty neat to find out that the other GM is shrewd and cautious in spring training, but a loose cannon when the deadline's approaching.

BusterKing · 05-14-2010, 04:58 PM

How about an AI League Commissioner that won't allow some trades to go through?

Wouldn't that be easier to program into the game?

knockahoma · 05-14-2010, 08:54 PM

Saw this thread and thought I'd repost from another:

Hey Rob.

I sort of like that idea at first blush.

These baseball GMs are business people and no doubt pride themselves on competency. That's why your idea appeals to me. With any business proposal, you'd better have done your damn homework. Know the lay of the land. And if there's a learning curve, well, you get your beet-red face slapped. Hard. That's the way real business works. Make a ridiculous proposal to the CEO of any company and see how long before your next visit.

From that perspective, I say, " Hey, good idea." You don't know how the AI (that other GM) thinks? Get your face slapped a few times and I bet you learn!"

Then, you become an experienced GM.

TLB1975 · 05-15-2010, 02:41 AM

I'm a big fan of this idea. Its been something that's been swimming in my head for some time. For what it's worth, EA Sports NHL 2010 has this feature as a part of its franchise mode. They call it GM reputation. Each AI team GM has an opinion of me. One thing I like in NHL that I think would work well here is that your reputation rating with a GM is impacted by the outcome of any deals made with that GM. It could be a great way to counter balance the limitations in the game when trading with computer managed teams in a solo-game. If I screw over the AI in a one-sided trade, that could ruin my reputation with that GM and could prevent me from trading with him again.

05-14-2010, 02:23 PM	#1
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,095	Should AI GMs have limited 'patience' when dealing with human GMs? I am interested in getting some opinions on this idea. It is essentially the same as my post in the trade AI thread, but that thread seems to have fizzled out. This may be a way to make trading a little harder without having to revamp the AI. I'm not entirely sure it is a good idea but here it is. 1) Make AI GMs have a 'patience' factor. 2) If the human player makes an absurd trade offer, it reduces that GMs amount of patience with you. Maybe the player can get away with a little bit before they get cranky, depending how bad their offer was. 3) When the patience gets reduced enough maybe that GM breaks off talks and doesn't talk to you for a while. 4) Each GM can have a different patience threshold. 5) Perhaps if you have enough of a bad reputation, other GMs become more reluctant to accept your offers. This way people can't have unlimited tries to get a deal working. This is kind of like when dealing with player contract negotiations. It might make it more difficult to lowball the AI since you risk them breaking off the talks. A potential problem with this idea is that if the AI doesn't have reasonable terms for what it calls rediculous it could get frustrating for the human player. Thanks

05-14-2010, 08:54 PM	#8
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Saw this thread and thought I'd repost from another: Hey Rob. I sort of like that idea at first blush. These baseball GMs are business people and no doubt pride themselves on competency. That's why your idea appeals to me. With any business proposal, you'd better have done your damn homework. Know the lay of the land. And if there's a learning curve, well, you get your beet-red face slapped. Hard. That's the way real business works. Make a ridiculous proposal to the CEO of any company and see how long before your next visit. From that perspective, I say, " Hey, good idea." You don't know how the AI (that other GM) thinks? Get your face slapped a few times and I bet you learn!" Then, you become an experienced GM. Last edited by knockahoma; 05-14-2010 at 09:32 PM.

05-14-2010, 03:04 PM	#3
injury log Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 9,162	Thing is, what you're suggesting would bring us back to the trading situation that existed in OOTP-2006, where you needed to actually 'submit' an offer before receiving any reply. Users hated that, and rightly so; it should be possible to get an instant response to all but the most evenly balanced trade proposals. And right now, of course, you don't normally submit proposals at all; as you add players to either side, the AI GM immediately responds to your changes. To implement your suggestion, that instant feedback would need to be removed altogether (since when you add a player to a trade, you wouldn't always want the game to consider that a final trade proposal), and I don't think many people would care for that at all. If the trade AI were perfect (free of exploits), there would be no need for such a system anyway, since with a perfect AI it wouldn't matter how hard you tried - you'd never get away with lowballing the AI GM. We're not there yet, but that's the goal we should be striving for, I think. We shouldn't make trading more inconvenient for the user just to cover up the fact that the AI makes some dumb decisions.

05-14-2010, 04:48 PM	#6
fintach Major Leagues Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 484	Okay, I'm new here (somehow only just heard about OOTP and have had it for less than a week), so I can't speak from a position of experience. Still, it seems to me that if GMs had limited patience, I'd want to be able to get a scouting report on their trade history and tendencies. That way, I could know the hard bargainers from the soft touches, and have a better idea of what kind of starting point I want to use for my offer. It would be pretty neat to find out that the other GM is shrewd and cautious in spring training, but a loose cannon when the deadline's approaching.

05-14-2010, 04:58 PM	#7
BusterKing Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,436	How about an AI League Commissioner that won't allow some trades to go through? Wouldn't that be easier to program into the game?

05-15-2010, 02:41 AM	#9
TLB1975 Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 371	I'm a big fan of this idea. Its been something that's been swimming in my head for some time. For what it's worth, EA Sports NHL 2010 has this feature as a part of its franchise mode. They call it GM reputation. Each AI team GM has an opinion of me. One thing I like in NHL that I think would work well here is that your reputation rating with a GM is impacted by the outcome of any deals made with that GM. It could be a great way to counter balance the limitations in the game when trading with computer managed teams in a solo-game. If I screw over the AI in a one-sided trade, that could ruin my reputation with that GM and could prevent me from trading with him again.