Trading silliness

ChrisG · 07-13-2013, 12:54 AM

If there's one thing that really really needs improvement IMO it's the AI trading. I changed the difficulty to Hard (preference is Neutral), as I've read on here that that's more realistic. Maybe in some cases it is but I think this is a little ludicrous.

I've been trying to trade Scott Hairston. He's not having the greatest year. But he's still rated decently (2 stars, I believe) he's putting up a .690 OPS. Not that great, but not bad for a bench guy.

I shopped him around and was offered quite a few decent major leaguers.

But once I go to trade for minor leaguers....oh man.

...nope, Scott Hairston is not worth even a 27 year old, half star current/potential AAA left hander Duane Below. I could not get anyone in their low minors either, even half-star guys. And of course, the Tigers only want Albert Almora, that's all it would take to make the trade a reality.

RF is their biggest weakness.

I'm thinking of switching difficulty back down to Average, because this is getting kind of silly. In real life Hairston was doing a lot worse and was still able to fetch an A-ball guy with at least some potential.

EDIT: When I switch to average, Below is fine. I'll see if I can add others.

bly08 · 07-13-2013, 01:04 AM

What are the contracts? I think positions like shortstop, catcher, and SPs are by default much more highly valued by the AI than outfielders or first basemen. In my experience it's way too easy to build a perfect team with trading on average.

ChrisG · 07-13-2013, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bly08

What are the contracts? I think positions like shortstop, catcher, and SPs are by default much more highly valued by the AI than outfielders or first basemen. In my experience it's way too easy to build a perfect team with trading on average.

Hairston is signed for $2.5M this year and next. Nothing outrageous. I even offered to kick in cash.

BeancheBlanco · 07-13-2013, 12:15 PM

If you set the trade difficulty to average, the AI can be abused so badly via trades. If you set the trade difficulty to hard, the AI's own mediocre and low end prospects are extremely over-valued. If you end up designing a trade to get one of their mediocre prospects, you can probably get one of their top prospects for not much more. In general, I just don't trade.

jmarsh123 · 07-15-2013, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeancheBlanco

If you set the trade difficulty to average, the AI can be abused so badly via trades. If you set the trade difficulty to hard, the AI's own mediocre and low end prospects are extremely over-valued. If you end up designing a trade to get one of their mediocre prospects, you can probably get one of their top prospects for not much more. In general, I just don't trade.

Yeah I've found this too. Maybe on hard turn it to favor veterans. There seems to be no middle ground. Normal difficulty makes it too easy to pry high ceiling prospects, but on hard, acquiring anyone without dangling a star or stud prospect seems too difficult.

Markus Heinsohn · 07-15-2013, 10:48 AM

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

mking55 · 07-15-2013, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

After all these years you've finally got trading close to being a challenge that it would be a step backward for you to ease up and make a "hard" setting easier. There is already an "easier" setting so if hard isn't good enough for some people, which is fine, they can use one of the easier settings.

How many years has it taken you to get trading to this level where it is pretty good? I would guess a lot of years. There is the odd one-sided trade that sneaks in, but that is going to happen.

Don't mess with success.

endgame · 07-15-2013, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mking55

After all these years you've finally got trading close to being a challenge that it would be a step backward for you to ease up and make a "hard" setting easier. There is already an "easier" setting so if hard isn't good enough for some people, which is fine, they can use one of the easier settings.

How many years has it taken you to get trading to this level where it is pretty good? I would guess a lot of years. There is the odd one-sided trade that sneaks in, but that is going to happen.

Don't mess with success.

Agreed. We've spent countless hours in this area. If anything, Normal would need tweaked to be a bit more difficult. FWIW

Syd Thrift · 07-15-2013, 11:14 AM

The reality is that a guy like this is just not going to get a lot of bites in terms of trade value in real life either. I'm not sure the AI knows how to handle kicking in salary so when it sees you shopping a guy with limited ability it assumes you're trying to salary-dump and reacts accordingly. A bad team will look at a guy like that and just think "if I hold out long enough, I can get him for free", and the chances that a good team has a hole that can be filled by a limited player like that are very, very low.

r0nster · 07-15-2013, 11:16 AM

Has anybody gotten a trade offer from a team that keeps offering you the same player but keeps going after 2 minor league players although the ones they ask for varies???? At first it was funny to me. Unfortunately the team didnt have anybody I really wanted when I hit discuss trade so I went after a few minor prospects but said no LOL

Cinnamon J. Scudworth · 07-15-2013, 11:57 AM

I don't have any issues with the "Hard" setting. It forces you to give up value to get value. I think it also makes some teams seem reluctant to trade in general for marginal upgrades, even if they are in "win now" mode, which I think is more realistic.

Depending on the circumstances, you can still find weird trades on Hard that would never happen in real life. Case in point, in the 2013 quick start I was able to swing the Mets' Ruben Tejada and good first halves by Shaun Marcum and Marlon Byrd for the Red Sox' Jackie Bradley Jr. and Xander Bogaerts. In that case, Boston was in a pennant race and had lost Jon Lester to injury for most of the year, but, still, a pretty far-fetched trade. But it'll never be perfect.

snepp · 07-15-2013, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

How about adding more granularity to the difficulty scale instead? I'd love to have an option about halfway between normal and hard.

Then everybody wins.

mpejkrm · 07-15-2013, 01:10 PM

Trading will never be perfect. I think it Hard the AI just overvalues most of their minor leaguers. You can still get them to trade for guys like Hairston though.

Ideally, I agree with endgame than Normal needs to be made a bit more difficult.

And one other note: contending teams trading top players for prospects doesn't make sense. It should work the other way. Sometimes I DO see rebuilding teams trade players for prospects, but far more often is it the other way.

Raidergoo · 07-15-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r0nster

Has anybody gotten a trade offer from a team that keeps offering you the same player but keeps going after 2 minor league players although the ones they ask for varies???? At first it was funny to me. Unfortunately the team didnt have anybody I really wanted when I hit discuss trade so I went after a few minor prospects but said no LOL

Yes, this happens to me a lot. Sometimes I start paying more attention to those prospects, and other times, I set them to a trade status of 'untouchable'.

da commish · 07-15-2013, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

I'd like to see trading difficulty on something like a 1-10 scale. I suppose now it is on a 1-5 scale, so it would essentially be adding midpoints to the current levels. Or, just adding a midpoint between average and hard would probably suffice.

SirMichaelJordan · 07-15-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

I am personally on very Hard and don't find anything too hard....

HH20xx convert · 07-15-2013, 01:55 PM

[QUOTE

And one other note: contending teams trading top players for prospects doesn't make sense. It should work the other way. Sometimes I DO see rebuilding teams trade players for prospects, but far more often is it the other way.[/QUOTE]

I think the single best change to trading AI would be more trades (including AI to AI controlled teams) near the trade deadline where contenders ship off some good prospects for veterans (and their salaries) that can help right now. Activity peaks near the trade deadline in OOTP, but most trades are not of this type. In real life, they are. Can't argue with a 10 point scale for trade difficulty if that is doable, too.

MizzouRah · 07-15-2013, 02:01 PM

I think "average" or "normal" is great this year. I used to use "hard" but the default is good imho. I've had some great trades and some downright horrible trades on the normal setting.

mpejkrm · 07-15-2013, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

[QUOTE

And one other note: contending teams trading top players for prospects doesn't make sense. It should work the other way. Sometimes I DO see rebuilding teams trade players for prospects, but far more often is it the other way.

I think the single best change to trading AI would be more trades (including AI to AI controlled teams) near the trade deadline where contenders ship off some good prospects for veterans (and their salaries) that can help right now. Activity peaks near the trade deadline in OOTP, but most trades are not of this type. In real life, they are. Can't argue with a 10 point scale for trade difficulty if that is doable, too.[/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I mean. You just worded it better.

Go take a look at the OP's dynasty report. Some of the trades in there downright don't make any sense at all.

RchW · 07-15-2013, 02:05 PM

One change I'd like to see is a different criteria applied to the value of waived players. Both ways.

It's annoying and inconsistent (if player value is used) to see a player on waivers yet if you try to trade the AI says you have no players who make it work. The AI should lower the expectation, since they don't value the player enough to keep them. This should apply especially to irrevocable waivers. Once players have cleared waivers, the value should be revised again.

Same should apply to player waived by the human team and claimed by several AI teams. It's inconsistent for the AI to value a player enough to claim him yet offer nothing at all in a trade.

It seems as if the two modules operate in a vacuum vs being part of the AI evaluation system.

07-13-2013, 12:54 AM	#1
ChrisG Major Leagues Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 324	Trading silliness If there's one thing that really really needs improvement IMO it's the AI trading. I changed the difficulty to Hard (preference is Neutral), as I've read on here that that's more realistic. Maybe in some cases it is but I think this is a little ludicrous. I've been trying to trade Scott Hairston. He's not having the greatest year. But he's still rated decently (2 stars, I believe) he's putting up a .690 OPS. Not that great, but not bad for a bench guy. I shopped him around and was offered quite a few decent major leaguers. But once I go to trade for minor leaguers....oh man. ...nope, Scott Hairston is not worth even a 27 year old, half star current/potential AAA left hander Duane Below. I could not get anyone in their low minors either, even half-star guys. And of course, the Tigers only want Albert Almora, that's all it would take to make the trade a reality. RF is their biggest weakness. I'm thinking of switching difficulty back down to Average, because this is getting kind of silly. In real life Hairston was doing a lot worse and was still able to fetch an A-ball guy with at least some potential. EDIT: When I switch to average, Below is fine. I'll see if I can add others. Last edited by ChrisG; 07-13-2013 at 12:57 AM.

07-13-2013, 01:04 AM	#2
bly08 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jun 2013 Posts: 105	What are the contracts? I think positions like shortstop, catcher, and SPs are by default much more highly valued by the AI than outfielders or first basemen. In my experience it's way too easy to build a perfect team with trading on average. Last edited by bly08; 07-13-2013 at 01:08 AM.

07-15-2013, 10:48 AM	#6
Markus Heinsohn Developer OOTP Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Germany Posts: 24,805	Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch. __________________ Buy Out of the Park Baseball 25 now! Download OOTP Go 25 for iOS Download OOTP Go 25 for Android

07-15-2013, 11:57 AM	#11
Cinnamon J. Scudworth All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 1,119	I don't have any issues with the "Hard" setting. It forces you to give up value to get value. I think it also makes some teams seem reluctant to trade in general for marginal upgrades, even if they are in "win now" mode, which I think is more realistic. Depending on the circumstances, you can still find weird trades on Hard that would never happen in real life. Case in point, in the 2013 quick start I was able to swing the Mets' Ruben Tejada and good first halves by Shaun Marcum and Marlon Byrd for the Red Sox' Jackie Bradley Jr. and Xander Bogaerts. In that case, Boston was in a pennant race and had lost Jon Lester to injury for most of the year, but, still, a pretty far-fetched trade. But it'll never be perfect. __________________ "Sometimes, this is like going to a grocery store. You’ve got a list until you get to the check-out stand. And then you start reading People magazine, and all this other [stuff] ends up in the basket." -Sandy Alderson on the MLB offseason Last edited by Cinnamon J. Scudworth; 07-15-2013 at 06:58 PM.

07-15-2013, 02:05 PM	#20
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	One change I'd like to see is a different criteria applied to the value of waived players. Both ways. It's annoying and inconsistent (if player value is used) to see a player on waivers yet if you try to trade the AI says you have no players who make it work. The AI should lower the expectation, since they don't value the player enough to keep them. This should apply especially to irrevocable waivers. Once players have cleared waivers, the value should be revised again. Same should apply to player waived by the human team and claimed by several AI teams. It's inconsistent for the AI to value a player enough to claim him yet offer nothing at all in a trade. It seems as if the two modules operate in a vacuum vs being part of the AI evaluation system. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

07-13-2013, 12:15 PM	#4
BeancheBlanco Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 146	If you set the trade difficulty to average, the AI can be abused so badly via trades. If you set the trade difficulty to hard, the AI's own mediocre and low end prospects are extremely over-valued. If you end up designing a trade to get one of their mediocre prospects, you can probably get one of their top prospects for not much more. In general, I just don't trade.

07-15-2013, 11:16 AM	#10
r0nster Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Location: Michigan Posts: 3,047	Has anybody gotten a trade offer from a team that keeps offering you the same player but keeps going after 2 minor league players although the ones they ask for varies???? At first it was funny to me. Unfortunately the team didnt have anybody I really wanted when I hit discuss trade so I went after a few minor prospects but said no LOL

07-15-2013, 01:10 PM	#13
mpejkrm All Star Reserve Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 951	Trading will never be perfect. I think it Hard the AI just overvalues most of their minor leaguers. You can still get them to trade for guys like Hairston though. Ideally, I agree with endgame than Normal needs to be made a bit more difficult. And one other note: contending teams trading top players for prospects doesn't make sense. It should work the other way. Sometimes I DO see rebuilding teams trade players for prospects, but far more often is it the other way.

07-15-2013, 01:55 PM	#17
HH20xx convert Minors (Triple A) Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 225	[QUOTE And one other note: contending teams trading top players for prospects doesn't make sense. It should work the other way. Sometimes I DO see rebuilding teams trade players for prospects, but far more often is it the other way.[/QUOTE] I think the single best change to trading AI would be more trades (including AI to AI controlled teams) near the trade deadline where contenders ship off some good prospects for veterans (and their salaries) that can help right now. Activity peaks near the trade deadline in OOTP, but most trades are not of this type. In real life, they are. Can't argue with a 10 point scale for trade difficulty if that is doable, too.

07-15-2013, 02:01 PM	#18
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Troy, Mo Posts: 6,252	I think "average" or "normal" is great this year. I used to use "hard" but the default is good imho. I've had some great trades and some downright horrible trades on the normal setting.