Are Some AI GMs Smarter Than Others?

[Brad K]

I realize different GMs have different characteristics but does it really matter whether for example a GM favors prospects or veterans in trades as long as he does it right?

[Brad K]

87 reads and no comments. For those who complain AI is weak, wouldn't it be an easy fix if some of the AI GMs are dumbed down in the name of realism?

I've noticed AI GMs and Managers don't vary far from the center in their preferences. This may be an attempt to keep them from doing really stupid things but it also means most of them aren't optimized. At least that's what I think might be happening.

[Daniel_09]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I realize different GMs have different characteristics but does it really matter whether for example a GM favors prospects or veterans in trades as long as he does it right?

If there are differences between different GMs, as they have several characteristics that one can see in their profile (favor veterans, frequency trades, etc...)

It also affects the settings with which you have the trades, in the global settings.

[Sweed]

For me it's a system that seems to be working fine. I don't see a need to artificially dumb down or "power up" any of the GMs.

There are plenty of dumb trades already "in the system" along with threads questioning those trades. If one takes out the "real player name syndrome" most of the trades are acceptable on a talent for talent basis. If the developers or users have ideas to make it better, that's fine. Just be very careful to not cause problems by fixing what isn't broke.

You asked. You got my 2 cents.

[md40022]

Yeah, I mean this forum is already packed solid with "stupid" things that the AI and computer GMs do - from "why would they waive this player" to trade logic called into question, to lineup construction and everything else.

Dumbing down a few of the GMs, when many people already have an issue with some computer GM logic to begin with, doesn't make sense to me. At the same time, if "smartening up" some computer GMs were possible then my follow question on that would be why aren't they smartened up as standard procedure.

[Brad K]

I'm suggesting if there are dumbed down GMs that they be made as smart as possible. The question is whether there is a dumb GM mode.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I'm suggesting if there are dumbed down GMs that they be made as smart as possible. The question is whether there is a dumb GM mode.

I think there are AI GMs that have extreme ratings that lead to bad decisions. For example, A.J. Preller is maxed on trade frequency and aggressiveness. He has zero player loyalty. He also heavily favors prospects and defense, and his trade preference is maxed toward rookies. Now, let's say that his owner gives him a goal to reduce payroll. Would he trade Soto for a collection of 2-3 star prospects? Likely.

I think Preller could be made "smarter" if those extreme tendencies were adjusted a bit toward the middle. I don't think that qualifies as a "dumb GM" mode, but I think the extreme ratings are in the game to make GMs more random - not to make them smarter. That's a questionable design decision in my opinion.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Now, let's say that his owner gives him a goal to reduce payroll. Would he trade Soto for a collection of 2-3 star prospects? Likely.

Have you seen this happen? It sounds like baseless supposition to me.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Have you seen this happen? It sounds like baseless supposition to me.

No, I have not seen that exact circumstance. Indeed, it is baseless supposition. So what?

[Brad K]

In an expansion draft GMs will protect a player or two who is not highly rated by my scout and who had a poor MLB career or perhaps none at all. Do those GMs know those players have been chosen by the game to far outperform real life? Or is protecting these players a result of making things look realistic, that is, GMs being programmed to intentionally protect a future failure?

If this is just for show the show should be eliminated. AI GMs have a tough enough time without programming them to make dumb decisions.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Brad K

In an expansion draft GMs will protect a player or two who is not highly rated by my scout and who had a poor MLB career or perhaps none at all. Do those GMs know those players have been chosen by the game to far outperform real life? Or is protecting these players a result of making things look realistic, that is, GMs being programmed to intentionally protect a future failure?

If this is just for show the show should be eliminated. AI GMs have a tough enough time without programming them to make dumb decisions.

Have you considered that your scout is only one of 30 in the league, and that other scouts might have different reports on players?

[Leo_The_Lip]

the only 'thing' I've noticed over time (the past ten versions or so) is that in an MLB game, I can always find one team that overvalues my players relative to its own. I can get rid of dead wood and pick up decent players from this team on a consistent basis for a long as I keep playing the save.

I cannot tell if it is a GM issue or a scout issue or both. But it always happens and it is not consistently the same team.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

the only 'thing' I've noticed over time (the past ten versions or so) is that in an MLB game, I can always find one team that overvalues my players relative to its own. I can get rid of dead wood and pick up decent players from this team on a consistent basis for a long as I keep playing the save.

I cannot tell if it is a GM issue or a scout issue or both. But it always happens and it is not consistently the same team.

I believe this is known as the Brodie Van Wagenen mode.

[Brad K]

Many people comment on having house rules to help AI. If there are indeed GMs who are intentionally weakened then not dumbing them down will improve the game. Well, except for those who expect to win 130 games every year. The nice thing about this method is it won't alter the league stats output.

[kidd_05_u2]

I still struggle to see why you would assume or even think that GMs could be intentionally weakened.

If GMs are protecting players they shouldn't, it is surely AI limitations tied to whatever settings you are using for their player evaluation and preferences.

[koohead]

perhaps "smarter" is not the right word. I would like to believe that all AI GMs in the game are not equal...meaning in cases where everything else is equal (current roster makeup, budget, farm system, etc), 2 GMs will view a trade proposal differently. I feel as if they do...I seem to have better trading success with certain teams/GMs than others. No data to back that up, and I can't speak to the value of each of those trades. Whether a FA signing or trade is better than another is pretty subjective, but even if you set the GM characteristics to be identical it would be cool if there was something under the hood that made 1 GM accept a deal or go after a FA while another would pass.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

I still struggle to see why you would assume or even think that GMs could be intentionally weakened.

If GMs are protecting players they shouldn't, it is surely AI limitations tied to whatever settings you are using for their player evaluation and preferences.

Yeah this feels like an awful lot of extra work to code something that they don’t even advertise to the public. When you see hoof prints, assume a horse, not a zebra.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Yeah this feels like an awful lot of extra work to code something that they don’t even advertise to the public. When you see hoof prints, assume a horse, not a zebra.

It doesn't take any additional coding. Just let them follow a far less than optimal strategy. That already exists. And some of them are probably fairly close to the midpoint for some eras.

OOTP can determine what's optimal in the OOTP sim. We cannot.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by Brad K

It doesn't take any additional coding. Just let them follow a far less than optimal strategy.

How does one AI GM follow a less optimal strategy than the others without it being coded into the game?

I think there's enough variance in outcomes that result from the GM and owner traits interacting with the AI eval settings (that the user can choose, I might add) so that a certain team could be seen as making dumb decisions. But I don't think that means the game is deliberately dumbing down a few AI GMs.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

How does one AI GM follow a less optimal strategy than the others without it being coded into the game?

That was my first thought. Sure each GM has their own bag of ratings on how they see skills and make decisions accordingly. That's what I want (variance) and get in OOTP now.

There's an MLB thread on FOFC where some Braves fans are talking up how smart they were to NOT pay Dansby to stay. While I think most Cubs fans (I'm one) would say we are very happy the Cubs went out and got him. Who's right?

It's variance, like this, that is a strength of OOTP, not a weakness. I think, with regard to the AI GMs, the OP is searching for a fix for something that isn't broke.

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think there's enough variance in outcomes that result from the GM and owner traits interacting with the AI eval settings (that the user can choose, I might add) so that a certain team could be seen as making dumb decisions. But I don't think that means the game is deliberately dumbing down a few AI GMs.

Totally agree with this. From what I see in my game these GMs are functioning fine. Like anything in a game it can always be improved, and that is already being done year to year in the all inclusive "improved AI" category that is listed in each year's release list of features.