Trading Difficulty Consensus

[PSUColonel]

What difficulty level do people feel re-creates the most realistic and challenging results for a modern day MLB save?

Note: this is trading difficulty NOT preference.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

What difficulty level do people feel re-creates the most realistic and challenging results for a modern day MLB save?

Note: this is trading difficulty NOT preference.

Hello PSU,

I use hardest setting and can still see realistic results.

You are really challenged on offers and usually no “freebies” or lopsided trades for the human.

The AI also occasionally offers good even swaps as well. Sure you also seem some crazy offers, but also blends in good swaps it seems.

In a Reds simulation I am doing the Rays offered me OF Luke Raley (prob 50) for C Tyler Stephenson (prob 50) and another lower tier prospect.
They had a need at catcher, we had a need for a corner OF.

This was after I had some needs in the OF with other off-season transactions so seemed like a good deal.


In a different sim with the Mariners, the Cardinals offered Tommy Edman (55 or so? I have potentials off so not sure) for P Bryan Woo (50) and P Emerson Hancock (45). Two young arms for a defensive player with versatility to play several positions at a plus to plus-plus, and hit some seems like a good offer?

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

Hello PSU,

I use hardest setting and can still see realistic results.

You are really challenged on offers and usually no “freebies” or lopsided trades for the human.

The AI also occasionally offers good even swaps as well. Sure you also seem some crazy offers, but also blends in good swaps it seems.

In a Reds simulation I am doing the Rays offered me OF Luke Raley (prob 50) for C Tyler Stephenson (prob 50) and another lower tier prospect.
They had a need at catcher, we had a need for a corner OF.

This was after I had some needs in the OF with other off-season transactions so seemed like a good deal.


In a different sim with the Mariners, the Cardinals offered Tommy Edman (55 or so? I have potentials off so not sure) for P Bryan Woo (50) and P Emerson Hancock (45). Two young arms for a defensive player with versatility to play several positions at a plus to plus-plus, and hit some seems like a good offer?

I agree and have ben using the hardest setting myself. (20). Just curious to see what others think and what kind of results they may have had.

[kq76]

Has anyone honestly tested all the settings? I imagine most just pick one and go with it. Some people might tweak it a couple times, but probably no more than that.

I couldn't help but laugh when I first saw them all after the increase. I just checked the game and there are 21, not 20. Wouldn't it be nice if the game gave us some idea how things changed at each setting? And if we're not going to bother doing that, why have so many? Is there really that much of a difference between 13 and 14 or even 13 and 15?

I use 13, but I don't trade much and I also don't try to rip off the AI either. If the deal seems reasonable I go with it, if it doesn't I don't. I could probably use #1 and it wouldn't much matter to me. Does the AI offer you trades that rip off the AI the easier the setting? If it does, then I guess one might want to increase it as a spam filter.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by kq76

Has anyone honestly tested all the settings? I imagine most just pick one and go with it. Some people might tweak it a couple times, but probably no more than that.

I couldn't help but laugh when I first saw them all after the increase. I just checked the game and there are 21, not 20. Wouldn't it be nice if the game gave us some idea how things changed at each setting? And if we're not going to bother doing that, why have so many? Is there really that much of a difference between 13 and 14 or even 13 and 15?

I use 13, but I don't trade much and I also don't try to rip off the AI either. If the deal seems reasonable I go with it, if it doesn't I don't. I could probably use #1 and it wouldn't much matter to me. Does the AI offer you trades that rip off the AI the easier the setting? If it does, then I guess one might want to increase it as a spam filter.

I thought 20 was the max...that is definitely news to me that there are 21 lol. I am figuring most people are probable somewhere between 17-21. I included as many options as the poll would allow for though.

I am assuming there are likely some differences though. I think 17 might be the default. (not sure anymore though). I also suppose it depends on whether someone is using the reputation system, or the hard trading mode.

Personally I am using the hard trading mode and not the reputation system. I have the difficulty at the maximum. (21 now I guess). The reason I do this is because I feel the "make this work now" button was an abomination from the beginning and made trades way to easy..even on the most difficult setting. Now, it is still very difficult, but I don't have as much feedback from the opposing GM, but I can't "nickel & dime" the AI either. So, since it IS so hard...I figure the reputation system really isn't needed. I find myself having to make competent proposals this way if I ever want to get a deal done.

[majesty95]

I can’t get much at one right from default. Can’t trade any veteran at the deadline. Have no idea how guys sign aging vets and deal them at the deadline.

I also don’t use coaches or scouting though

[Pelican]

In the past increasing the difficulty seemed to decrease the number of trades, even though I left the trade frequency slider alone. I guess I understood difficulty to mean that the AI would be increasingly less reasonable in negotiating with me. What I did not foresee is that the AI would be tough when negotiating deals with itself, too.

I chose 14 as an estimate, since the slider does not have numbers. This to me reflects moving a few clicks up from the center toward difficult. It really reduces the number and quality of offers when you shop a player, which is how I initiate most deals.

I try to remember to pull back on trade frequency around the trade deadline, and/or increase difficulty. The AI has a tendency to go crazy, and not all the trades make sense, in terms of which teams should be buyers and sellers.

I’m still not sure how the AI handles an expiring free agent contract, as in how much would two months of Shohei Ohtani be worth to a team?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Personally I am using the hard trading mode and not the reputation system.

I do the opposite. I don't use hard mode, but I do use the reputation system.

Rudel made a post about hard trading that I agree with. It was something along the lines of it being a feature to hide bad AI. I haven't played with it so my opinion shouldn't be given that much weight, but from just reading about it that's the impression I got too. It's harsh, I know, but it's not the route I would have gone.

In the same thread texasmame also made the point that it's like a pony express mode and I agree with that as well. MathBandit replied that humans don't reply like the AI and while that is true, there is also a wide range of how humans react. Some will offer a well thought deal right away that all you have to do is say yes to, whereas some will just say, "hey, I'd like to trade with you", and others are somewhere inbetween. And if not enabling this mode means not slowing things to a crawl, then I'm not enabling it. Maybe some people like long drawn out trade talks, but I sure don't. If you want me to trade with you, make it easy for me.

In the end, I think it comes down to it's a feature for some and not for others. For people like me who don't trade much or who try not to fleece the AI, there's no point to it. For people who like to trade a lot and who would rather the game put up barriers than ask themselves whether it's a fair trade, then maybe it is for them.

As for the reputation system. I don't know. I like the sound of it and I'm giving it a try, but I'm not sold on it. I mean, I totally get not wanting to listen to any more offers from someone who doesn't complete deals, but when we think of "trading reputation" don't we think of teams, like the Rays, who usually seem to get the best of a trade years down the road? Rich Grisham of OOTP talked about both in an interview, but which is it? Is it the former like the setting reads in OOTP, or is it the latter like most of us would probably think without reading about it, or is it somehow both? If it's both, that's awfully messy. They should probably be separated. For example, while the Rays might have a rep of winning trades, do the Rays not also make a fair amount of trades? The former would be good for them, bad for us, but the latter would be good for both them and you, no? I could see teams falling in each of the 4 buckets (think of it as a simple 2x2 matrix), but OOTP seems to think it's only a 2 bucket concept.

Where is a GM or team's trading reputation listed anyway? I can't find it. Surely "Reputation" is just the old overall rep. Is it a hidden rating? If so, that's no fun. I want to know whether I and my rivals have good reps or not.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by kq76

For people who like to trade a lot and who would rather the game put up barriers than ask themselves whether it's a fair trade, then maybe it is for them.

The rest of your post is reasonable, but I do want to quibble with this as being a rather unfair characterization. I don't think it's accurate or helpful to portray people who prefer hard mode as only liking it since they're unable or unwilling to police themselves.

To me, I look at it like the trade of Moreno and Gurriel for Varsho. Would there have probably been a trade where the throw-in is a low-probability prospect rather than Gurriel? Absolutely. Would that have made the Jays a better team for 2023 and beyond? Yes. But Atkins didn't have the luxury of asking the DBacks GM to provide a comprehensive list of every single player in the Jays org that he would accept as the throw-in on the deal and so to make sure the deal got across the line, accepted the deal with Gurriel.

I don't think any amount of 'policing yourself' can capture that, since a deal of Moreno + a AA 40-value guy would also have been *fair* (heck, many would argue that Moreno alone is an overpay, though I disagree). But for some trades you might have to decide if you want to try and nickel-and-dime it to give up slightly less, or want to give up a bit more to get the deal done today- and I find that both really enjoyable, and much more in line with my experience playing against other people.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

The rest of your post is reasonable, but I do want to quibble with this as being a rather unfair characterization. I don't think it's accurate or helpful to portray people who prefer hard mode as only liking it since they're unable or unwilling to police themselves.

To me, I look at it like the trade of Moreno and Gurriel for Varsho. Would there have probably been a trade where the throw-in is a low-probability prospect rather than Gurriel? Absolutely. Would that have made the Jays a better team for 2023 and beyond? Yes. But Atkins didn't have the luxury of asking the DBacks GM to provide a comprehensive list of every single player in the Jays org that he would accept as the throw-in on the deal and so to make sure the deal got across the line, accepted the deal with Gurriel.

I don't think any amount of 'policing yourself' can capture that, since a deal of Moreno + a AA 40-value guy would also have been *fair* (heck, many would argue that Moreno alone is an overpay, though I disagree). But for some trades you might have to decide if you want to try and nickel-and-dime it to give up slightly less, or want to give up a bit more to get the deal done today- and I find that both really enjoyable, and much more in line with my experience playing against other people.

I like your example, but I don't agree that the Jays had to throw-in Gurriel, unless the DBacks said Gurriel is a dealbreaker and I highly doubt that happened. Probably next to no one in Jays fandom was bothered that Gurriel was a part of the deal. I think most of us were worried than Moreno would turn out like he has. But the fact that Gurriel was a part of it, on top of it, was very much a huh? moment. At least for me it was. I just figured, okay, maybe the Jays are convinced Varsho is a heck of a lot better than his stats indicate. It's not like I watched a lot of DBacks games, I could only see his stats.

But it comes back to Gurriel being a "throw-in". I guess we can agree to disagree, but if the Jays felt they had to throw-in Gurriel to get it done, then I think they were putting up their own "barrier". They could have thrown-in an even better player too if they wanted to play it like that. Or, they could have tried something else. It's not like they had to get rid of Moreno (I wouldn't have, I would have wanted to see him for at least 1 year in the bigs, I think it's absolutely foolish to trade a young phenom, especially at a key position) and other than his defense has Varsho ever really shown any great promise? Maybe the DBacks were itching to unload Varsho to make room for Carroll, but if that was the case the Jays shouldn't have been in such a rush to get him. If they couldn't get Varsho, they could have acquired someone else. I love Varsho, I do, and I hope the world for him, but he never was the next Mike Trout.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kq76

I do the opposite. I don't use hard mode, but I do use the reputation system.

Rudel made a post about hard trading that I agree with. It was something along the lines of it being a feature to hide bad AI. I haven't played with it so my opinion shouldn't be given that much weight, but from just reading about it that's the impression I got too. It's harsh, I know, but it's not the route I would have gone.

In the same thread texasmame also made the point that it's like a pony express mode and I agree with that as well. MathBandit replied that humans don't reply like the AI and while that is true, there is also a wide range of how humans react. Some will offer a well thought deal right away that all you have to do is say yes to, whereas some will just say, "hey, I'd like to trade with you", and others are somewhere inbetween. And if not enabling this mode means not slowing things to a crawl, then I'm not enabling it. Maybe some people like long drawn out trade talks, but I sure don't. If you want me to trade with you, make it easy for me.

In the end, I think it comes down to it's a feature for some and not for others. For people like me who don't trade much or who try not to fleece the AI, there's no point to it. For people who like to trade a lot and who would rather the game put up barriers than ask themselves whether it's a fair trade, then maybe it is for them.

As for the reputation system. I don't know. I like the sound of it and I'm giving it a try, but I'm not sold on it. I mean, I totally get not wanting to listen to any more offers from someone who doesn't complete deals, but when we think of "trading reputation" don't we think of teams, like the Rays, who usually seem to get the best of a trade years down the road? Rich Grisham of OOTP talked about both in an interview, but which is it? Is it the former like the setting reads in OOTP, or is it the latter like most of us would probably think without reading about it, or is it somehow both? If it's both, that's awfully messy. They should probably be separated. For example, while the Rays might have a rep of winning trades, do the Rays not also make a fair amount of trades? The former would be good for them, bad for us, but the latter would be good for both them and you, no? I could see teams falling in each of the 4 buckets (think of it as a simple 2x2 matrix), but OOTP seems to think it's only a 2 bucket concept.

Where is a GM or team's trading reputation listed anyway? I can't find it. Surely "Reputation" is just the old overall rep. Is it a hidden rating? If so, that's no fun. I want to know whether I and my rivals have good reps or not.

FWIW, I don't trade a lot, I don't try to fleece the AI and never have, but I like the new hard trading and reputation. With that in mind I like the fast replies I get on "trade deadline day" and the negotiation process of make and offer and wait for the reply before deadline day.

I don't think I could disagree more with the example you linked from Rudel, IE designed to hide bad AI. The hard mode in conjunction with reputation was designed to prevent the "bait and switch" that would not be tolerated in a real life negotiation but can be done in a game. "Hey we'll give you Joe Baseball. Oh, you agree? Well let me change that to Joe Cannot-hit. How about that instead? Oh, you like that one too? Well how about Joe Cup-O-Coffee? That one works? Sweet, you've got a deal!". As a GM I think I would make or take calls based on how the other GM had dealt with me in the past. IE his reputation based on our history, not on how well players he traded for did over the ensuing years. As a GM why would I care?

I'm retired now but I can assure you when I was working if someone made a habit of reneging on deals they offered we wouldn't have much to talk about in the future.

I agree that a player like you or me that doesn't try to fleece the AI, the reputation feature doesn't do much, it doesn't have to. The trouble is every year all of the threads talking about "bait and switch" trades and how bad OOTP's trade module was. Doesn't the reputation feature actually add to the AI's ability to ignore these types of offers rather than hide bad AI? What should they have done to "fix" the bait and switch? Maybe you have an idea on a different way to do it? I'm sure there could be other under the hood methods to get to the same place but users might be complaining about why their trades weren't going through. With the new hard trade/reputation model they should be able to understand the why, and turn it off if they don't like it.

Reputation as a fan? I probably think about how teams like the Rays or Twins make what ends up being good deals. As noted above as a real GM I can't see where I would care.

Where is the reputation shown? On the trade screen, IIRC above the box you put in your offered players. I think it's also shown and updated in the trade setting screen? The AI GM's don't have a reputation bar that I know of. The AI does negotiate with "include any one of these listed players and we'll have a deal" and once a solid offer is out there it won't renege or go to bait and switch. Not sure why it would need one?

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Sweed

What should they have done to "fix" the bait and switch? Maybe you have an idea on a different way to do it?

To get around the bait and switch problem, why doesn't OOTP just have the AI refuse to go lower for awhile. That is, if say the AI's value of the player I want is 60 and I offer a player the AI values at 65, then maybe OOTP could just have the AI reject any other offer lower than 65, at least for some time, like a few months. That way the AI could still accept a different offer of 5 or more extra value, but anything less it wouldn't. Yeah, I know, assigning good values is not so easy, but overall I don't think the idea sounds that hard to pull off.

You could also add in some # of offers before the AI gets annoyed and tells you to piss off. You could even make this # of offers depend on a GM affability rating. A GM like you and I might tell the human to go take a hike after receiving 1 bad offer while another AI GM might be willing to go up to 3 or 4 bad offers before they tell you off.

If others like this brick wall hard trading mode then good for them, but I do think it's likely to impede us from coming up with an even better solution.

You also seem to be combining the hard trading mode and reputation system into one idea and I'm not. I'm not a hard no on the reputation system like I am on hard mode. I think there's a good idea there (when it comes to the reputation system), I'm just not clear on exactly what it's doing and I'm therefore skeptical of it.

Originally Posted by Sweed

Where is the reputation shown? On the trade screen, IIRC above the box you put in your offered players. I think it's also shown and updated in the trade setting screen?

Thanks for that, but I'm on the trading screen right now (see below) and I still don't see it. I checked and I definitely have the reputation system box checked. Maybe I have something else enabled that's blocking it. EDIT: That was it. It's because I play "act as". I tested it by turning it off and accepting a job instead and then it popped up. Unfortunately, playing "act as" breaks other parts of the game, like scouting, but it's the only way I like to play now. Oh well. Maybe they'll fix it, but fixing scouting would be a much higher priority for me.

Originally Posted by Sweed

Not sure why it would need one?

Like any personality-like rating, just because, I'd like to see what its reputation is. It adds flavour. A lot of things that add flavour aren't "needed", but they still add to enjoyment of the game. If the game is going to assign us a rating, I don't see why it can't assign itself a rating too. It'd certainly be neat to see one of your rivals have a good or bad reputation. I think the Rays and Mariners (different) reputations add to the enjoyment of MLB.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by kq76

You also seem to be combining the hard trading mode and reputation system into one idea and I'm not. I'm not a hard no on the reputation system like I am on hard mode. I think there's a good idea there (when it comes to the reputation system), I'm just not clear on exactly what it's doing and I'm therefore skeptical of it.

I'm not Sweed ofc buy my understanding is that Reputation *is* for Hard mode. I mean, you can turn it on for non-Hardmode, but the only thing it does (as far as I am aware) is punish players for reneging on committed deals; something that doesn't happen outside of Hard mode (since the whole point of Hard mode is to force the player to commit to a deal without knowing if it will be agreed to).

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by kq76

To get around the bait and switch problem, why doesn't OOTP just have the AI refuse to go lower for awhile. That is, if say the AI's value of the player I want is 60 and I offer a player the AI values at 65, then maybe OOTP could just have the AI reject any other offer lower than 65, at least for some time, like a few months. That way the AI could still accept a different offer of 5 or more extra value, but anything less it wouldn't. Yeah, I know, assigning good values is not so easy, but overall I don't think the idea sounds that hard to pull off.

You could also add in some # of offers before the AI gets annoyed and tells you to piss off. You could even make this # of offers depend on a GM affability rating. A GM like you and I might tell the human to go take a hike after receiving 1 bad offer while another AI GM might be willing to go up to 3 or 4 bad offers before they tell you off.

If others like this brick wall hard trading mode then good for them, but I do think it's likely to impede us from coming up with an even better solution.

Sure, as I said there could be other ways to make the model. OOTP chose the one it did, so at least the developers did something that will curb the bait and switch tactic. To me that is improved AI, that is not hidden under the hood, and allows a player to see/know why their trade didn't go through.

To me it works in a way that is easy to understand and gets the result it was designed to do. It's a big win IMHO. I believe the only glitch was a human's rep was being dinged for refusing the AI's initial offer, but that was fixed in one of the first patches. Since then we have a new feature that is working as intended. Sometimes simple does the job.

Originally Posted by kq76

You also seem to be combining the hard trading mode and reputation system into one idea and I'm not. I'm not a hard no on the reputation system like I am on hard mode. I think there's a good idea there (when it comes to the reputation system), I'm just not clear on exactly what it's doing and I'm therefore skeptical of it.

Yes, MathBandit, as far as I know, is correct in this post..

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I'm not Sweed ofc buy my understanding is that Reputation *is* for Hard mode. I mean, you can turn it on for non-Hardmode, but the only thing it does (as far as I am aware) is punish players for reneging on committed deals; something that doesn't happen outside of Hard mode (since the whole point of Hard mode is to force the player to commit to a deal without knowing if it will be agreed to).

Reputation is based on whether or not you follow through on submitted proposals or have a habit of reneging. Nothing more. You make an offer to the AI, it accepts, you renege, and your reputation suffers. Do it enough and the AI "ghosts" you for a period of time. How long? I have no idea, I don't renege.

Originally Posted by kq76

Thanks for that, but I'm on the trading screen right now (see below) and I still don't see it. I checked and I definitely have the reputation system box checked. Maybe I have something else enabled that's blocking it. EDIT: That was it. It's because I play "act as". I tested it by turning it off and accepting a job instead and then it popped up. Unfortunately, playing "act as" breaks other parts of the game, like scouting, but it's the only way I like to play now. Oh well. Maybe they'll fix it, but fixing scouting would be a much higher priority for me.

"act as" and "commish mode" are ways I never play continuously, with "act as" being a solid never. I'd be wondering too much about side effects. IOW with my style of play almost anything I say will not be of help.

I of course enter commish mode from time to time. Mostly to add birth cities to players that don't have them (at one time my game, v21 IRRC, glitched and some players were not being given birth cities). I do wonder why birth city is restricted to commish mode? I suppose so online players can't make changes to move players closer to their city to get an advantage in resigning them? IDK. I do know in single player it's a PIA to not be able to make that a simple change like name or nick name. Is what it is.

Originally Posted by kq76

Like any personality-like rating, just because, I'd like to see what its reputation is. It adds flavour. A lot of things that add flavour aren't "needed", but they still add to enjoyment of the game. If the game is going to assign us a rating, I don't see why it can't assign itself a rating too. It'd certainly be neat to see one of your rivals have a good or bad reputation. I think the Rays and Mariners (different) reputations add to the enjoyment of MLB.

I'm all for things that add depth and flavor, but as reputation is designed in OOTP it wouldn't tell you anything. IOW the AI doesn't renege on deals so theirs really no reputation to change. But....

Every AI GM in the game has a "trade strategy" that is a part of their card.
Frequency, aggressiveness, loyalty, and preference. I would say this is their reputation. Maybe all or some of it could be added to the trade screen to get the type or reputation you want to see? Until your post I never really gave it a thought. After your post I do think it would be a nice addition to the trade screen.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I'm not Sweed ofc buy my understanding is that Reputation *is* for Hard mode. I mean, you can turn it on for non-Hardmode, but the only thing it does (as far as I am aware) is punish players for reneging on committed deals; something that doesn't happen outside of Hard mode (since the whole point of Hard mode is to force the player to commit to a deal without knowing if it will be agreed to).

I agree...another thing to remember for people is that the opposing GM will still give a counter offer sometimes and will list player(s) it would take to complete the deal....you just can't nickel & dime the AI to death....which is the way I have always felt it should be.

You also DO get some feedback from your assistant GM telling you whether or not he feels the other team may or may not bite. This is a good feature, as it still gives you some guidance without being too specific...so weather you use the reputation system or not, you will have a "ballpark" idea of what the opposing GMs reaction may be.

This is why I don't use the reputations system...if I am using hard mode, and have the difficulty at the highest setting, I just am not going to be able to lowball the AI if I am ever going to be serious about completing a trade. So this way, I am usually proposing at least somewhat decent deal...and I don't think I should be punished for that. The fact that we don't really know what the parameters of the reputation system is good for those who use it, but as I said, if you really want to help better your team via trading, you are going to have to come to the table with a reasonable competent trade proposal.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I agree...another thing to remember for people is that the opposing GM will still give a counter offer sometimes and will list player(s) it would take to complete the deal....you just can't nickel & dime the AI to death....which is the way I have always felt it should be.

You also DO get some feedback from your assistant GM telling you whether or not he feels the other team may or may not bite. This is a good feature, as it still gives you some guidance without being too specific...so weather you use the reputation system or not, you will have a "ballpark" idea of what the opposing GMs reaction may be.

This is why I don't use the reputations system...if I am using hard mode, and have the difficulty at the highest setting, I just am not going to be able to lowball the AI if I am ever going to be serious about completing a trade. So this way, I am usually proposing at least somewhat decent deal...and I don't think I should be punished for that. The fact that we don't really know what the parameters of the reputation system is good for those who use it, but as I said, if you really want to help better your team via trading, you are going to have to come to the table with a reasonable competent trade proposal.

For players that make reasonable offers and follow through the reputation will never be an issue. IE for a player like you, reputation "on" or "off" won't really matter. And honestly I don't think the first offer has to be all that reasonable (more on that later), it's following through on trades the AI accepts, or not, that is the trigger.

The only way your reputation gets penalized is if you make an offer, the AI accepts, and you then renege (don't complete the trade). Offer players A & B, have the AI accept, renege and turn down the deal. You should get dinged. Come back to the same GM and offer players A & C and he may or may not talk to you. I don't renege so don't know exactly when the AI will "suspend trading" with you, or how long it will be before it will "take your calls" again. IOW with my trading style this could be broke and I wouldn't know it.

Making an initial offer to the AI should not trigger a ding to your reputation. I've made offers I thought were fair but got the "you must be joking" type of response from the AI, but didn't get dinged. I was going by the AI's "needs" as listed with the colored circles on the trade screen. Added another player at a position of need and the AI asked me to submit and it would get back to me. No reputation ding for the first offer. AI came back a day or two later and accepted, and asked me to complete the deal, which I did. The only way I should get dinged would be if I DID NOT complete the deal.

If you're getting dinged for an initial offer that is, I believe a bug (there was an issue on release that was fixed in a patch though I don't think it was on initial offers?), and something I have not seen in my game. I will admit I could be wrong here and haven't seen a ding for a "first offer" because I don't make ridiculous "first offers".

The new systems, as far as I can tell, are working quite well getting the desired results. A welcome addition to the game.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

For players that make reasonable offers and follow through the reputation will never be an issue. IE for a player like you, reputation "on" or "off" won't really matter. And honestly I don't think the first offer has to be all that reasonable (more on that later), it's following through on trades the AI accepts, or not, that is the trigger.

The only way your reputation gets penalized is if you make an offer, the AI accepts, and you then renege (don't complete the trade). Offer players A & B, have the AI accept, renege and turn down the deal. You should get dinged. Come back to the same GM and offer players A & C and he may or may not talk to you. I don't renege so don't know exactly when the AI will "suspend trading" with you, or how long it will be before it will "take your calls" again. IOW with my trading style this could be broke and I wouldn't know it.

Making an initial offer to the AI should not trigger a ding to your reputation. I've made offers I thought were fair but got the "you must be joking" type of response from the AI, but didn't get dinged. I was going by the AI's "needs" as listed with the colored circles on the trade screen. Added another player at a position of need and the AI asked me to submit and it would get back to me. No reputation ding for the first offer. AI came back a day or two later and accepted, and asked me to complete the deal, which I did. The only way I should get dinged would be if I DID NOT complete the deal.

If you're getting dinged for an initial offer that is, I believe a bug (there was an issue on release that was fixed in a patch though I don't think it was on initial offers?), and something I have not seen in my game. I will admit I could be wrong here and haven't seen a ding for a "first offer" because I don't make ridiculous "first offers".

The new systems, as far as I can tell, are working quite well getting the desired results. A welcome addition to the game.

Actually I was unaware of this. So if the only time my reputation really suffered ISS when I go back on a deal, that DOES make some sense. Consequently I may now find my self enabling this feature. Good to know…Thank You!

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Actually I was unaware of this. So if the only time my reputation really suffered ISS when I go back on a deal, that DOES make some sense. Consequently I may now find my self enabling this feature. Good to know…Thank You!

Other than the release issue, that was patched, it has worked for me and my "fair" trade offers. I don't think you'll have any issues but, if you do...

Report back and I'll hang my head in shame.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by kq76

I do the opposite. I don't use hard mode, but I do use the reputation system.

Rudel made a post about hard trading that I agree with. It was something along the lines of it being a feature to hide bad AI. I haven't played with it so my opinion shouldn't be given that much weight, but from just reading about it that's the impression I got too. It's harsh, I know, but it's not the route I would have gone.

In the same thread texasmame also made the point that it's like a pony express mode and I agree with that as well. MathBandit replied that humans don't reply like the AI and while that is true, there is also a wide range of how humans react. Some will offer a well thought deal right away that all you have to do is say yes to, whereas some will just say, "hey, I'd like to trade with you", and others are somewhere inbetween. And if not enabling this mode means not slowing things to a crawl, then I'm not enabling it. Maybe some people like long drawn out trade talks, but I sure don't. If you want me to trade with you, make it easy for me.

In the end, I think it comes down to it's a feature for some and not for others. For people like me who don't trade much or who try not to fleece the AI, there's no point to it. For people who like to trade a lot and who would rather the game put up barriers than ask themselves whether it's a fair trade, then maybe it is for them.

As for the reputation system. I don't know. I like the sound of it and I'm giving it a try, but I'm not sold on it. I mean, I totally get not wanting to listen to any more offers from someone who doesn't complete deals, but when we think of "trading reputation" don't we think of teams, like the Rays, who usually seem to get the best of a trade years down the road? Rich Grisham of OOTP talked about both in an interview, but which is it? Is it the former like the setting reads in OOTP, or is it the latter like most of us would probably think without reading about it, or is it somehow both? If it's both, that's awfully messy. They should probably be separated. For example, while the Rays might have a rep of winning trades, do the Rays not also make a fair amount of trades? The former would be good for them, bad for us, but the latter would be good for both them and you, no? I could see teams falling in each of the 4 buckets (think of it as a simple 2x2 matrix), but OOTP seems to think it's only a 2 bucket concept.

Where is a GM or team's trading reputation listed anyway? I can't find it. Surely "Reputation" is just the old overall rep. Is it a hidden rating? If so, that's no fun. I want to know whether I and my rivals have good reps or not.

I am flattered, I did not think anyone read anything I posted.