AI released top prospect for no reason?

[The Wolf]

I play with no minor league roster limits and with evaluation by stats, so I never have this problem. The fix is well-documented on this board, by the way.

1. Turn roster limits off on reserves/minor leagues

2. Click the button in settings for the AI to evaluate players by your evaluation settings and not by pure ratings.

3. Set your AI evaluation criteria to 0/67/22/11 or 10/60/20/10

4. Click the button there to recalculate player evaluations

5. Fixed

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

2. Click the button in settings for the AI to evaluate players by your evaluation settings and not by pure ratings.

I've seen this suggestion a couple of times and don't understand it. The common-sense reading of the checkbox is that it is about the cosmetic appearance of the OVR/POT star ratings that you see. The AI always goes by the "AI evaluation settings." That's what they are, by definition.

See the description in the manual:

By default, OOTP overall ratings are based purely on the player's pure ratings, and are not affected by the AI's evaluation of the player. You can change this to Based on AI evaluation if you want overall ratings to be based on the AI's evaluation instead.

As well as Markus' comment here when the feature was first introduced:

the next build will have an option called "Overall rating based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings" in the global options of the game setup. If enabled, then the overall stars use the AI evaluation settings (stats + ratings) instead of pure ratings. This may result in overall stars being higher than potential stars, since potential stars are always based on just pure potential ratings.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I've seen this suggestion a couple of times and don't understand it. The common-sense reading of the checkbox is that it is about the cosmetic appearance of the OVR/POT star ratings that you see. The AI always goes by the "AI evaluation settings." That's what they are, by definition.

See the description in the manual:



As well as Markus' comment here when the feature was first introduced:

When you have the CPU determine the overall ratings by this setting, it is going to give higher overall ratings (displayed or not) because of their statistical production, and not because of their ratings.

The CPU tends to make its managerial decisions based on a combination of overall ratings/potential ratings plus obviously more under the hood. If you are having the CPU determine the ratings mainly through the statistical production and not what the CPU is being told should be produced (the ratings), they make much better decisions.

In a pure ratings system, a player can be rated extremely well, and not produce at all, and he is still going to get the nod over the low-rated player who is actively producing -- because he's rated better, and not because of his production.

I hope this clears it up a bit. Also, if you are using this in historical leagues, you want to have the following checkmarked as well:



(I only have a historical loaded, so don't remember if this is also in MLB/fictional games at present.)

[sreem]

Originally Posted by THEMURPH

That is why I do not delegate Roster Moves, Transactions or Minor league signings/demotions to anyone. My manager is only responsible for Lineups, Depth and Pitching Staff.

You could switch to Commish mode and move the player back if you would like.

Agree completely!

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

The CPU tends to make its managerial decisions based on a combination of overall ratings/potential ratings plus obviously more under the hood. If you are having the CPU determine the ratings mainly through the statistical production and not what the CPU is being told should be produced (the ratings), they make much better decisions.

My point is that my reading of the option in question, and the documentation around it, is that the CPU already takes your AI evaluation settings into account. The checkbox does nothing, except make your view of the OVR/POT stars for each player match what the AI "sees" as opposed to being based on just ratings.

The fact that the AI evaluation settings were customizable before the checkbox even existed (per the Markus comment that I linked to) seems to verify that.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

My point is that my reading of the option in question, and the documentation around it, is that the CPU already takes your AI evaluation settings into account. The checkbox does nothing, except make your view of the OVR/POT stars for each player match what the AI "sees" as opposed to being based on just ratings.

The fact that the AI evaluation settings were customizable before the checkbox even existed (per the Markus comment that I linked to) seems to verify that.

All that fact proves is that he built the evaluation into the engine before he made it into a feature. He says in the same comment that in the next build (as it has since) it would default to "disabled" and the AI would evaluate strictly by pure ratings. He says right in the post that if its not checked that the AI will not take the statistics into account, and will only use the pure ratings.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

the next build will have an option called "Overall rating based on AI evaluation, not pure ratings" in the global options of the game setup. If enabled, then the overall stars use the AI evaluation settings (stats + ratings) instead of pure ratings. This may result in overall stars being higher than potential stars, since potential stars are always based on just pure potential ratings.

The default setting is 'disabled', meaning overall stars are now based on pure ratings by default.

If you play with it off, literally the only thing that matters is the ratings. Which is why you see players getting cut before their production dips, why you see the AI make what is on the surface a "ridiculous" trade.

Since you never have access to the PURE ratings (unless you edit) you have no idea what the CPU is evaluating from and it makes for the people talking about "ridiculous" trades, and people seeing their AI's cut players who are top producers, etc, etc.

[jaysdailydose]

Take two players, assume with me that they both have identical pure ratings.

Player A hits .325, 25 HR, 100 RBI
Player B hits .250, 15 HR, 60 RBI

Without the box checked, it is going to treat these two players identically. With the box checked, it doesn't.

EDIT: Unless, of course, you are using 100/0/0/0 as your evaluation measure. Then it would still treat the players exactly the same.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

He says right in the post that if its not checked that the AI will not take the statistics into account, and will only use the pure ratings.

No he doesn't.

"If enabled, then the overall stars use the AI evaluation settings (stats + ratings) instead of pure ratings. "

The overall stars are what you the human sees when you view the players. By default they are based on pure ratings. The AI doesn't see "stars." The option is telling you that if enabled, the star ratings you see when you view the player are going to be based on the evaluation criteria that the AI uses, rather than the pure ratings. But the AI evaluation criteria is always that mix of ratings and stats that you see in the AI options.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

No he doesn't.

"If enabled, then the overall stars use the AI evaluation settings (stats + ratings) instead of pure ratings. "

The overall stars are what you the human sees when you view the players. By default they are based on pure ratings. The AI doesn't see "stars." The option is telling you that if enabled, the star ratings you see when you view the player are going to be based on the evaluation criteria that the AI uses, rather than the pure ratings. But the AI evaluation criteria is always that mix of ratings and stats that you see in the AI options.

So, you don't think the AI evaluates off overall ratings at all?

It's actually pretty easy to test.

I don't think its some kind of major coincidence that those of us who play with the AI evaluation settings set the way we do (mind you, those of us who play this way pretty much all agree on exactly what the AI does) rarely, if ever, have complaints about stupidity from the AI...

Also, in the screenshot I showed you for my historical game, it very clearly shows where it has Roles and Positions determined by that AI Evaluation. By that evaluation, it is going to value the producing player more than the rated player.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

So, you don't think the AI evaluates off overall ratings at all?

I think the AI evaluates off of the AI evaluation percentages that are set in the AI preferences. Always.

It's actually pretty easy to test.

I don't think its some kind of major coincidence that those of us who play with the AI evaluation settings set the way we do (mind you, those of us who play this way pretty much all agree on exactly what the AI does) rarely, if ever, have complaints about stupidity from the AI...

Neither do I, actually. But I think it's because I really only play fictional leagues, and the default fictional league AI eval settings weigh ratings much less heavily than the MLB standard game (30% versus 65%).

Also, in the screenshot I showed you for my historical game, it very clearly shows where it has Roles and Positions determined by that AI Evaluation. By that evaluation, it is going to value the producing player more than the rated player.

I'm not sure what that option really has to do with this discussion. My understanding is the alternative to AI Evaluation there would base their roles/positions on their real life historical progression, not ratings.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

I'm not trying to be argumentative for the sake of arguing, but I'm pressing my point because I'm honestly confused how anyone could read the options/manual and come to the conclusion you are coming to.

It would be great to get some kind of "official" verification from the OOTP Developments crew because if you are right, then the wording of this option and its explanation needs serious revision. In OOTP 16, the check box and the AI evaluation settings aren't even on the same screen anymore, so there's really no reason to think that the check box would be needed to enable the AI evaluation settings.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I think the AI evaluates off of the AI evaluation percentages that are set in the AI preferences. Always.



Neither do I, actually. But I think it's because I really only play fictional leagues, and the default fictional league AI eval settings weigh ratings much less heavily than the MLB standard game (30% versus 65%).



I'm not sure what that option really has to do with this discussion. My understanding is the alternative to AI Evaluation there would base their roles/positions on their real life historical progression, not ratings.

That option demonstrates, if nothing else, that there were multiple game play uses intended for AI evaluation, with the numbers and the checkbox instead of just a cosmetic number displayed for OVR and POT.

I've just seen too much evidence to the contrary to think that using/not using the checkbox in conjunction with the values doesn't result in major changes to how the AI behaves in regards to its players.

[jaysdailydose]

The checkbox could mean nothing, you're right. But I know that I have gotten the best results out of all my years of playing with it on. I am only relaying what it seems like the AI does for me using these settings.

And I do not think you are being argumentative at all. Clarification couldn't hurt and can only help us all get the best results.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Here's a lengthy thread on the subject.



http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...e-ratings.html

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Here's a lengthy thread on the subject.



http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...e-ratings.html

Thanks. Good link. I see my question was actually brought up a couple of pages in, but I don't think it was really addressed authoritatively.

[NoOne]

i think there is another option that might be relevant. there are many posts here i skimmed through as best i can. only have a few minutes.

i read (have not looked myself) that on minor league strategy pages you can set the AI to play players based on potential and not current ratings. this might resolve some of the 'poor' decisions made by the AI that are listed in this thread.

the following is a generalization to apply to all situations, i'm not assuming anything about causality of the problems listed in this post: this is one of those situations in which everyone should remain calm. don't automatically assume it's the developer's fault or incompetence. this game's settings are quite complex. it's easy to think one thing, then realize it's your own fault. it's okay to ride the fence until all possibilities are exhausted.

[moalkha]

Originally Posted by jaysdailydose

The checkbox could mean nothing, you're right. But I know that I have gotten the best results out of all my years of playing with it on. I am only relaying what it seems like the AI does for me using these settings.

And I do not think you are being argumentative at all. Clarification couldn't hurt and can only help us all get the best results.

The check has nothing to do with the AI evaluation but it is only relevant for the player for how he prefers too see OVR ratings.
What matter for the AI are only the evaluation settings that can be changed even without checking the box.
It is actually quite easy to test. For example start a MLB game as GM of the Toronto Blue Jays, leave the box unchecked and ask your manager to set the pitching depth chart. After that, change the AI eval setting, without checking the box, and ask again your manager to set the pitching chart. According the the values you set you will see different depth charts while the OVR rating you see will remain the same.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by moalkha

The check has nothing to do with the AI evaluation but it is only relevant for the player for how he prefers too see OVR ratings.
What matter for the AI are only the evaluation settings that can be changed even without checking the box.
It is actually quite easy to test. For example start a MLB game as GM of the Toronto Blue Jays, leave the box unchecked and ask your manager to set the pitching depth chart. After that, change the AI eval setting, without checking the box, and ask again your manager to set the pitching chart. According the the values you set you will see different depth charts while the OVR rating you see will remain the same.

FWIW, I don't think this specific problem was because of the AI evaluation feature.

But not checking the AI Eval setting is part of the confusion because the user and the AI are not looking at the same player in question using the same criteria and scouting accuracy blur the lines even more.

Also the QuickStart AI eval settings are weighted like 65% on ratings. So unless you change that, the AI will sense a decline in ratings on the 1-200 scale and dump players before the ratings take a hit on the scales or before the stats start to decline.

[jaysdailydose]

Originally Posted by moalkha

The check has nothing to do with the AI evaluation but it is only relevant for the player for how he prefers too see OVR ratings.
What matter for the AI are only the evaluation settings that can be changed even without checking the box.
It is actually quite easy to test. For example start a MLB game as GM of the Toronto Blue Jays, leave the box unchecked and ask your manager to set the pitching depth chart. After that, change the AI eval setting, without checking the box, and ask again your manager to set the pitching chart. According the the values you set you will see different depth charts while the OVR rating you see will remain the same.

I am not trying to offend you, I just feel you are incorrect. I have tested that previously, just as you say. Not to say that just putting the evaluation settings in won't work, it does. The depth charts do change. I will not dispute that.

My contention is that the AI does indeed look at the DISPLAYED overall rating during its calculations. I could be wrong, but again, I've been testing this a long time and am only going off what I have personally experienced and discussed with others.

Anyone willing to run a test? Setup a game with all of the same settings, both having evals set 10/60/20/10. Click the check box on one, don't click it on the other. Sim 5 seasons and compare them. See which one gives the better AI behavior. I would imagine jazzrack would let us put some testing quickstarts up on the wiki for research and testing purposes.

[Okay]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I play with no minor league roster limits and with evaluation by stats, so I never have this problem. The fix is well-documented on this board, by the way.

1. Turn roster limits off on reserves/minor leagues

2. Click the button in settings for the AI to evaluate players by your evaluation settings and not by pure ratings.

3. Set your AI evaluation criteria to 0/67/22/11 or 10/60/20/10

4. Click the button there to recalculate player evaluations

5. Fixed

No this does not fix the problem in v16. I reported elsewhere that using settings highly geared towards 'stats only', in a ML historical league, the AI was dropping former rookie of the years, and many other young players with good stats, normally after their sophomore or junior year.