Best Trading Setting

[bly08]

Something to consider for those who play with ratings; it seems that the more emphasis placed on ratings for AI Eval, the harder it is to fleece the AI. I played last year's version with 0/67/22/11 and only potential, no actual ratings, and trading was much easier than when I used 40/30/20/10 in the past. I've now switched to 25/25/25/25 but I'm not sure which setting is the best.

An example, I'm able to trade Mookie Betts almost straight up for Paul Goldschmidt when using <10 for ratings weight on hard/neutral or favor prospects. This is on the first day of the 2016 season. I'm guessing Arizona would need a lot more value to make this trade in real life, and if I bump up the ratings weight to 40, they will ask for someone else of equal value to Mookie. I don't know much about Arizona's situation but I'm guessing they would have no need for Mookie, as Goldschimdt is the sure thing and face of the franchise.

[PSUColonel]

This could very well be true...I play 40/30/20/10 and still find neutral to be challenging but fair....I do find the point that fair just for the sake of fair isn't always great either however, and that team needs should play a role. ( I cannot confirm whether or not team needs are taken into consideration more or less based on difficulty)

[ttaka808]

I trust the guys to make a good balance and fairness for trades and that's why I stick with average and neutral. There will always be ridiculous trades no matter which setting you choose.

[jpeters1734]

best setting...Trades disabled, contract extensions disabled

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by ttaka808

There will always be ridiculous trades no matter which setting you choose.

Let's hope so, because they certainly occur in the MLB. Shelby Miller trade, anyone?

[PSUColonel]

I do think putting a higher value on ratings helps if you are using neutral....it becomes a midway point between hard and average

[PSUColonel]

Like 50/25/20/5

[bly08]

So the reason I've used heavily favor prospects for a while now is because I read that it it balances the league better and makes it so that smaller market teams hold onto their prospects. Is this actually the case?

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This could very well be true...I play 40/30/20/10 and still find neutral to be challenging but fair....I do find the point that fair just for the sake of fair isn't always great either however, and that team needs should play a role. ( I cannot confirm whether or not team needs are taken into consideration more or less based on difficulty)

I'd say, by the way, that I wasn't saying that it needs to be hard to take into account the other team's needs. It probably does that more or less equally on all settings.

However, on Hard is where it's balanced in the sense that to get fair value you need to meet the other team's needs. On Normal you can actually make a "profit" in talent if you meet the other team's needs (which isn't the problem; the problem is no "tax" for reconfiguring talent otherwise).

Somewhere along the line many years ago a baseball analyst I read talked about real life trades as talent vs. configuration, that if you want to reconfigure your talent to where you want it you have to take a loss in total talent-- or you can gain talent (get more than you give up) by allowing another team to reconfigure its talent in a trade with you.

I just find Hard more realistic because it makes the other team selfish rather than predisposed to cooperate. Normal (and as I said before I probably last used Normal a couple of versions ago, so it could possibly have changed) would let me trade a player as one position for an equally good player at another position easily. The other team just won't do it if their player is actually better. Hard offers the challenge of the other team essentially asking "Why do we gain?"

If I were one of the devs working on the text for when a trade is turned down, in Hard I'd make an AI response (when appropriate) be, "I realize this trade is balanced, but it doesn't improve our team. We don't need X, because we're happy with Y at third base. You have to offer us someone we see starting for us now or in the future or we won't consider it."

That, IMO, is the kind of logic the AI should use.

As you state the understanding of, balance is not enough.

[PSUColonel]

started trying close to the default settings, and there is no doubt that going 60/20/15/5 AI evaluation makes trading on average tougher and therefore much more realistic than the "hard" setting", which will only allow trades if it's a lopsided deal in favor of the AI.

[PSUColonel]

What I haven't tried yet however, is using "hard", and lowering the ratings evaluation to something like 40/30/20/10...which theoretically would/could/should have the same effect.

It seems the higher the ratings evaluation, the stingier the AI is. SO lowering them using the hard setting, and increasing them using the average setting would seem to make sense.

Using average setting, I feel 60/20/15/5 is about right, in terms of challenge and fairness, and therefore realism.

[naocist]

Is it me or average really hard for me?? Granted, I've just bought this game and a newbie player . No team is willing to make a trade, unless I give up my star player. Any tips?

[PSUColonel]

Can those who use "favor prospects" explain why they feel this is a more realistic setting over neutral? Is it more that you are just simply trying to make the game more challenging, and not worrying about realism so much, or do you really feel this is a better setting, even though the game favors prospects a bit on it's own while on numeral.

[Anyone]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Can those who use "favor prospects" explain why they feel this is a more realistic setting over neutral? Is it more that you are just simply trying to make the game more challenging, and not worrying about realism so much, or do you really feel this is a better setting, even though the game favors prospects a bit on it's own while on numeral.

I don't do it, but have a thought about it:

If it were more of a challenge, it would be more realistic (unlike Normal vs. Hard, where in theory Hard could be too difficult to be realistic-- I just don't think it is-- and Very Hard is imo too difficult to be realistic. Very Hard isn't realistic because the AI refuses trades real life GMs would make because they do help the AI team).

As far as Favor Prospects vs. Neutral though, that's about what the AI values, not how much it demands...and whichever leads it to value players that will help it more is realistic.

I think Neutral actually serves the AI teams better (if someone who uses Favor Prospects posts about why he sees it differently, it will be an interesting read). On Hard/Neutral, the AI is already very reluctant to trade for an old player with a high salary, and even on that setting I end up trading prospects for players already major league caliber more often than the opposite.

I would change that setting though if I thought Favor Prospects was "smarter." I kind of want to have the AI as smart as possible with the exception that it should only have access to as much information as I have. I guess one other exception to the "smartest AI" is that I want most teams to use strategies that most teams use, even if sabermetrics can show they're unwise. That gap is, of course, narrowing as probably every real-life team now hires at least a sabermetric analyst or two. How many they hire, and how much they're listened to, still varies, of course.

[MizzouRah]

I use hard/neutral on 50/30/15/5 - average seems a bit too easy to fleece the AI and very hard pretty much never gives me anything of value or worth even looking at. Hard seems decent as I've had some great trades in my favor and have been fleeced a few times.

[PSUColonel]

I am now using very hard and 50/20/20/10

[Mecza]

I still find very hard a tad too easy. I might even turn off trading in a future league because I can't help myself sometimes.

[MizzouRah]

I might switch to very hard my next season.. for a challenge.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am now using very hard and 50/20/20/10

Originally Posted by Mecza

I still find very hard a tad too easy. I might even turn off trading in a future league because I can't help myself sometimes.

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I might switch to very hard my next season.. for a challenge.

I must be living in a parallel universe, or in some kind of Bizarro Superman world.

I'm going to try to trick one or more of you guys into saying your name backwards and see if that works.

Or should I be saying my own name backwards? Let's see: "Urb." "Urb." Nope, still here!

[PSUColonel]

OK...explain this one lol. I just find that the AI either likes, or dislikes players, and difficulty really only matters in that the AI will "disclose" more of those players on easier levels when you "make this work now". On the most difficult level, the AI isn't as up front when it comes to scrub players, might not accept them, and also takes need more into account I think.