AI team's bad logic

Rosco Peabody · 01-08-2018, 09:34 AM

I feel like the AI's logic in free agency is really poor sometimes.

There will be a last place team that is in complete rebuilding mode, yet I will see them chase after a highly sought after 34 year old free agent anyway. I have had to intervene as Commissioner more than once because it just shouldn't happen, especially if the team has a low budget.

To show that it's bad logic, several of the times I just let the AI do what it wanted and the computer was trying to get rid of the player.

For example, in my fictional season, a small market team that is stacked with young talent in its minor league system just about ready to break into the big leagues signed a 31 year old above average 1B to a huge, 7 year deal. Now, two weeks into the season, I shopped a young middle infielder (20 OVR 50 POT on a 20/80 scale) and the team offered him to me straight up.

None of it makes sense. That team never would have signed that 1B in the first place. If I were to try to make up a reason they would do it, like "they have young players and need a veteran to lead them", then there should be no way that they are offering him to me for essentially a bench player.

Matt Arnold · 01-08-2018, 11:23 AM

San Diego is currently one of the frontrunners to sign Hosmer...

Jerry Helper · 01-08-2018, 11:32 AM

Oh good, another thread complaining about the AI. We don't have enough of these...

Rosco Peabody · 01-08-2018, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

San Diego is currently one of the frontrunners to sign Hosmer...

Right. So let's just say they decide that they want to sign a big free agent. I can make myself believe that they want an established free agent to go with all of their young guys.

....Then why does this team want to get rid of the guy two weeks into the season??

tcblcommish · 01-08-2018, 01:24 PM

Isn't there a setting that turns off the ability to trade a recently acquired player? I could be way off but I think there is.

The ai can be odd sometimes but I will say that at the time, the ai determined they had a need for said player at first maybe thinking that the next guy isn't ready and then they get a talent bump or ratings go up that you don't see but their scouts do and now they deem this guy is not needed anymore and now they have to move him. I don't have the answer but it could be something along those lines or could be something completely different.

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

bwburke94 · 01-09-2018, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcblcommish

Isn't there a setting that turns off the ability to trade a recently acquired player? I could be way off but I think there is.

That setting only applies to recently drafted players, and the player in the OP was a free agent signing.

UltimateAverageGuy · 01-10-2018, 12:42 AM

Confirmed, game sucks.

Rosco Peabody · 01-10-2018, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UltimateAverageGuy

Confirmed, game sucks.

I hope this is sarcasm....

tcblcommish · 01-10-2018, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwburke94

That setting only applies to recently drafted players, and the player in the OP was a free agent signing.

Ah yes, I forgot that was the setting. Maybe there should be a setting for not allowing a recently signed player yo be traded right away?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

Rosco Peabody · 01-10-2018, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcblcommish

Ah yes, I forgot that was the setting. Maybe there should be a setting for not allowing a recently signed player yo be traded right away?

Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

I really don't mind a team trading away a recently signed player and I would probably turn this button off (I turn off the button that blocks trading recently signed players).

I only have a problem with the AI's MINDSET changing. If for some reason they signed a good player, then some team offered them a great package for that player, it's okay. But if the AI looked at this player as a worthy addition to the roster, then two months after signing him looked at his contract as an albatross, that's when I have a problem.

Trading a player for a good haul is like acquiring a resource, then boucing that resource off for an even better resource (stock market, kind of?). This example was like INSTANT buyer's remorse before the player even had a chance to show what they were.

MrBojangles · 01-10-2018, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

I really don't mind a team trading away a recently signed player and I would probably turn this button off (I turn off the button that blocks trading recently signed players).

I only have a problem with the AI's MINDSET changing. If for some reason they signed a good player, then some team offered them a great package for that player, it's okay. But if the AI looked at this player as a worthy addition to the roster, then two months after signing him looked at his contract as an albatross, that's when I have a problem.

Trading a player for a good haul is like acquiring a resource, then boucing that resource off for an even better resource (stock market, kind of?). This example was like INSTANT buyer's remorse before the player even had a chance to show what they were.

Team should fire the manager shortly after something like this example.

Rosco Peabody · 01-10-2018, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrBojangles

Team should fire the manager shortly after something like this example.

In real life, they would have.

I tried to write an article in my news feed that talked about friction in the front office at the time of the signing and that not everyone had signed off on the acquisition or some crap like that.

Brad K · 01-11-2018, 12:49 PM

Maybe the team signed the old guy because he is highly popular and good for attendance.

Winnipeg59 · 01-11-2018, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

If the AI looked at this player as a worthy addition to the roster, then two months after signing him looked at his contract as an albatross, that's when I have a problem.

Suuuure you're not playing in an online league?

NoOne · 01-11-2018, 02:32 PM

don't go down a rabbit hole if you won't be happy with what you see.

it would be wrong to completely eliminate bad gm moves from occuring. whether they are random or due to specific causation is a good debate, though. really the op's topic should be about about proportion of the two and frequency of occurrence etc.. which would take a bit of research and effort, first.

nonetheless, bad signings should happen. take a step back in scope. do you have a dearth of good teams? do teams cycle between good and bad, with only a few rising to the top each year? if not, the game is running well overall and if stats are in-line, all is well as can be expected.

the bad teams aren't bad just due to luck (RL comment and vid game comment). they are bad due to terrible choices. if these things should happen, it may be frustrating, but it's not necessarily bad code, so to speak. out of 30 gm's someone will disagree with of all tough decisions. so, not liking a deal isn't 'enough' ... as long as at least 1/30* people could go along with the premise, it's reasonable to believe it's a realistic trade. (more realistically 1/100 gms? 1/1000? a suitable sample and @ reasonable chance of occurence relative to context)

the ai does need work. it seems some people would rather we not speak of any issues with the game. while this particular issue may or may not be true, it is nothing but a good thing that it gets brought up. they have a bit more info than us, so it's much easier for them to look at a post like this, campare it to the logic of the code and easily deduce if it's something that should be looked into.

they have a finite amount of resources and time for each release. They easily exceed what is reasonably expected. that doesn't make them exempt from criticism, nor should we be irrational about it.

OotP is much more secure than some of it's end-users, thankfully.

Rosco Peabody · 01-11-2018, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NoOne

it would be wrong to completely eliminate bad gm moves from occuring. whether they are random or due to specific causation is a good debate, though.

I have absolutely no problem with bad moves. Everyone makes bad moves. I make bad moves. If they aren't in the majority, that's fine. I didn't like that the team signed him, but when they did, I was like, "Okay, whatever."

What was the real sticking point was signing him and literally IMMEDIATELY (he was a late free agency signing right before spring training) looking to get rid of him (he was traded in the first week of the season and hadn't gotten injured or had any change in his ratings. The computer was like, "Why do we have this highly paid veteran on our rebuilding roster???"
Because you JUST put him there!

01-08-2018, 09:34 AM	#1
Rosco Peabody All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: South of Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 1,092	AI team's bad logic I feel like the AI's logic in free agency is really poor sometimes. There will be a last place team that is in complete rebuilding mode, yet I will see them chase after a highly sought after 34 year old free agent anyway. I have had to intervene as Commissioner more than once because it just shouldn't happen, especially if the team has a low budget. To show that it's bad logic, several of the times I just let the AI do what it wanted and the computer was trying to get rid of the player. For example, in my fictional season, a small market team that is stacked with young talent in its minor league system just about ready to break into the big leagues signed a 31 year old above average 1B to a huge, 7 year deal. Now, two weeks into the season, I shopped a young middle infielder (20 OVR 50 POT on a 20/80 scale) and the team offered him to me straight up. None of it makes sense. That team never would have signed that 1B in the first place. If I were to try to make up a reason they would do it, like "they have young players and need a veteran to lead them", then there should be no way that they are offering him to me for essentially a bench player.

01-11-2018, 02:32 PM	#15
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	don't go down a rabbit hole if you won't be happy with what you see. it would be wrong to completely eliminate bad gm moves from occuring. whether they are random or due to specific causation is a good debate, though. really the op's topic should be about about proportion of the two and frequency of occurrence etc.. which would take a bit of research and effort, first. nonetheless, bad signings should happen. take a step back in scope. do you have a dearth of good teams? do teams cycle between good and bad, with only a few rising to the top each year? if not, the game is running well overall and if stats are in-line, all is well as can be expected. the bad teams aren't bad just due to luck (RL comment and vid game comment). they are bad due to terrible choices. if these things should happen, it may be frustrating, but it's not necessarily bad code, so to speak. out of 30 gm's someone will disagree with of all tough decisions. so, not liking a deal isn't 'enough' ... as long as at least 1/30* people could go along with the premise, it's reasonable to believe it's a realistic trade. (more realistically 1/100 gms? 1/1000? a suitable sample and @ reasonable chance of occurence relative to context) the ai does need work. it seems some people would rather we not speak of any issues with the game. while this particular issue may or may not be true, it is nothing but a good thing that it gets brought up. they have a bit more info than us, so it's much easier for them to look at a post like this, campare it to the logic of the code and easily deduce if it's something that should be looked into. they have a finite amount of resources and time for each release. They easily exceed what is reasonably expected. that doesn't make them exempt from criticism, nor should we be irrational about it. OotP is much more secure than some of it's end-users, thankfully. Last edited by NoOne; 01-11-2018 at 02:35 PM.

01-08-2018, 11:23 AM	#2
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 16,218	San Diego is currently one of the frontrunners to sign Hosmer...

01-08-2018, 11:32 AM	#3
Jerry Helper Major Leagues Join Date: May 2017 Location: Dallas Posts: 325	Oh good, another thread complaining about the AI. We don't have enough of these...

01-08-2018, 01:24 PM	#5
tcblcommish Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 3,440	Isn't there a setting that turns off the ability to trade a recently acquired player? I could be way off but I think there is. The ai can be odd sometimes but I will say that at the time, the ai determined they had a need for said player at first maybe thinking that the next guy isn't ready and then they get a talent bump or ratings go up that you don't see but their scouts do and now they deem this guy is not needed anymore and now they have to move him. I don't have the answer but it could be something along those lines or could be something completely different. Sent from my SM-G935W8 using Tapatalk

01-10-2018, 12:42 AM	#7
UltimateAverageGuy All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2017 Posts: 591	Confirmed, game sucks.

01-11-2018, 12:49 PM	#13
Brad K Banned Join Date: May 2016 Location: St Petersburg Florida USA Posts: 6,693 Infractions: 0/2 (4)	Maybe the team signed the old guy because he is highly popular and good for attendance.