OOTP23 SNEAK PREVIEW: New ways to shop players!

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by AlpineSK

While I think your "data set" is anecdotal (I havent seen it happen so that means its not happening) it would also come down to what a player's trade settings are.

I'd take things a step further: how many of these players who signed big contracts quickly find themselves on the Trade Block, for example? That lowers morale and has other effects on the player, and by proxy, the team. There's a lot more that goes into this than the player just being moved.

Never said it's not happening. Just asking for examples from those that say it is. If we get those we have more information on how bad the problem is or is not. Currently in my game it appears to be a cosmetic issue, "I don't like seeing these players being offered.".

FWIW another side effect of examining the AI to AI trades in my league (I did not just to it for this discussion. I examine every trade in my league the day it happens) is when you do this you see how most make sense and are balanced.

Sure we can go to morale if you want but that's a two edged sword too. If the offered player is on a long term deal, to a team that is now in financial trouble, and does not have a winning environment, where is his morale? Going to a better club may help him. If he stays with the current team, in a state of low morale? His attitude and performance may suffer affecting the rest of the team. Morale can be a slippery slope with many knock on effects.

Not sure why users would not want to post their "data set" showing us what they are seeing? It only helps their cause, no?

Are they on the block or just being offered in a shop? I don't think the conversation has even gone there? Maybe a not allowing teams to put them on the block (if they are?) to actively seek a trade would be a good thing? But to 1000% lock them out of saying "well if you're wanting to trade Joe Baseball we'd love to have him. How about Mike Longcontract in return?" If it's a fair deal or makes the AI team better not sure how that hurts the game?

My trade settings are
Three clicks above middle on difficulty (hard)
preferences are middle.

If it is trade settings then maybe the fix is there instead of a lock. So yeah, more to it than just some players saying they see it.

Perhaps along with samples we should ask for their trade settings?

It can become much more than players moving and so can the "fix". What exactly is the fix? What are the parameters?

Can't trade in the first year only?
How about year 2?
Unrealistic on a 7 yr deal but not a 5?
Is it based on the contract amount? $10 mil, per over 5yrs, $50 mil total is "locked"? $5 mil per, over 5 yrs, 25 mil total is not?

You're right there is a lot to consider, including the parameters of the fix. A one year blanket fix may be just as unrealistic as what we have currently. Especially if there are none of these being completed, AI to AI, over a six season sample. Still waiting on data that shows differently? That DOES NOT mean I'm saying it's not happening. My data may be anecdotal but right now it's all we have

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by kq76

And frankly, I wouldn't put it past some team's management to trade a newly signed star player.

Name a time it's ever happened as soon as it possibly could under CBA rules. Name one time. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

I'm not suggesting a simple parameter like "no trading these stars/big deal in first year, two years, etc." An option for that CBA rule would be a start. But in general, I just wish the AI was better at identifying these situations where newly-acquired guys intended to be franchise cornerstones are never dumped a few months in.

At the end of the day, it's all about making the game more realistic and it's not controversial to say trade AI could be better.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

Name a time it's ever happened as soon as it possibly could under CBA rules. Name one time. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

I'm not suggesting a simple parameter like "no trading these stars/big deal in first year, two years, etc." An option for that CBA rule would be a start. But in general, I just wish the AI was better at identifying these situations where newly-acquired guys intended to be franchise cornerstones are never dumped a few months in.

At the end of the day, it's all about making the game more realistic and it's not controversial to say trade AI could be better.

Would you also have advocated a year ago for the AI to never release players like Pujols and Upton with a bunch of dead money left because until recently teams were making bad decisions not to release them?

If Texas is trading Seager for Joey Baggodonuts in AA who will never amount to anything, that might be an issue (though in this case I'm not actually convinced his contract is a positive asset even on the day he signed it). But so far the only 'evidence' we've seen is that Texas seems willing to trade him for a much better player on a much better contract. The fact that RL GMs may or may not be willing to make what is obviously a good trade shouldn't impede the AI from doing so.

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Would you also have advocated a year ago for the AI to never release players like Pujols and Upton with a bunch of dead money left because until recently teams were making bad decisions not to release them?

If Texas is trading Seager for Joey Baggodonuts in AA who will never amount to anything, that might be an issue (though in this case I'm not actually convinced his contract is a positive asset even on the day he signed it). But so far the only 'evidence' we've seen is that Texas seems willing to trade him for a much better player on a much better contract. The fact that RL GMs may or may not be willing to make what is obviously a good trade shouldn't impede the AI from doing so.

I don't think I need to explain to you that the Angels releasing an 87-year-old Pujols in the final year of his deal and the Rangers trading a 27-year-old Seager a few months after giving him a 10-year deal are not quite the same thing. No, obviously I have no issue with the AI realistically biting the bullet and moving on from washed up players.

And like I said, I'm willing to bet it'd take a lot less than Jose Ramirez to pry Seager away from the Rangers quickly in 2022. And if I'm right, the AI is behaving unrealistically, period. We'll see.

[AdequateRandomGaming]

Actually, the Franchise Hockey Manager series has a soft lock on players that have been recently acquired by the AI and they will refuse to deal them for a short period of time. I don't know what the time lock is (I think a few months) but it makes a lot of sense to me to have the feature. You just don't really see teams in professional sports signing a player for 8-10 years and then turn around and deal them a few weeks later. It is usually viewed as very unethical.

I wouldn't be opposed to see that same kind of soft lock in OOTP.

[Scottiedog43]

I like that a lot

[kq76]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

Name a time it's ever happened as soon as it possibly could under CBA rules. Name one time. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

I'm not suggesting a simple parameter like "no trading these stars/big deal in first year, two years, etc." An option for that CBA rule would be a start. But in general, I just wish the AI was better at identifying these situations where newly-acquired guys intended to be franchise cornerstones are never dumped a few months in.

At the end of the day, it's all about making the game more realistic and it's not controversial to say trade AI could be better.

My memory is not that good (my apologies), but I definitely remember it happening at least once years ago and it causing a stirring discussion on the Talk Sports board here. Granted, it no doubt wasn't nearly this massive of a contract, but still, it was surprising and I distinctly remember people argued the ethics of it.

You say you wish OOTP was better at not making these trades, but I don't recall seeing such a trade in my playing of OOTP and I've been playing the game for 20 real life years! Now again, my memory is not that great and I don't pay much attention to the trades the AI makes with itself, but it sounds like Sweed, a pretty trustworthy member here in my mind, says he does (pay attention to them) and he doesn't see it happening very often. So I don't think it is a problem.

I think we need to keep in mind here that this is simply shop-a-player trade proposal, it's not an actual trade. Just because this feature shows this proposal, doesn't mean it makes these trades with itself. And if you're arguing that it shouldn't offer it to a human to take advantage of, well, there's plenty of ways to fleece the AI if you want. Many of us hamper ourselves against the AI in multiple ways. I certainly do. If you don't want to accept a trade like that, just don't.

Plus, the game is still in beta! I have no idea how Matt or Markus feel about it. Maybe they saw it and thought straight away, "oh no, something is clearly wrong here, let me fix that...". I think it's fine, but maybe they strongly disagree.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off like an ass. I just too often see things said off-hand or seriously proposed and then people in charge implement it without really thinking it through. And yeah, I'm thinking of something in particular, but I can't talk about that here.

[tejdog1]

I will say this - the OOTP AI has a HUGE hate-on for big money, long term deals like Seager's, like Lindor's, etc...

That being said - wtf are the Rangers doing IRL (that's neither here nor there for discussing the game, but still)

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by AdequateRandomGaming

a soft lock on players that have been recently acquired by the AI and they will refuse to deal them for a short period of time. I don't know what the time lock is (I think a few months) but it makes a lot of sense to me to have the feature. .

This makes a lot of sense. The game has to balance in that the AI is extremely, ruthlessly logical. Human GMs care more about ticket sales, cornerstones of franchise, and perception. That's why the trade can make sense but also still be something that never happens in real life. I don't see it much in actual trades, but where I really see such players is on the Trading Block - but it's even jarring to see them on the block.

A soft lock on trading some players through some date makes sense. Maybe it's through the All-Star break. And there can be modifiers that have a sooner or later release of the lock or probability of being included in a trade. Is the team going to win 60 or 89 games this year? Is the player a cancer or a leader? is the player locally popular? Is the budget busted? is the owner frugal? All that can be done to balance the camps that see it as a logical trade (in can be considered as much) and that see it as unrealistic (it can be considered as much). But as long as the window opens in late July, the AI can still be its ruthless self and start over on a new approach to building a team and just-signed FA will stop crowding the Trading Block in April over AI buyer's remorse....

[The Game]

Originally I wasn't planning on getting 23 til the All star break this year but since I plan on trading away 2 4.5 star players and i want multiple players back in return, this means I will get it no later than May now.

[Matt Arnold]

I did have another look through, and there are some soft locks in place, but it looks like they weren't firing quite properly in a new game. So it should be a little harder to pry Seager out of Texas out of the gate

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

Name a time it's ever happened as soon as it possibly could under CBA rules. Name one time. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

I'm not suggesting a simple parameter like "no trading these stars/big deal in first year, two years, etc." An option for that CBA rule would be a start. But in general, I just wish the AI was better at identifying these situations where newly-acquired guys intended to be franchise cornerstones are never dumped a few months in.

At the end of the day, it's all about making the game more realistic and it's not controversial to say trade AI could be better.

My first response to this issue was I thought AI teams did not do this amongst themselves. I took the time to look after you posted thinking "maybe I missed something". I found nothing over the 6 seasons that show up in my trade log screen.

Is the trade AI broke if these trades are not being made?

You're asking if anyone can name a trade that was made in real life of a newly signed long term deal. Fair enough.

Then you and one other say the AI does complete these deals in OOTP. Is it unfair to ask one of you to post one of these trades that was made in OOTP? Not offered in shop around but completed. Can you show us one of these trades? Like kq76 I'm not trying to be difficult, I want reality too. But without examples what exactly are we fixing?

If no trades are being completed a lock does nothing except removing the drift from immersion that comes with seeing these players in a shop around offer. Unless a human is following through despite their thoughts that it's unrealistic. That's really on them IMHO.

I like the idea of the CBA June 15th rule. Based in reality, not an arbitrary lock put in based on no data.


In any case Matt has posted and we'll see what comes of it. But he did say "soft locks" which implies, to my mind, not 100% impossible.

[Syd Thrift]

Actually, I kind of like the rule that says "you can only turn around and immediately trade a guy if the guy approves". The player's approval oughtn't be completely random - perhaps if you're flipping them to a team that's contending better or closer to home, they have a better chance of accepting - but getting traded is a massive PITA and that's specifically a thing I am sure the players demanded to get into the CBA. Off-hand, the only guy I can think of who was flipped like that in relatively recent history was Mike Piazza in the 90s and I think everyone, including Piazza himself, knew the Marlins were only a temporary landing spot for him.

[koohead]

IKF. he's not Seager, but 3.7 WAR and a gold glove is not a bag of bats either

[Bunktown Ballers]

So excited to get back to the regular old OOTP. I done with PT. Takes too much time away for franchising.....

[MathBandit]

Looks like Texas should have shipped out Seager to lock up Ramirez while they had the chance

[Dave Stieb II]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

Looks like Texas should have shipped out Seager to lock up Ramirez while they had the chance

Well, yes, but the Texas offer is still a smart one, even with the Ramirez extension. Seager has never stayed healthy even as a young player. How bad is that 10-year deal gonna look in 3 years, never mind 6 or 7?
LOL. Now that they both have extensions, the thought of Texas unloading Seager in a package for Ramirez in 2022 is going to drive some posters crazy.

[r0nster]

I am curious if I have trade draft picks turned on will team also offer picks if that option turned on??

[wallewalls]

What's more bizarre to me is the 75 contact rating for Amed Rosario.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by wallewalls

What's more bizarre to me is the 75 contact rating for Amed Rosario.

Hard to say much about that without knowing scouting settings and the quality of the scout.