AI Evaluation Settings

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I'm planning on starting my longterm sim as soon as the release version of 61 drops, and will be using your recommendation for AI Settings (along with the other ~10 things in your post about how you setup a new save file).

As flattering as that is, it has just come to my attention that the developers' have again fundamentally changed the financial settings in the MLB quickstart....so at this point, I can no longer advocate my own suggestions.

As you can see in an earlier post, the AVG team profit used to be around 7M....now it's 500K. Not sure what is going on here, but things have clearly changed, and I would really need to take another very hard look at things. One thing that stands out to me with the new settings?....Washington is a 5...ugh.

It's clear to me, they are assigning market sizes based on current payroll though....not how they want teams' to behave into the future.

[MathBandit]

I wonder if that's related to teams claiming heavy losses during COVID-affected seasons of 2020 and 2021.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I wonder if that's related to teams claiming heavy losses during COVID-affected seasons of 2020 and 2021.

I don't know, but if it is, that's taking reality too far IMO.


EDIT: I did ask a developer earlier today if this was correct, and he seemed to think it was...so

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't know, but if it is, that's taking reality too far IMO.


EDIT: I did ask a developer earlier today if this was correct, and he seemed to think it was...so

To be clear, I agree that's not an ideal model for games meant to be played years into the future.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

To be clear, I agree that's not an ideal model for games meant to be played years into the future.

yea, not sure what to do

[HoustonGM]

IIRC one of the settings that was changed between patches at some point was the national media contract baseline. It got dropped, then was upped as a "fix" to the low profit figures, but then at some point got dropped again.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

IIRC one of the settings that was changed between patches at some point was the national media contract baseline. It got dropped, then was upped as a "fix" to the low profit figures, but then at some point got dropped again.

Yea…I have no idea what’s going on now.

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Question for KBLover: did this player suffer a massive injury midseason in 2030? Are your aging modifiers the standard 1,000? Could you post a screenshot of the evolution of the scouting reports?

The only injury he suffered in 2030 was a mild calf strain, day-to-day, that lasted a week. He's suffered just 5 injuries in his career, only one, a fractured thumb in 2028, made him miss time (4 weeks).

Scouting reports on him attached. Why OSA is saying he's a 65 makes no sense.

I still say there's a bug/glitch with this guy. But I guess this is "working as designed" but it makes no sense.

So far, he's not been picked up out of free agency. Yet. I'm sure it will happen, just to irk me

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

The big question that I think remains unresolved is what happens when current year stats are insufficient. Is the ratings portion of the evaluation the only thing that rises to compensate? or are ratings, previous year, and two years ago weights rising in the same proportion? The example KBLover posted suggests it is the latter.

Yes, I think that's what happens. To me, the last year stats "eat" the current year.

My 30/30/20/20 became 30/0/50/20, imo, which would explain why folks say this makes sense, though you will not get me to understand how this is a 65 player like OSA says.


Edit: Attached my development modifiers

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by KBLover

The only injury he suffered in 2030 was a mild calf strain, day-to-day, that lasted a week. He's suffered just 5 injuries in his career, only one, a fractured thumb in 2028, made him miss time (4 weeks).

Scouting reports on him attached. Why OSA is saying he's a 65 makes no sense.

I still say there's a bug/glitch with this guy. But I guess this is "working as designed" but it makes no sense.

So far, he's not been picked up out of free agency. Yet. I'm sure it will happen, just to irk me




Yes, I think that's what happens. To me, the last year stats "eat" the current year.

My 30/30/20/20 became 30/0/50/20, imo, which would explain why folks say this makes sense, though you will not get me to understand how this is a 65 player like OSA says.


Edit: Attached my development modifiers

Is incorporated stats on or off?

It will be wise to test these settings with 100% scouting as well. He’s a 65 with terrible ratings. With a scouting accuracy only at average it’s saying that this player needs to be scouted more.

[KBLover]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Is incorporated stats on or off?

It will be wise to test these settings with 100% scouting as well. He’s a 65 with terrible ratings. With a scouting accuracy only at average it’s saying that this player needs to be scouted more.

They are accurate, I looked in the editor on this guy (actually those listed are too high by my scout) and my scout says 20 and OSA says 65...

Incorporated stats is off.

Attached is 100% scouting, I double-checked Incorporate Stats and it is "No".

Still says a guy with all 20's is a 65 OVR and POT

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by KBLover

They are accurate, I looked in the editor on this guy (actually those listed are too high by my scout) and my scout says 20 and OSA says 65...

Incorporated stats is off.

Attached is 100% scouting, I double-checked Incorporate Stats and it is "No".

Still says a guy with all 20's is a 65 OVR and POT

That’s weird.

What AI Eval settings are you using, what is his current stats and how many games did he play so far?

[SirMichaelJordan]

What are the default fictional AI evaluation settings? I know the MLB roster set emphasizes ratings because they were handcrafted, and they want to mirror projections. Still, it’s interesting when entering 0 for all settings and advancing a day, and the game resets it to 30/50/15/5. Have anyone used those configurations? Those numbers aren’t far from my alternate settings of 25/50/13/12 or 25/50/15/10.

[TuckerDuckson]

Originally Posted by KBLover

They are accurate, I looked in the editor on this guy (actually those listed are too high by my scout) and my scout says 20 and OSA says 65...

Incorporated stats is off.

Attached is 100% scouting, I double-checked Incorporate Stats and it is "No".

Still says a guy with all 20's is a 65 OVR and POT

I have a feeling, somewhere ratings are borked, and the AI is just seeing something we're just not able to see. I posted in the later beta patch release, but this guy is the #7 prospect in the league right now:



I feel like there needs to be more work done on 23. Stuff rating is supposed to be fixed after this beta patch is fully released, but even if his stuff is fixed, he clearly does not have the movement/pitch ratings to be that high on the prospect list. By all means, this is a guy who will never make a major league roster, let alone be considered top 10 in the game.

[PSUColonel]

yea....I'm starting to think somethings up with scouting and/or ratings

[MizzouRah]

I was also thinking something like 50/25/25/0

In fact, that might be my next test.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

yea....I'm starting to think somethings up with scouting and/or ratings

It might be the scouting update frequency setting. Curious to know when was those ratings updated.

[Dr Naysay]

So on a 30/30/25/15 set-up with hardest difficulty and veterans/prospects split in the middle I found it ridiculously difficult to make trades. As an example I tested all the way down for prospects with 45 potential who weren't putting up great numbers and every time the AI always wanted my best hitting or pitching prospect who were already putting up great MLB numbers and nearly every trade attempt it was just for those two players.

When I moved the difficulty slider back to the middle suddenly the options were much fairer and I don't think one option the AI was asking for felt like I was taking advantage of them.

It's so hard finding the sweet spot.

[BarneyRubble]

Originally Posted by Dr Naysay

So on a 30/30/25/15 set-up with hardest difficulty and veterans/prospects split in the middle I found it ridiculously difficult to make trades. As an example I tested all the way down for prospects with 45 potential who weren't putting up great numbers and every time the AI always wanted my best hitting or pitching prospect who were already putting up great MLB numbers and nearly every trade attempt it was just for those two players.

When I moved the difficulty slider back to the middle suddenly the options were much fairer and I don't think one option the AI was asking for felt like I was taking advantage of them.

It's so hard finding the sweet spot.

I use default settings for trade and find them extremely balanced. I'd try default, especially with your AI evaluation settings (they do matter).

I found that increasing the difficulty hinders the AI just as it does the player. Example, the opposing GM wants my 3B, who might get them to the WS, but he won't take a reasonable trade offer because of the settings. It's like offering '8' for '7' and the opposing GM wants '9', maybe '10'. He won't do that with the other AI GMs, but he will with the player. It's not realistic.

Good trades happen. Bad trades happen. Scouts are right. Scouts are wrong. GMs get fired. It's baseball.

[SirMichaelJordan]

A even AI eval works better with favoring prospects when using a harder trade difficulty

[Dr Naysay]

Originally Posted by BarneyRubble

I use default settings for trade and find them extremely balanced. I'd try default, especially with your AI evaluation settings (they do matter).

I found that increasing the difficulty hinders the AI just as it does the player. Example, the opposing GM wants my 3B, who might get them to the WS, but he won't take a reasonable trade offer because of the settings. It's like offering '8' for '7' and the opposing GM wants '9', maybe '10'. He won't do that with the other AI GMs, but he will with the player. It's not realistic.

Good trades happen. Bad trades happen. Scouts are right. Scouts are wrong. GMs get fired. It's baseball.

Just to be clear you mean the AI player evaluation settings back to default?