How to force CPU to use someone correctly

[Rosco Peabody]

I have a Fictional League and I often get annoyed with how the CPU uses players. In past versions, I have always been annoyed at how the CPU will take a guy who has been a 15 year starter and potential Hall of Famer and bench the guy as soon as someone who is literally just one point better comes along (like if the guy recedes to a 48 out of 80 and they get benched for a 49 out of 80). In real life, those legacy guys get so much more respect.


In the newest version, I have seen something new. The AI seems to be doing a little better job with the prior issue, but now it's respecting regular guys too much.



I saw a team with a closer who is a 50 out of 80 and they have another 78 out of 80 reliever that is far better but the teak insists on still using the first guy as the closer. It's one thing if the starter is a legacy guy, but the first guy only has two more years in the league than the first guy (they're both in their 20s) and doesn't even have a big contract.


I have tried using the "force use" thing for the computer team in strategy, but it doesn't seem to work. Any ideas?

[Brad K]

Have you put a check in the box "GM controls lineups?"

[md40022]

What's the managerial style of the team in question? I'm not saying this is your issue here, but there is a new-school philosophy by some to use your best relief pitcher in the most important situations, regardless of what point of the game you're in.... those teams will often go with the "closer by committee" approach and just play the matchups over the course of a 9 inning game.

Otherwise, I suppose you could edit the 2 players to set the one guy as the closer and set the other guy as a relief pitcher and then lock the settings for those guys... I try to avoid that personally only because once you go down that road the first time don't you kinda have to go team by team and do similar to be "fair"..... but, if this one situation is just really bugging you - this would be an option

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Have you put a check in the box "GM controls lineups?"

Can you explain what that means? Like how does it effect the game play?

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by md40022

Otherwise, I suppose you could edit the 2 players to set the one guy as the closer and set the other guy as a relief pitcher and then lock the settings for those guys...

I have tried the "lock" thing before, but I feel like it never actually locks in. Once a game is played, it reverts it back

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

Can you explain what that means? Like how does it effect the game play?

MLB - Settings - Global Settings (unless it's moved on 25)

At the bottom.

"GM-only users are always in control of lineups and hiring (legacy-mode)"

I haven't tried to control a pitcher using the lock feature but it works for me for positions in batting order and force to play a position in minors.

Now, if the feature requires the setting I've described above then OOTP should have disabled the feature when than setting isn't selected and put a notice "requires blah blah blah."

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by Brad K

MLB - Settings - Global Settings (unless it's moved on 25)

At the bottom.

"GM-only users are always in control of lineups and hiring (legacy-mode)"

I haven't tried to control a pitcher using the lock feature but it works for me for positions in batting order and force to play a position in minors.

Now, if the feature requires the setting I've described above then OOTP should have disabled the feature when than setting isn't selected and put a notice "requires blah blah blah."

So that works for a computer team too? Not just your own team

[md40022]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

I have tried the "lock" thing before, but I feel like it never actually locks in. Once a game is played, it reverts it back

I think if you hit this in 5 separate adjustments you should be good....


1. From the "actions" option for each of the 2 players, set 1 to closer and the other to reliever

2. From the "strategy" tab for the player, set "force role" to closer for the one guy and reliever for the other guy

3. From the "strategy" tab for the player, change the "mode" to override team strategy (make sure you do this for the pitching strategy, not the offensive strategy)

4. Also from the "strategy" tab, check the "lock" box.

5. From the pitching rotation page, put each guy into the proper role within the rotation; one as closer and the other as reliever.


I'm like 99% sure if you hit all 5 of those options that you should be okay. And honestly, 1 or 2 of those might not even be needed but if you do them all to be safe I think this should take care of it for you

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

So that works for a computer team too? Not just your own team

This is an AI team? Why do you think you should control a team you don't control?

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by Brad K

This is an AI team? Why do you think you should control a team you don't control?

I love immersion. If you see above, it's only in the rare case that an AI team doesn't do what really would be done in real life


(For instance, the example of, say, a Hall of Fame Third Baseman in their last year in the league getting benched because they regressed to like 48 OVR out of 80 and get benched for some JAG because the other guy is like 49 OVR out of 80)


The computer doesn't really factor in lifetime achievements and respect

[x McLovin x]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

The computer doesn't really factor in lifetime achievements and respect

Thank goodness the AI doesn’t…

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by x McLovin x

Thank goodness the AI doesn’t…

See, I kind of like it. I hate it when an obvious hall of famer becomes a bench warmer in his last season because he's slightly worse than another guy (but still decent). Would never happen in real life

[x McLovin x]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

See, I kind of like it. I hate it when an obvious hall of famer becomes a bench warmer in his last season because he's slightly worse than another guy (but still decent). Would never happen in real life

I respect your opinion but for me personally, I disagree. There have been plenty of hall of famers or borderline hall of fame caliber talents that had to settle for more marginal roles at the tail end of their careers. It’s just part of the cycle of a baseball player’s career. A lot of “average” players get pushed out of the league a little earlier, but those aging hall of fame caliber players often manage to find success in platoon roles, etc., at the end of their careers. I’m a Yankees fan so a few recent examples that come to mind are Andruw Jones and Eric Chavez. Amazing careers, both arguably hall of fame worthy, but they were just role players that sat on the bench more often than not towards the end of their careers. Some other examples a little further back are Darryl Strawberry and Tim Raines. They happily accepted smaller roles in an effort to get a ring. Is it not possible that some of the players you’re referring to in your case are following a similar path?

Mariano Rivera is one of those very, very few players that was elite for essentially their entire career, including when they were at the point of retirement. Expecting the same treatment for every player who had a good career is irrational. And “Respect” has no place in a statistically driven simulation engine.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by Rosco Peabody

See, I kind of like it. I hate it when an obvious hall of famer becomes a bench warmer in his last season because he's slightly worse than another guy (but still decent). Would never happen in real life

When you let the AI have control then you have to let them make those decisions. I'm watching it in my league as well and I hate it. I'm looking at different ways of controlling all teams just to set lineups and strategy and letting the AI hande the rest, may end up being too much after a while though

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by x McLovin x

I respect your opinion but for me personally, I disagree. There have been plenty of hall of famers or borderline hall of fame caliber talents that had to settle for more marginal roles at the tail end of their careers. It’s just part of the cycle of a baseball player’s career. A lot of “average” players get pushed out of the league a little earlier, but those aging hall of fame caliber players often manage to find success in platoon roles, etc., at the end of their careers. I’m a Yankees fan so a few recent examples that come to mind are Andruw Jones and Eric Chavez. Amazing careers, both arguably hall of fame worthy, but they were just role players that sat on the bench more often than not towards the end of their careers. Some other examples a little further back are Darryl Strawberry and Tim Raines. They happily accepted smaller roles in an effort to get a ring. Is it not possible that some of the players you’re referring to in your case are following a similar path?

Mariano Rivera is one of those very, very few players that was elite for essentially their entire career, including when they were at the point of retirement. Expecting the same treatment for every player who had a good career is irrational. And “Respect” has no place in a statistically driven simulation engine.

Some teams do hit sunk cost fallacy really, really hard though, and while I agree that implementing this in the game would make the AI easier to beat, it also strikes me as useful errors. For example, by the end of his Angels career, there was absolutely nothing keeping Albert Pujols in their lineup in OOTP terms: he’d had like 4 straight years of below average hitting as a DH only type. Any manager in OOTP would have benched him at least a year earlier, and yet he stuck around.

I personally would like to see more AI mistakes like this but I also get why a lot of people disagree with me. I also think scouting is kind of all messed up and nobody, not the AI or anyone, should have ratings calibrated so tightly, especially on a veteran player, that they could actually tell a 49 from a 48. In real life when players are that close, the decision on who to use comes down to other criteria.

[FantasyDrafter]

In OOTP terms several versions ago (maybe 21?) I once had a player who was the greatest generated player I have ever seen. He was healthy (I think maybe even Iron Man) and he was was going to rewrite offensive baseball history - the ultimate 5 tool player.

Then he never got hurt, but his performance just fell off a cliff at age 32. I stubbornly left him in the lineup for 2+ years, moved him to DH from OF where he had been a GG just to keep him fresher, looking for a bounce back, didn’t matter, he was done. Spent his age 36 season as my 4th OF (I didn’t have the heart to cut him) and then retired leaving a ton of $ on the table.

AI definitely does not have that sentimental side. Overall it is probably for the best.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

Some teams do hit sunk cost fallacy really, really hard though, and while I agree that implementing this in the game would make the AI easier to beat, it also strikes me as useful errors. For example, by the end of his Angels career, there was absolutely nothing keeping Albert Pujols in their lineup in OOTP terms: he’d had like 4 straight years of below average hitting as a DH only type. Any manager in OOTP would have benched him at least a year earlier, and yet he stuck around.

I personally would like to see more AI mistakes like this but I also get why a lot of people disagree with me. I also think scouting is kind of all messed up and nobody, not the AI or anyone, should have ratings calibrated so tightly, especially on a veteran player, that they could actually tell a 49 from a 48. In real life when players are that close, the decision on who to use comes down to other criteria.

I would like to see popularity be more of a deciding factor for a team in deciding if they will bench an aging HOF for a guy with similar OVR ratings.

When the talent gap is that small, and age is the only thing that separates them, letting the legends try to finish their careers getting milestones is better for gameplay.

[Syd Thrift]

I agree; on the flip side though, if your choice is between a 33 year old who doesn’t have counting stats and a 23 year old with the same ratings, ML teams will almost always choose the 23 year old unless you have some very specific circumstances (namely, you’re in contention and you absolutely need to count on, say, 2 wins from that position - I believe that projections for prospects tend to be every bit as reliable as projections for veterans IRL but there is for sure still a bias towards guys who’ve proven it). IME the game is not nearly as ruthless with iffy vets as it could/should be, especially when it comes to rebuilding teams.

[x McLovin x]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I personally would like to see more AI mistakes like this but I also get why a lot of people disagree with me.

Thanks for your response. I couldn’t agree with you more about MLB owners being super prone to sunk cost fallacy. From my experience, however, the AI makes way more than enough mistakes as it is. If anything, I feel like there should be a way to dial up the difficulty a bit. And I usually run very low budget teams and do my very best to make sure that any trades I entertain are logical and fair for both sides.

[Rosco Peabody]

Originally Posted by x McLovin x

Thanks for your response. I couldn’t agree with you more about MLB owners being super prone to sunk cost fallacy. From my experience, however, the AI makes way more than enough mistakes as it is. If anything, I feel like there should be a way to dial up the difficulty a bit. And I usually run very low budget teams and do my very best to make sure that any trades I entertain are logical and fair for both sides.

Yeah, see I watch the AI make mistakes that kill me because they're unrealistic mistakes.

For instance, they already have the best Shortstop in the league and a solid player at 3B, then they sign a Shortstop phenom just to have him DH, especially when there are just as good free agents at positions they need. Makes no sense to me.

And it's proven when (this has happened before) a month into the season, the guy is on the trading block