Tired of playing online, so help me in solo....

[mking55]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

mking55 is your trade frequency set to low/very low? How about using OldFatGuy's method and making the AI favour/heavily favour prospects or vets depending on which type of commodity you're trying to acquire? If you're looking for vets, make the AI favour/heavily favour vets and if you're looking for prospects same thing only now the AI favours/heavily favours prospects. Until you've tried every variable possible (and we have plenty to choose from), you won't know the full extent of the AI's ability in this area.

If you insist on building supreme dynasties because you know who's going to do what, while the AI only sees ratings and (if you give it a chance with various settings) stats, you'll always be disappointed. It's easy to build a dynasty with your Kreskin-like ability to know what's going to happen. The Monday morning QB syndrome is always going to be an issue in historical career type sims. Either find ways to make it tougher on yourself, play a fictional league, or ditch it and play a replay type game to satisfy your historical cravings. Unfortunately you won't be able to make trades in a replay type game though. It's unfortunate that the AI can't know the future like you do, but that's what we have for now.

Trading frequency is normal. I personally don't favour prospects or vets, just whomever strikes my fancy and I can get who will help my team. So, switching them around wouldn't help without "house rules" and I've already stated my objection to that.

I admitted that my previous, or as you would put it my Kreskin like ability, gives me an advantage over the AI. No argument. However, I think the AI could put up a bigger fight with the ratings it knows. In other words, if Ted Williams has godlike ratings, you can't trade god except for another god. Something along the lines of Dimaggio for Williams (since they both come with great ratings).

I'd love to make it tougher on myself, but only within the confines of the game (no house rules and no police actions against myself). I've tried fictional and it doesn't work for me. It's the magic of the names that pulls me in. Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax, and so on. The names turn me on in a perverted sort of way (but not that perverted).

Replay games have their place (I own one and I like it) but I like career play but not the type where the player is adjusted every season to perform closer to real life. I like to start with Ted Williams (for example) and see where it goes. I want Joe Charbonneau and if he turns into a bum, that's fine. And if he has a career that's worthwhile, that's fine too. I don't want him to flame out after one season and in my Kreskin like way, know that's going to happen.

So, to summarize, I will win because of my historical knowledge. However, I think the AI could put up a better fight. That's all. A challenge and not seasons of 118-36.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by mking55

Trading frequency is normal. I personally don't favour prospects or vets, just whomever strikes my fancy and I can get who will help my team. So, switching them around wouldn't help without "house rules" and I've already stated my objection to that.

I admitted that my previous, or as you would put it my Kreskin like ability, gives me an advantage over the AI. No argument. However, I think the AI could put up a bigger fight with the ratings it knows. In other words, if Ted Williams has godlike ratings, you can't trade god except for another god. Something along the lines of Dimaggio for Williams (since they both come with great ratings).

I'd love to make it tougher on myself, but only within the confines of the game (no house rules and no police actions against myself). I've tried fictional and it doesn't work for me. It's the magic of the names that pulls me in. Stan Musial, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Sandy Koufax, and so on. The names turn me on in a perverted sort of way (but not that perverted).

Replay games have their place (I own one and I like it) but I like career play but not the type where the player is adjusted every season to perform closer to real life. I like to start with Ted Williams (for example) and see where it goes. I want Joe Charbonneau and if he turns into a bum, that's fine. And if he has a career that's worthwhile, that's fine too. I don't want him to flame out after one season and in my Kreskin like way, know that's going to happen.

So, to summarize, I will win because of my historical knowledge. However, I think the AI could put up a better fight. That's all. A challenge and not seasons of 118-36.

Just to be clear, the AI trading settings govern how the AI will acquit itself in the trading arena. If you set frequency to normal more trades will be made and I think it will be more open to making trades with you (though I need a vet's confirmation on that). If you set prospects/vets to neutral it won't have any issue with giving up either commodity. Make it favour what you're looking to acquire (be it prospect or vet) and tone down the frequency, while maintaining a hard/very hard setting and see if things are so easy. I think you'll find they're not. Unfortunately at this time, the onus is on you to dumb yourself down through the use of the various settings, as the AI cannot approach the thinking level of a human baseball fanatic brain.

I don't understand "...only within the confines of the game". Every setting/option I have proposed is within the confines of the game because you have the option as to how you want the game to behave through the various options you choose in your setup. You can make it really difficult or you can continue to stomp the yard. The choice is yours.

[robc]

Also mking, action was proposing you change the AI to favor vets / prospects for each trade. If you are trying to acquire a prospect in a trade, set it to favor prospects. If trying to acquire a vet, then set it to favor vets.

[mking55]

"Within the confines of the game" means no house rules and no policing myself (i.e. rejecting a trade where I can have Mickey Mantle and I only have to give up Mario Mendoza).

I will try and lower the trading frequency but a hunch tells me that just affects the trades between AI teams. However, I don't know for sure so there is no harm in trying.

As for switching the settings every time (or almost every time) I decide who I want to trade for, that is absurd. I don't want to have to change the settings of the game every time I go to the bathroom or whatever. That's just not fun. And besides, maybe I try to trade for the young stud 3b and I can't swing a deal so I then go for the 10 year vet 3b. But that doesn't work so I try for another 3b who would be my 3rd choice but he's a rookie. That's 2 to 3 changes of the settings. Not realistic and not fun.

The trade setting is always very hard. To me, fool that I am, should mean very hard. And it's not. Forget all the other settings, this one that says very hard should trump and be what it says. And neutral and very hard should mean it's hard to get anyone whether they be young or old.

It's no fun winning all the time. I want to lose but I can't throw the game and risk a lifetime banishment imposed by Judge Landis.

[actionjackson]

I share your frustration with the AI and with the AI in all games of this type mking55. Speaking only in intuitive terms (as I'm not a programmer) I think your expectations for any AI to come close to the human brain (when said brain has the huge advantage of historical knowledge) in a simulation of a game as complex as baseball are a tad on the high side at this moment in time. I think chess AI is about on par with humans now, but chess is nowhere near as complex as all the things involved in this sim of multiple moving parts and how long were they working on it before they got it right? Point out the flaws? Absolutely, that's the only way this game's going to get better. Complain bitterly and sit on your hands and wait for Markus to make it all better, rather than seeing if there are some settings you could use that would get you closer to what you want? Ok, that's your choice.

I'll keep searching for ways around the limitations that come with any AI in any career baseball sim of this kind on the market and be happy with the vast majority of stuff in this game that actually works. You keep winning 120 games a year and complaining about the minutiae that don't work. Just do me one favour. When people go out of their way to try and offer workarounds to you, which is what this thread is all about (well not just workarounds for you or suggestions by me, but it's an attempt to pool together ideas to get around this issue), try not to take a steaming dump on them.

[robc]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I share your frustration with the AI and with the AI in all games of this type mking55. Speaking only in intuitive terms (as I'm not a programmer) I think your expectations for any AI to come close to the human brain (when said brain has the huge advantage of historical knowledge) in a simulation of a game as complex as baseball are a tad on the high side at this moment in time. I think chess AI is about on par with humans now, but chess is nowhere near as complex as all the things involved in this sim of multiple moving parts and how long were they working on it before they got it right? Point out the flaws? Absolutely, that's the only way this game's going to get better. Complain bitterly and sit on your hands and wait for Markus to make it all better, rather than seeing if there are some settings you could use that would get you closer to what you want? Ok, that's your choice.

I'll keep searching for ways around the limitations that come with any AI in any career baseball sim of this kind on the market and be happy with the vast majority of stuff in this game that actually works. You keep winning 120 games a year and complaining about the minutiae that don't work. Just do me one favour. When people go out of their way to try and offer workarounds to you, which is what this thread is all about (well not just workarounds for you or suggestions by me, but it's an attempt to pool together ideas to get around this issue), try not to take a steaming dump on them.

Try not to take offense action, mking is a bit sarcastic sometimes but he (probably) doesn't mean to offend you or slight your help. I know him from another board and he is a decent guy.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by robc

Try not to take offense action, mking is a bit sarcastic sometimes but he (probably) doesn't mean to offend you or slight your help. I know him from another board and he is a decent guy.

Ahh...So that was sarcasm. Ok...I wasn't sure.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Ahh...So that was sarcasm. Ok...I wasn't sure.

It wasn't totally sarcastic (you'll know when I am) and I believe that anyone should try anything if they are so inclined. This is a personal experience.

I just speak personally about my game experience. I don't think there is a way I can solve my problem with the game as it is now. I honestly believe the only solution is "house rules". Things like it must be a 1 for 1 trade. If you can have Ted Williams for Roy Hartsfield (that's for you actionjackson), then you say no. (Of course, I'm saying yes and have drool falling out of my mouth). Police yourself and use house rules. I believe that's the only way you can get close to the utopia I'm looking for.

I'm lazy and have no self control.

I'm not slamming the game. It's a brilliant effort that you can see a lot of work went into. Sometimes you see the same bugs year to year (annoying as they are reported every year) on some things (why screens aren't sticky as in if I look at my rotation, almost every time I go back there it should be the pitchers up top and not all players with their batting averages. That bug is older than my grandparents and I'm a grandparent myself).

Overall, it's a good game. If you have the discipline for house rules and policing, it's a better game.

The game can be many things to many people. This is just what it is to me. As is often quoted on this board in posts, and I'm old enough to have seen it first hand, "your mileage will vary". That is very true. I've read about players who have it set on very hard and can't swing a trade. I myself might invest 1/2 hour trying to swing a trade.

I am sorry you feel like I'm taking a "steaming dump" on suggestions. I don't think that's true. I'm only commenting on my experience. I've been a member of this board since 2002 and have been playing this game since OOTP2. I've played solo, been an online league member a few times, and I've run 2 leagues. I have some knowledge about what works and what doesn't work. If a suggestion comes that I've tried, I can't say "thanks, I'll try it" but rather, "thanks, I've tried it and it didn't work". If I haven't tried it, I'll give it a shot within reason. (Trading preferences before every trade attempt doesn't fall into reason for me since I went to the Frank Lane school of Trading).

It's just at this current moment in time, I see the trading difficulty of "too hard" a failure FOR ME. I don't want to win every trade but I know I have an advantage. And like I said, I shouldn't be able to trade for god (or Ted Williams) without offering God (or Joe Dimaggio) in return. And the AI ratings know this. I do think for trading there should be some sort of career look ahead to value the players. Mike Schmidt after 1 season, a dog. But knowing the future (which can be built into the game) makes him almost untouchable.

Live long and prosper!
(Spock is my uncle)

[robc]

mking, I'm pretty sure you appreciated action's help, even if his particular suggestions don't work out for you. I think an 'I appreciated your suggestions, thanks' at the end of your post would have been enough to let him know that. He did spend some time to try to give you some help.

Just like if someone holds the door open for you but it slips out of their hand you don't tell then their attempted sucked, you thank them.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by robc

mking, I'm pretty sure you appreciated action's help, even if his particular suggestions don't work out for you. I think an 'I appreciated your suggestions, thanks' at the end of your post would have been enough to let him know that. He did spend some time to try to give you some help.

Just like if someone holds the door open for you but it slips out of their hand you don't tell then their attempted sucked, you thank them.

Eff U! You're right and I apologize for my lack of courtesy (and I'm not being sarcastic).

Mr. ActionJackson who seems to be a Canuck from T.O., thanks for your efforts. Rob is right. Good manners should be practiced here and everywhere.

[Kevin]

My question would be why replace all the names in the database? Why not just play with fictional players?

Remember, the AI does not attach any value to "Ted Williams". All it sees is player No. XXXXXX with ratings of XX, XX and XX and stats of XX, XX and XX. It has not yet determined that these X's will translate into a Hall of Fame career or something entirely different. It does not roll millions of random numbers into the future to look at a trade; it looks at only the calculated results of the numbers rolled to date.

I read so many posts each year about the trading AI that criticize based on real player names. Yet, I very rarely see criticisms about the same logic when applied to fictional players.

At any setting, the AI will probably accept some lopsided trades because the right random number was generated to allow it. The range of numbers available likely narrows substantially as the settings are harder, but there needs to be the odd outlier to make this a game and not a repeatable simulator.

[starship]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

The AI is trying to fleece you! It'll ask for the young, sure fire Hall of Famer on your team and offer you a has been and a never will be. I think I've ever only accepted ONE trade proposed by the AI.

Progen, if you're using the Pirates and want to be realistic, you must accept this trade!

[actionjackson]

First off mking55, let's just call it frustration on all sides boiled over and call it a day. Sorry if I went OTT (not Mel) on ya. Hartsfield reference: nice. The team up here didn't win much during his managerial tenure, but who cares? It was MLB...and thanks to San Fran rallying to save their team in the mid '70's, we didn't steal the Giants (always creates bad blood between cities) from a beautiful city and its great fans. We got our own team. Bit of a trough right now, but we'll get 'er turned around now that P.R. Ricciardi has been rightfully sacked.

Originally Posted by Kevin

My question would be why replace all the names in the database? Why not just play with fictional players?

Remember, the AI does not attach any value to "Ted Williams". All it sees is player No. XXXXXX with ratings of XX, XX and XX and stats of XX, XX and XX. It has not yet determined that these X's will translate into a Hall of Fame career or something entirely different. It does not roll millions of random numbers into the future to look at a trade; it looks at only the calculated results of the numbers rolled to date.

I read so many posts each year about the trading AI that criticize based on real player names. Yet, I very rarely see criticisms about the same logic when applied to fictional players.

At any setting, the AI will probably accept some lopsided trades because the right random number was generated to allow it. The range of numbers available likely narrows substantially as the settings are harder, but there needs to be the odd outlier to make this a game and not a repeatable simulator.

The bolded part is true, but the human player sure attaches value to "Ted Williams" or "Babe Ruth". The reason for doing it is to block out these temptations, while maintaining an identical talent distribution/individual player progression to a historical league, which I don't think (from my reading of various player generation complaints in fictionals) can be matched by a fictional or standard league.

I'm sure fictional/standard dynasty players will let me know if I'm an idiot for taking this stance or if I'm close to the mark. Lots of time to look back on who was who when I'm done playing the dynasty. It's still in the experimental stage, but I'll be interested to see how it plays out.

The whole idea is to try to bring myself down to the level of the AI, even if some would suggest that would be a step or two up. I shall christen my "innovation" a historical/fictional/historical league or HFH league for short. Historical players with Fictional names in a Historical setting. Sounds like a lot of trouble, but it's really quite easy - 5 minutes or so to customize the Master.csv database (being sure to copy the original of course), pull the historical database.odb out of your stats folder, put it somewhere else and away you go. Like I've said all along, definitely not everyone's cup of tea but I'll give it a whirl. With a) no recognizable names (none you can trust anyway), b) no ratings and c) settings that help the AI/provide fog of war for me, it better be tough enough. I'll definitely have the cannot be fired box checked as I could be having some record setting bad seasons while I'm getting used to it.

[jmknpk2]

Originally Posted by SteveP

1. If you don't think the AI is making an reasonably intelligent trade with you, don't make the trade. It's your solo league. You can control it.

I think the issue here is that when I play a game, I am looking for a challenge. The competitor in me wants to win, and gain an edge wherever I can. If I need to police myself and compete only partially, it loses the excitement and thrill.

Take for example a professional baseball team playing against an 8 year old team. Tell them to not play to their maximum skill level, but take it easy on the players. That's no fun. But say they do engage in the game at a reduced level. Then the question is how far back should they scale their efforts. Do they go from winning 100 to 1 to 50 to 1, 25 to 1? what's appropriate. So, suppose they scale back their efforts to the point where the 8 year olds are winning. Do they now say, ok, we'll try now.

No, the ridiculous example is ridiculous. Professional players want a challenge that professional players provide. If the competition is lesser, they seek higher competition.

I think that is why some of us are not comfortable with house rules (I actually have started using them, but I understand why some are not comfortable with them).

[mking55]

Originally Posted by actionjackson

First off mking55, let's just call it frustration on all sides boiled over and call it a day. Sorry if I went OTT (not Mel) on ya. Hartsfield reference: nice. The team up here didn't win much during his managerial tenure, but who cares? It was MLB...and thanks to San Fran rallying to save their team in the mid '70's, we didn't steal the Giants (always creates bad blood between cities) from a beautiful city and its great fans. We got our own team. Bit of a trough right now, but we'll get 'er turned around now that P.R. Ricciardi has been rightfully sacked.

I never saw frustration or boiling over. Your comments are your opinions and thoughts and were presented in a pleasant manner. I hope mine were too. However if they did boil over it was worth it for you terrible OTT pun. I loved it.

I was there way back on April 7, 1977 in Exhibition Stadium. That was one lousy stadium but the Skydome or Rogers Centre make it look good. I hate the dome. Baseball is an outdoor game. Doug Ault as the first Blue Jay hero. Otto Velez smashing the ball as the season went on. I loved "Otto the Swatto". I went to about 40 games that first season because my Dad had season tickets (the only time). I couldn't believe I was seeing Yaz, Reggie, Mark Fidyrch, and others in the flesh. Top ticket was $7.

I went to all the ALCS games in Toronto in 1985 when George Brett literally murdered the team. What a heartbreaker. I think I lost interest after that. I go occasionally with my nephew and wife because he's a nice kid and if the roof is open (which it never seems to be), it's a nice outing. We saw the Angels last Friday along with the 74 other people there. In hockey, people will go and pay the huge dollars and watch the biggest crap. In the other sports, they're fair weather fans. I didn't jump on the bandwagon in '92 and I won't if they ever contend again.

I think Tom Cheek is a no-brainer for the HOF, but it seems the people who do the voting have no brains. Jerry Howarth is annoying and I can't believe he's been around for about 30 years. Although he was a step up on Early Wynn who was worse than worse.

Not getting the Giants back in the '70s was crushing. It was so in the bag. But it all worked out with the expansion team. I hate they lost the Expos in Montreal as they were the original Canada's team. They had support but they had that horrific Olympic Stadium to watch games in. You needed a telescope to see the field.

I was glad to see Riccardi get bounced. I could never stand Paul Godfrey. Paul Beeston had his heyday. Cito who should have been given a job elsewhere (duh, is there prejudice do you think), shouldn't be the manager. I'm glad he's gone after this season. Nothing against the man, it's just that you should be using a young guy with a young team so they can grow together.

I think Rico Carty should make a comeback with the Jays.

[actionjackson]

They should have gone into full-on rebuilding mode after 1994 when Gillick left. Ash kept doing the "We're a contender"/"We're a pretender" dance, so the team went sideways.

Then Ricciardi came in and spent 2002 re-building and brought in cheap talent in 2003. When that cheap talent played way over its head that year, he appeared to abandon re-building and start going for it. 2004 ("The year from hell") should've told him the Jays weren't as close as he thought they were, but he plowed on and instead of building a team from the bottom up with a solid foundation, he built one from the top down. Let's just say he would've made a lousy construction worker. He had the mouth for it (construction) and nothing else. To be fair lots of young guys got their chances under him, both on the field and in the front office and that to me is his legacy along with his motor mouth.

Now we have Alex Anthopoulos. It looks good so far, but it's way too early to tell. I like the way he gets after it and he certainly has a ton of senior advisors, so who knows? At least he understands that building a team from the bottom up on a strong foundation is the way to go. More than can be said for his two predecessors.

I walked away from live games after the strike/lockout until 1998. First game back Jim Thome puts one into Sightlines Restaurant...not Windows Restaurant, but the one above it. Whoa! Of course 1998 was also the year of the Mark and Sammy show, and nobody is above suspicion from that era. I don't care who did what, I just want a more balanced game and it looks like things are shifting back that way. I love HR, but not at the expense of everything else. Would still love to see better fundamentals in the game, but you can't have everything right?

You're right the Jays can't catch a break in this town. The fans seem to hold against them the fact that the Red $ox and Yankee$ field all-star teams year after year. If the Laffs were held to the same standard as the Jays, they'd have had to move already but they aren't and 90% of the local sportscasts are hockey while baseball fights with all the other sports for the leftovers.

I'm not surprised nobody shows up to the hermetically sealed chamber games and frankly I think the Jays are tossing away their money by not cracking the lid. The only time the roof should be closed is when it's raining (it was open for the first time this year today). Period. Bring a jacket if you don't like the cooler temperatures for cryin' out loud, but don't contribute to the moribund atmosphere by complaining about the cold.

Not worried about the attendance though. If they can get this thing back on the rails the "cool" people who like to be "where it's at" will come back and help the hardcore baseball fans fill 'er up again. It may never be 4,000,000 again, but at least they won't be attempting to puff up their attendance numbers with freebies and $2 tickets. Godfrey...Rrrrr These things all go in cycles anyway and this is our rut. Oh well.

Oh, ahem...and now back to the thread.

[progen]

Well here's what I've found out so far in "tinkering" with the settings for solo play.

Test 1 - Ratings Weight - 60, Current - 25, Previous - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects, No Ratings, No Stars, No Coaches/Scouts
Team: Pirates
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects
I'm not interested right now in trading, just want to see how the AI does.
Season 1 - 41 Trades on or before deadline, 3 within same division.
Things were going along pretty well, no lopsided trades, nothing monumental into July. I also offered Ryan Doumit up for giggles and only got an offer from the Dodgers for James McDonald.
Then on July 26th the Phillies and Ruben Amaro went wacky. They traded Roy Halladay and Leandro Castro to the Nationals, for Adam Dunn and Michael Burgess.
And then on the 28th, they traded Ryan Howard and Domingo Santana to Oakland for AAA SP Chad Gaudin.
OK, back to the drawing board

Test 2 - Ratings Weight - 50, Current - 35, Prev - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects
42 total trades on or before deadline, and several lopsided ones
Orioles get Brandon Webb in exchange for Mychael Glynn(Rookie League) Webb was struggling, but was still rated high by the OSA scouts. There were several others, but it's time to move on.

Test 3- So far so good here
Ratings Weight - 45, Current - 40, Prev - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Neutral
Season 1 - 40 trades on or before deadline, only 2 inter-division (Marlins/Mets, Marlins/Nats)
No lopsided trades, but no blockbusters either, which is fine with me.
I did have two offers that were started by the AI, not me.
Giants wanted Ryan Church and Gorkys Hernandez and were willing to give up SP Matt Graham in A ball. I of course passed.
Marlins wanted Church too and wanted to give me that stud Hector Luna lol He was in AAA. No thanks, but this is great! No fleecing!!!
About the only notable trade was Seattle getting Dan Uggla from the Marlins for
Franklin Gutierrez and Bryan Peterson. Uggla happened to be struggling this season.
Season 2 - Decided to stick with this setup.
35 Trades, only 2 inter-division(Marlins/Braves), (Phillies/Nats) Both minor deals.
Once again, no lopsided or really blockbuster trades.

Tampa Bay did trade Derrick Lee to the Mets for MR Sean Green, but not a big deal.
I decided to jump into the trade arena, so just for kicks "shopped" my #1 pick from 2010, CF Bill Lowry. The Cubs were intersted, and offered their former 2008 #1 pick, Ryan Flaherty. Had a decent season in AA, but in AAA only hit .192 in 198 at bats. They also offered Marlon Byrd, no thanks.

Giants had the best offer of players - Brent Clevlen, 1B Thomas Neal, who swung the bat well at AA, and 1B Travis Ishikawa, who hit .278, with 26 HR's and 101 RBI. Didn't get into the trading piece with the Giants, as I wanted to hold onto my prospect, but was just curious as to what offers would be there.

I feel at this time, I will make a go of playing solo with my settings from "Test 3".
I will start a new game, and may take the Bucos again, or another team. But, at least for now, I feel that I've found some "decent" setttings, and may only have to slightly tweak them moving forward. I'm not taking the time to "analyze" each and every trade the AI makes, but just quickly looking over the trades, once again, nothing that I couldn't live with.
Just for the record, in real life(MLB), there were a total of "50 trades" on or before the deadline in 2009. Here's the site - MLB Trades | MLB Trade Tracker | 2008 MLB Trade Deadline

[damonrusst]

I made a rule that I would make no rules until I won the World Series. Been playing PBP from 1929-1940, starting in A, been to two world series with red sox, one with A's but haven't won yet. So I take whatever deal I can get.

That being said, I've made some great trades, some trades where I thought I took advantage of AI, only to see the players I got bust and the prospects I gave up go on to become all stars.

I'm still in OOTP10, waiting until end of this season sim to download new one but just noticed that the Philllies GM is becoming quite a bonehead, got his ROTY 2B for a song and the year before stole the Cy Young winner from him. But again, these trades look good now but who knows a year from now. Other clubs much more stingy.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by progen

Well here's what I've found out so far in "tinkering" with the settings for solo play.

Test 1 - Ratings Weight - 60, Current - 25, Previous - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects, No Ratings, No Stars, No Coaches/Scouts
Team: Pirates
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects
I'm not interested right now in trading, just want to see how the AI does.
Season 1 - 41 Trades on or before deadline, 3 within same division.
Things were going along pretty well, no lopsided trades, nothing monumental into July. I also offered Ryan Doumit up for giggles and only got an offer from the Dodgers for James McDonald.
Then on July 26th the Phillies and Ruben Amaro went wacky. They traded Roy Halladay and Leandro Castro to the Nationals, for Adam Dunn and Michael Burgess.
And then on the 28th, they traded Ryan Howard and Domingo Santana to Oakland for AAA SP Chad Gaudin.
OK, back to the drawing board

Test 2 - Ratings Weight - 50, Current - 35, Prev - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Favors Prospects
42 total trades on or before deadline, and several lopsided ones
Orioles get Brandon Webb in exchange for Mychael Glynn(Rookie League) Webb was struggling, but was still rated high by the OSA scouts. There were several others, but it's time to move on.

Test 3- So far so good here
Ratings Weight - 45, Current - 40, Prev - 10, 2 years ago - 5
Trade Freq - Low, Difficulty - Hard, Preference - Neutral
Season 1 - 40 trades on or before deadline, only 2 inter-division (Marlins/Mets, Marlins/Nats)
No lopsided trades, but no blockbusters either, which is fine with me.
I did have two offers that were started by the AI, not me.
Giants wanted Ryan Church and Gorkys Hernandez and were willing to give up SP Matt Graham in A ball. I of course passed.
Marlins wanted Church too and wanted to give me that stud Hector Luna lol He was in AAA. No thanks, but this is great! No fleecing!!!
About the only notable trade was Seattle getting Dan Uggla from the Marlins for
Franklin Gutierrez and Bryan Peterson. Uggla happened to be struggling this season.
Season 2 - Decided to stick with this setup.
35 Trades, only 2 inter-division(Marlins/Braves), (Phillies/Nats) Both minor deals.
Once again, no lopsided or really blockbuster trades.

Tampa Bay did trade Derrick Lee to the Mets for MR Sean Green, but not a big deal.
I decided to jump into the trade arena, so just for kicks "shopped" my #1 pick from 2010, CF Bill Lowry. The Cubs were intersted, and offered their former 2008 #1 pick, Ryan Flaherty. Had a decent season in AA, but in AAA only hit .192 in 198 at bats. They also offered Marlon Byrd, no thanks.

Giants had the best offer of players - Brent Clevlen, 1B Thomas Neal, who swung the bat well at AA, and 1B Travis Ishikawa, who hit .278, with 26 HR's and 101 RBI. Didn't get into the trading piece with the Giants, as I wanted to hold onto my prospect, but was just curious as to what offers would be there.

I feel at this time, I will make a go of playing solo with my settings from "Test 3".
I will start a new game, and may take the Bucos again, or another team. But, at least for now, I feel that I've found some "decent" setttings, and may only have to slightly tweak them moving forward. I'm not taking the time to "analyze" each and every trade the AI makes, but just quickly looking over the trades, once again, nothing that I couldn't live with.
Just for the record, in real life(MLB), there were a total of "50 trades" on or before the deadline in 2009. Here's the site - MLB Trades | MLB Trade Tracker | 2008 MLB Trade Deadline

I scan posts sometimes so forgive me if missed an important detail.
Is your test confined to AI vs. AI trades? It sounds like it. You need to test you (a human being I believe) trading against the AI. The AI has a rule, if a trade is a bonehead makes no sense trade with another AI team, then do it and do it now.

I myself have never got into looking at AI vs AI trades. Many of the few I've seen are just plain stupid. The test is how you perform against the AI.

The Brownies in my league have the 1st pick every year. It isn't by congressional decree but rather they have this annoying habit of trading their first pick to me to get some mediocre to good players (and some bums) who may improve their season record by 2 games. At least the real Brownies had an excuse. No draft and no money.

The trick, at least to me and that I can't find, is to stop me from constantly getting 90% of the players I want. I still haven't gotten Joe Dimaggio but I don't want him anymore. My outfield is Musial, Williams, and Pete Reiser which can make you wet your pants. And now I've traded the Brownies for their first pick, Ralph Kiner. Where do I put him? In the broadcast booth?

Do your testing (I suggest) with you going up against the AI.

The other thing I still see is that a team will trade for Player X and then not resign him so he's a free agent. Why? They're not going to win the Pennant with that trade, so if they can't or won't (mostly won't) resign him, why bother acquiring him?

[DCG12]

mking

It would be helpful if you could post how you got all these players i.e. who did you trade for who. I have been working on trading during beta testing and am fast reaching the point where I am burned out because people come on the forum and scream that they fleeced the AI in historical and MLB quickstart games but I have a tough time replicating the trades. It leads me to believe that they have some setting different then I do or they are not being totally honest as to the trade setting being hard or very hard. I am not doubting that you made the trades but to make it better I have to be able to show Markus how it was done and not just somebody stirring the hot button issue. I try all trades on various levels including very hard and with various trade frequencies as well as during different times of the season.

I tried to replicate what you did by simming the 1939 season and then making some trades as the Browns. I managed to get Mell Ott but I had to give up 5 players all 3 stars or better to get him. The game will be subject to these trades unless Markus changes the way trades are evaluated. Right now all players have a value and if you include enough players and or money/draft picks you will eventually tip the scale. I am not saying this is the right way it is just how it works. Maybe HOF players showed have a "no trade" tag although that would piss off people who would complain they can't trade for good players.

I then tried to flip Ott for Williams and the only way Boston would do it was for 5 more players plus Ott including the only two guys on the reserve roster who had potential. Now looking at the players Boston took I would not have made the trade because I know who Williams is and should be. But again I tipped the scale. The down side for St. Louis though is they are running out of players because I moved 11 to end up with just Williams.

As much as you hate house rules my personal feeling is trades in OOTP should never be more than one player off on a side i.e. 2 for 1 or 3 for 2