OOTP AI Improvements

[NoOne]

historical leagues are a choice of compromises. try different compromises in the settings.. If that's how it works, that's how it works. Learn to enjoy it or play a different way. I can tell you i could never play a historical league. Too many compromises for me.

But, it may take you 4-5+ iterations of a league before you get the settings where you want them for a historical league.

It took me more than that with a simpler context of fictional mlb-based leagues.

Absolutely get rid of aging players before they fall off a cliff. "30" is a greay point to start for most positions with some variation for RP, C, lesser defensive positions. I trust a RP up to 35ish FAR more often than an SP. A 35yo SP just a prayer, lol. 50/50 and likely worse than that. Catcher is one i don't keep past 29, if avoidable.

Biggest super power in these games is financial responsibility. Money is oil, not fuel.

[luckymann]

I would think some sort of prohibition on a player being placed on the block within X number of days of being extended would be simple enough and would avoid this situation being so commonplace in OOTP...

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by luckymann

I would think some sort of prohibition on a player being placed on the block within X number of days of being extended would be simple enough and would avoid this utterly ridiculous and implausible situation that is so commonplace in OOTP...

A player being signed then traded days latter has happened in real life. Rafael Soriano was signed by the Braves in 2009 and traded 4 days later.

Not sure why this situation utterly ridiculous and implausible. Doing something like that should be tied to the GM reputation system. If one abuses it then it should be harder to extend players or sign free agents.

It's something allowed by the rules so it's not ridiculous at all

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

A player being signed then traded days latter has happened in real life. Rafael Soriano was signed by the Braves in 2009 and traded 4 days later.

Not sure why this situation utterly ridiculous and implausible. Doing something like that should be tied to the GM reputation system. If one abuses it then it should be harder to extend players or sign free agents.

It's something allowed by the rules so it's not ridiculous at all

In my current historical using historical minors, the Senators made a offseason deal with the Red Sox that included Mickey Stanley going to the Sox. A day or three later the Senators and Red Sox made another deal and in doing so Mickey Stanley was traded back to the Senators. Stanley was then traded again during the run up to the 1964 trade deadline. This is at least the 4th time the Mick has been dealt and the poor guy has never made it into a big league game.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by David Watts

In my current historical using historical minors, the Senators made a offseason deal with the Red Sox that included Mickey Stanley going to the Sox. A day or three later the Senators and Red Sox made another deal and in doing so Mickey Stanley was traded back to the Senators. Stanley was then traded again during the run up to the 1964 trade deadline. This is at least the 4th time the Mick has been dealt and the poor guy has never made it into a big league game.

Yeah that is excessive, the trade back and forth is really concerning.

The AI can be really confusing at times. I hope one day we can have a setting to approve all AI roster moves, as I don't trust it to build a team at all.

I'll never understand it's logic in signing players.

[luckymann]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

A player being signed then traded days latter has happened in real life. Rafael Soriano was signed by the Braves in 2009 and traded 4 days later.

Not sure why this situation utterly ridiculous and implausible. Doing something like that should be tied to the GM reputation system. If one abuses it then it should be harder to extend players or sign free agents.

It's something allowed by the rules so it's not ridiculous at all

Fair point, I have amended my post accordingly with the rhetoric toned down a bit.

Doesn't change the fact it needs a fix and strikes me as another straightforward one.