FLAW: Loophole in Trade AI

[Mets Man]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

You're right that someone could back into this and not realize that they are making a trade the AI wouldn't otherwise take. But the way you just explained how you got there, I hope you see how easy it is to simply disregard the accepted offer. That's where I'm coming from.

Ya, I hear where you're coming from, but these "self-control" methods severely limit the features of a game. I mean its almost like saying "if you want to avoid taking advantage of the AI, don't trade at all". Of course that's the best way to avoid taking advantage of the AI, but who wants to do that?

This problem obviously isn't as extreme, but it does prevent me from being able to pick up some marginally okay minor leaguers from the CPU teams. Why have this restriction when it can be fixed?

Obviously, things could be worse, but it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem here.

[Ksyrup]

I understand. And I guess that's where I draw the line - a problem that will cause an issue with the game no matter what you do to avoid it, and one that is limited in its effect. The problem being discussed in another thread about the AI's disregard of superior MRs in drafts for crappy SPs/Cls is far more concerning to me, because I'm not sure how one would work around that. This one is limited and isolated, compared to that one.

[red95vette]

There is no perfect game at which you will be able to act, unfettered, in any way against a computer AI

I dispute this premise.

I program computers for a living -- automated control systems that have to "think" like humans using a decision matrix to handle events that might come up in a manufacturing process environment. Believe me these decision matrices can become quite complex, you'd be surprised!

It is completely possible to make a game with tight, challenging AI. Quite simple really, all you have to do is put constraints on the "endpoints" of the decision-making logic.

For example, if coding more than 1 for 1 or 2 for 2 trading is too tough to evaluate correctly in the programming, then as a developer the solution is to simply limit the AI to never accept trades unless they were 1for1 or 1for2 or 2for2. If someone wants to force an override in commissioner mode (to mirror real-life transactions for instance) then fine, that facility is available. But at least the existing AI then actually has some value and meaning.

If AI is NOT going to challenge a human player then it's a waste of time/resources to try to even put it in place.



To describe what I've seen from OOTP in general terms regarding this "trade bug", here's an example. This happened to me about 4-5 times in the course of playing the demo so it is not a rare instance.

Player (me) offers trade:
I'll give you my 3 star/3 star player for your 4 star/5 star player.

Computer rejects trade -- rightly so.

Player(me) adds some low level talent maybe 1 star/2 star prospect.

Computer says -- I'll have to think about it. Manager for player says "I'd ask for another prospect"

Player adds 1 star / 1 star dreg to computer side.

Computer says OK that would make this work now.

Hmmm, it was marginal before I added the dreg but now it's OK?

Player removes 1 star / 2 star from player side of trade.

Computer says OK that would make this work now.

Final trade player gives up one 3/3 in exchange for one 4/5 and one 1/1

It's obvious the computer is treating it's 1/1 as a negative liability to its own club and trying to dump it. The point is it's a minor league player. The computer could simply release this player to FA if it really doesn't want it on the team AND SUFFER NO TEAM CONSEQUENCE since the minor league contract carries a contract value of $0.

Very easy to solve. Never treat a player with a minor league contract as a negative liability to the team for purposes of evaluating a trade -- job done. Coding time about 10 minutes (literally) including compile time.

[Ksyrup]

I'm not talking about how to fix this particular problem. You might be able to do that, and heck, maybe Markus can fix it in the blink of an eye. Point out a game that is perfectly coded, that no one can find AI issues with, that people haven't had to invent house rules to create a challenge for. Name one.

If you do, then you're ignoring issues with it someone else found. Sounds kinda like what you've accused me of, huh?

[red95vette]

I'm not talking about how to fix this particular problem.

LOL. Well I am. That's how you get to a "perfect" game. By solving each problem, one at a time. Believe me they are finite. New ones don't spontaneously spawn over time.

You might be able to do that, and heck, maybe Markus can fix it in the blink of an eye. Point out a game that is perfectly coded, that no one can find AI issues with, that people haven't had to invent house rules to create a challenge for. Name one.

If you do, then you're ignoring issues with it someone else found. Sounds kinda like what you've accused me of, huh?

Too easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue
You said name one, voila.

Most every game I've ever played (more than just to test out) provided a challenge without having to resort to "house rules" that includes non-sim games, role-playing games, even a past-version of Baseball Mogul, the old microleague baseball games, circ late 1980s, and too many others to count spanning the last couple decade.

"House Rules" seem to be popular amongst the sporting sim crowd and it's in situations where the games in fact do have flaws in the AI.

Don't you understand at all where I'm coming from. As a developer you can code these so called "house rules" into the program! Then they are no longer house rules.

[Ksyrup]

This discussion was in the realm of sports text sims to begin with - I really don't play many other games outside this genre, so that's where my experience comes from. However, I find it hard to believe you're complaining that an isolated bug/exploit in the trade feature of OOTP is of major concern to you, then you turn around and tell me that Baseball Mogul and Micro League baseball were perfectly coded games. Fun, sure; challenging...uh, no, not without suspending disbelief or severely curtailing the way I would play if I was going up against another human. Perfectly coded? I don't think the people who coded them would support your statement - not that it's a crime to have a less than perfectly coded game, mind you.

This just proves my point that games are what you make them. If you're able to look back at those games and see a challenging experience and a flawless game, then so be it. That's about as realistic as you expecting OOTP or any other game that might come out to be truly flawless, though. In my experience, no game of this kind has ever been challenging enough to the point where I could go full-out in competing against the AI and not thoroughly and unreaslistically dominate it. I have always had to restrict myself in some way. And no game has ever been fully rid of AI issues/ bugs/exploits. I don't expect that will ever change during my lifetime, either.

[red95vette]

In my experience, no game of this kind has ever been challenging enough to the point where I could go full-out in competing against the AI and not thoroughly and unreaslistically dominate it. I have always had to restrict myself in some way.

You're obviously just a better game player than me then. I've been challenged by many games, yes including BBMogul, 2005 version I believe; running a franchise as the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. I eventually succeeded in getting a WS championship, but it took about 7-8 seasons. Realistic game? No, I didn't say that. Challenging? Yes.

Also Madden 2005 had good AI from the drafting and trading side. I felt the on-the-field gameplay sucked. But many people, including myself, just played the game for the GM side of it and simmed the actual games.

And no game has ever been fully rid of AI issues/ bugs/exploits. I don't expect that will ever change during my lifetime, either.

I think you just have low expectations. See if actively pursued, and worked upon, OOTP could in fact have zero AI issues/bugs/exploits. That is in fact why I'm even bothering posting on this thread. I'm not even a game owner, but could envison being one as OOTP is very good in many ways. Unfortunately, the few issues I've found have all been in areas like this that detract from my own personal enjoyment of the game.

The attitude that it's not possible and the negative tone in your posts is a defeatist stance and in fact can become self-fullfiling. If one believes its not possible, then it in fact is not possible. Strive for more, you might be plesantly surprised someday. Not without an obvious adjustment in disposition though.

Enough said, you obviously will disagree with my post once again and vice-versa. SO there is no need for us to continue banging our collective heads against the wall.

[Ksyrup]

I find it difficult to reconcile your comments about BBM (either the challenge of it or the flawlessly coding of it) in this thread with this post from another thread:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...&postcount=102

I'm a realist. I don't expect things that can't happen, buit if they do, then I've set myself up for a pleasant surprise. But I also can see the forest for the trees and can get around issues to make games more fun and more challenging, without games having to be perfect. I'd rather have 90% of things fixed perfectly and a fun game that maybe I have to make a bit more challenging by implementing house rules, than for the developer to spend too much time fixing every little issue and end up with a technically perfect game that's no fun. It's where those two things balance that is the key.

OOTP doesn't have to be perfect. You can make it fun and challenging without every little detail corrected.

[red95vette]

Reconcile the BBM comment based on this. I had to resort to taking on Tampa Bay for the "Challenge" I described. I eventually lost interest in BBM in 2005 simply because the non-baseball SIM portion of the game was very basic and became boring after this initial play through. But I no doubt had fun doing the initial run -- just no replay value, hence my quest for something better.

The point though was that the 2005 BBM was not "flawed". It wasn't through software "exploits" that I prevailed. Now the latest version of BBM. It is definitely flawed. All one has to do is go to the games forums and read a bit to see that.

I'm a realist. I don't expect things that can't happen, buit if they do, then I've set myself up for a pleasant surprise

I literally laughed out loud at this quote. I know you probably weren't intending to be humorous, but this is a Yogi Berra type snippet. It truly is.

[Ksyrup]

Nevermind. I can see this is useless. I basically made the same points others made to you in the other thread yesteday, and I can see how much thought you've given them.

Keep striving for that perfect game, and maybe you can wipe out homelessness, racism and disease while you're at it. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying this buggy, flawed game.

[red95vette]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Nevermind. I can see this is useless. I basically made the same points others made to you in the other thread yesteday, and I can see how much thought you've given them.

Keep striving for that perfect game, and maybe you can wipe out homelessness, racism and disease while you're at it. Meanwhile, I'll be enjoying this buggy, flawed game.

Dude, what's your basic problem. Mets Man posted about this flaw. I concured that I'd experienced it numerous times as well.

I've suggested one possible easy way to fix it. Markus can decide to pursue it or not.

We're both trying to help OOTP along to become an even better product.

But, you're bascially rebutting everything we've said with the simple suggestion to use house rules or exercise self-control.

Fact: plain and simple, there is a bug. Did anyone say OOTP sucks because of it? No. Did anyone say it can't be ignored? No. But, it IS easy addressable and it DOES make a difference to a portion of the OOTP community that either owns or is considering owning the game.

No matter how many times you tell me that no game is perfect, doesn't make this bug go away. It also doesn't make this bug any harder to solve. So get over it. Leave it to Markus to decide whether he wants to address it or not.

[Raidergoo]

The only way this gets addressed is if a bug report gets made in the tech forum.

Has this been reported?

[red95vette]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

The only way this gets addressed is if a bug report gets made in the tech forum.

Has this been reported?

Good question. Mets Man is the original reporter and has a file with it illustrated.

I noticed it but didn't record specifics at the time they happened so he'd be best to carry it forward. I'll PM him now to see if he's reported it.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by red95vette

It is completely possible to make a game with tight, challenging AI.

But with that AI following the same rules as does the human player? That's the key question. Often, a game will give the AI certain advantages that the human player doesn't get. The Civilization series of games were well-noted for this. The AI, for example, always got to see the entire game map while the human player always had to explore to reveal it. You can find lots of these sorts of "cheats" being given to the AI in many games to make it a tougher opponent for the human player.

Even Galactic Civilizatons II, which is often cited as a game with a great AI which doesn't use such "cheats" still gives the AI player production bonuses at the higher levels of difficulty that the human player doesn't get.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by red95vette

Dude, what's your basic problem. Mets Man posted about this flaw. I concured that I'd experienced it numerous times as well.

I've suggested one possible easy way to fix it. Markus can decide to pursue it or not.

We're both trying to help OOTP along to become an even better product.

But, you're bascially rebutting everything we've said with the simple suggestion to use house rules or exercise self-control.

Fact: plain and simple, there is a bug. Did anyone say OOTP sucks because of it? No. Did anyone say it can't be ignored? No. But, it IS easy addressable and it DOES make a difference to a portion of the OOTP community that either owns or is considering owning the game.

No matter how many times you tell me that no game is perfect, doesn't make this bug go away. It also doesn't make this bug any harder to solve. So get over it. Leave it to Markus to decide whether he wants to address it or not.

I guess I wouldn't have bothered if I knew you didn't even own the game.

I think this turned into a bigger discussion than about this one bug/flaw/exploit, which is what the majority of our discussion has been about.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

But with that AI following the same rules as does the human player? That's the key question. Often, a game will give the AI certain advantages that the human player doesn't get. The Civilization series of games were well-noted for this. The AI, for example, always got to see the entire game map while the human player always had to explore to reveal it. You can find lots of these sorts of "cheats" being given to the AI in many games to make it a tougher opponent for the human player.

Even Galactic Civilizatons II, which is often cited as a game with a great AI which doesn't use such "cheats" still gives the AI player production bonuses at the higher levels of difficulty that the human player doesn't get.

Civ is a great example of a challenging game (and one of the few non-sports sims I've played) that is challenging, but you're right, it's not challenging because they've come up with a way to mirror a human opponent, they just make it easier for the AI on the harder difficulty levels - give them techs faster, etc. So it's really not some breakthrough on AI modeling, it's just applying cheats to make the game harder. The Civ AI isn't thinking any more like a human than before, it's just using what it has been given like it always has and getting the advantage of having it earlier than the human can get it.

[Mets Man]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

The only way this gets addressed is if a bug report gets made in the tech forum.

Has this been reported?

Sorry I'm a bit new to this, but how exactly would I go about reporting this bug? Do I just post a thread in the tech forum? Can a mod just move this thread over to the tech support forum? Will it definitely be looked at if I post it there? How do I get about getting a TT number on this?

I'm not exactly sure how the procedure works. My impression was that you post about a problem, discuss it and perhaps a mod will get a TT on it.

[red95vette]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

But with that AI following the same rules as does the human player? That's the key question. Often, a game will give the AI certain advantages that the human player doesn't get.

Yeah that's a very good point. I abhore games that "cheat" to make the game harder. Examples abound... Madden does it on All-Madden as admitted by EA. Tiger Woods rubberband opponent skills, et cetera. Many racing "sims" also change opponent drivers skills/behavior depending on the players performance.

In these cases the game requires some sort of physical dexterity on the player's part. That is often the justification for resorting to "cheating" to offer challenge to a wide-spectrum of players.

However, there is a case in point regarding Madden. Long-time players will tell you that for YEARS the play calling by the computer has been absolutely atrocious. It's not uncommon for the computer to call a run on 3rd and long or play 2 deep dime back zone on D on a 3rd and 1 -- not just sometimes but very often. Less cheating would be necessary if reasonably applicable plays were called in those situations.

But that's a different tangent.


No, I think it's quite possible to make a challenging game, especially a sports management SIM without the AI cheating. Let's just look at baseball GMing for example.

What does the AI have to do?

1. It has to evaluate potential trades decently.
2. It has to be able to create reasonable depth charts/batting orders.
3. It has to draft reasonably (using a lot of the same evaluation techniques applicable to trading).
4. It has to have some "knowledge" or "feel" for its organization's financial resources to determine how much $$$ to offer a FA or existing players renewing contracts without hurting its organization too much for the future.
5. It has to make decent in-game managerial decisions regarding pitcher replacement, pinch runners/hitters, defensive subs, et cetera.

If the AI does these 5 things reasonably well, I think it's de facto competative already. Do you agree with this premise?

Adjustments in "gamplay difficulty" are then already achievable depending on whether the user decides to manage the proverbial Yankees with nearly unlimited financial resources or the cash-strapped Royals.

Now, the only addition to these five areas, that I've posted about elsewhere, is mixing it up a bit. In other words, don't have 29 AI GMs all going after the same FAs and offering the same contract offers. Don't have them ALL wanting to draft the same players in a draft and value each position identically. Instead apply a GM "personality" filter that simply takes the default logic but then modifies it a bit so that for instance GM#1 prefers defense, GM#2 like big bats and prefers a strong SP#1 and 2 but then values its bullpen more than SP#3,4,5 and so on.

This variety makes the AI act more like real-life (so that it's not one human GM versus 29 clones) and also helps to cover up and/or alleviate issues like the good MRs remaining very deep into a draft (as discussed elsewhere.)

But anyway, it's just my $0.02. And I'm quickly learning these viewpoints are in the extreme minority around here, so I'm just about to stop posting anyway. I've only got 3 days left on my trial and it's looking grim for real MLB rosters which was the last thing I wanted to try with OOTP this year.

Good luck and take care.

[battists]

Originally Posted by Mets Man

Sorry I'm a bit new to this, but how exactly would I go about reporting this bug? Do I just post a thread in the tech forum? Can a mod just move this thread over to the tech support forum? Will it definitely be looked at if I post it there? How do I get about getting a TT number on this?

I'm not exactly sure how the procedure works. My impression was that you post about a problem, discuss it and perhaps a mod will get a TT on it.

Basically, you post it in Tech Support, and it's guaranteed to get looked at. You post it here, and maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

I'll move this to Tech Support for you...

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Mets Man

Sorry I'm a bit new to this, but how exactly would I go about reporting this bug? Do I just post a thread in the tech forum? Can a mod just move this thread over to the tech support forum? Will it definitely be looked at if I post it there? How do I get about getting a TT number on this?

I'm not exactly sure how the procedure works. My impression was that you post about a problem, discuss it and perhaps a mod will get a TT on it.

You can post a new thread to the tech forum, or send battists a PM requesting this be moved.