Regarding trading--Not a debate but just interested in knowing who agrees

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by mking55

Yes, my success comes in name recognition.

You're not just exploiting that advantage, you are aggressively exploiting that advantage. And rather than restrain yourself from taking such liberties, you want the AI to force such restraints upon you.

Short of something draconian, I suspect any revised system brought in you'd find a way to beat in short order. You're the Terminator of trading!

Originally Posted by mking55

However, the game lets you do this, therefore the onus is on the game to do the best job it can. It's not up to me to say "the game says I can do this but I won't because I love to buy games and play them that don't perform as they should".

You sound like one of those gamers who spends hours looking for any and every glitch or bug in a game and then ruthlessly uses it in order to win. You're not a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 are you?

Originally Posted by mking55

I find it absurd that people will tell me I'm taking advantage of what the game offers.

See above.

Originally Posted by mking55

If it's no good and there's no help for it, then take it out of the game.

Why should it be removed because some folks can't control themselves, can't make allowances, and insist on winning by any means necessary?

Originally Posted by mking55

You cannot tell me I'm wrong to want to play the game I bought.

You can play it any way you want. But ruthlessly exploitating an advantage and then complaing about ruthlessly taking that advantage seems contradictory.

Originally Posted by mking55

If it can't be done, don't allow it in the game. Disable trading in historicals. (Not me but the game).

You can do that now. You could turn off trading and give yourself more of a challenge. But you don't do that. Why? Can you not even exercise that modicum of restraint? Why should trading be disabled for everyone just because you cannot exercise a little self-control and utilize options that are already in the game? Not everyone is The Terminator of trading!

Originally Posted by mking55

I don't get why it's so hard to admit that something could be better and therefore help make a better game.

That's not being denied at all.

Originally Posted by mking55

I'm just focusing on this one aspect of the game and saying it could be better and I'm willing to invest my time in an effort to make it so.

That's good. When you have some concrete proposals to make, I'll read them with interest.


The issue of trading was discussed during beta, and Markus mentioned a few little facts. Did you know that most of OOTP's CPU usage is devoted to AI trading routines? Markus could throw more CPU cycles at the problem, but that's going to negatively affect sim speed. How much should that trade-off be made?

[Malleus Dei]

I'd just like to say that I disagree with all of you.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

I'd just like to say that I disagree with all of you.

We would expect nothing less.

[robc]

Le Grande,

1) Do you agree that OOTP tends to overvalue multiple players in a trade, sometimes allowing you to give several decent players for a very good one?

2) Perhaps OOTP can place a little greater value on the potential value (on the neutral setting) if you are able to steal away rookies with high potential. I think this may be escpecially ture if playing with recalc since the randomness of the development engine isn't factoring in.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You're not just exploiting that advantage, you are aggressively exploiting that advantage. And rather than restrain yourself from taking such liberties, you want the AI to force such restraints upon you.

Short of something draconian, I suspect any revised system brought in you'd find a way to beat in short order. You're the Terminator of trading!

You sound like one of those gamers who spends hours looking for any and every glitch or bug in a game and then ruthlessly uses it in order to win. You're not a Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 are you?

See above.

Why should it be removed because some folks can't control themselves, can't make allowances, and insist on winning by any means necessary?

You can play it any way you want. But ruthlessly exploitating an advantage and then complaing about ruthlessly taking that advantage seems contradictory.

You can do that now. You could turn off trading and give yourself more of a challenge. But you don't do that. Why? Can you not even exercise that modicum of restraint? Why should trading be disabled for everyone just because you cannot exercise a little self-control and utilize options that are already in the game? Not everyone is The Terminator of trading!

That's not being denied at all.

That's good. When you have some concrete proposals to make, I'll read them with interest.


The issue of trading was discussed during beta, and Markus mentioned a few little facts. Did you know that most of OOTP's CPU usage is devoted to AI trading routines? Markus could throw more CPU cycles at the problem, but that's going to negatively affect sim speed. How much should that trade-off be made?

You are quite annoying. Not in the way of "I'm a jerk and it's my job to be a jerk", but in the way of you just don't get it.

You seem like a serious guy who's well respected on these boards. I don't think you earned that respect by putting down those who play the game as designed and offer to give serious help.

You don't know me from a hole in the wall. All you know is what I post. You don't know if I try to find these bugs or I make it my life's mission to find them. You could ask me. That's usually what people do when they don't know something.

No, I have never devoted several hours to finding a trading exploit. It's a skill of mine. I trip over bugs. This goes with this and other games, and with the software I work with. I'm not a tester, I just find things effortlessly. Some people find money, I find bugs. I would rather find money.

No, I would not beat a good trading system within moments or minutes or hours. If it's good, I couldn't whip it. I might beat it 60 to 40 percent, but not 90 to 10 percent.

Your arguments such as "can't control yourself" show you don't understand. If it's in the game, it's there to be used. Period. No argument. You are 100% wrong and by being like this you show no interest in having this one area I mention improved. Same thing about "ruthlessly exploiting an advantage". Once more, it's in the game so how can I exploit it by playing within the rules of the game.

Stick to what we're working with. A finished product and how it performs. I'm not talking about what's missing, I'm talking about what's sold and by being sold it implies (to me anyways) that it works just fine and dandy.

This is important to me because I love trading. It's the most important feature to me in the game. I'd like to see it work in such a way that I cannot whip it's butt every time.

I'll have concrete proposals when I know what's there. As for how many CPU cycles are used in trading, maybe they are tons of them, but many of them are pointless. It's possible to lower the number (I'm only saying possible) but once again, without knowing how it works, I can't comment on how they're being used.

If I'm asked to come up with a proposal after understanding what's there now, and I'm asked to run it by you in your position as (I forget, just what was your position?), I'd be more than happy too.

You know, it's free to ask me to look at it and see if I can come up with a good idea. Interview me and see if I'm not just full of myself, or I'm what I say I am which is a long-time developer who has solved numerous software problems and developed some pretty good stuff (in the business area). You don't like what I offer, that's fine. I won't die. I can only suggest a plan but the developer is the only one who knows the full picture and can decide whether the plan is feasible.

I think we should be working towards the same goal, not downgrading someone who plays the game as designed and then taken to task for taking advantage of the game.

Your argument is absurd.

[rudoggy]

The AI makes trades, possibly the best trades possible based on the info it has at the time, based on the players stats at that point in time. How could it possibly base its decisions on what the player is going to be like in 2 years. Realism in a game is that you -don't- want the AI squatting on players that turn into HR monsters next year.
My biggest issue with any strategy game is that i dont want the AI to cheat, and be able to see into the future. I want a fair shot at the same stars that have not evolved yet.
Your only hope is that the AI has the same crystal ball you have, and hoards players with a .150 batting average because it KNOWS in 2 years that player will dominate the league for years to come.
Im sorry, but i find this beef with the program silly when there are so many other little things wrong with it.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by rudoggy

The AI makes trades, possibly the best trades possible based on the info it has at the time, based on the players stats at that point in time. How could it possibly base its decisions on what the player is going to be like in 2 years. Realism in a game is that you -don't- want the AI squatting on players that turn into HR monsters next year.
My biggest issue with any strategy game is that i dont want the AI to cheat, and be able to see into the future. I want a fair shot at the same stars that have not evolved yet.
Your only hope is that the AI has the same crystal ball you have, and hoards players with a .150 batting average because it KNOWS in 2 years that player will dominate the league for years to come.
Im sorry, but i find this beef with the program silly when there are so many other little things wrong with it.

Two things.

1. I find my "beef" with the program one of the biggest things wrong with it. However, this is just my opinion and can't be argued with, just as your opinion that it's not that important can't be argued with. I agree to disagree with you.

2. You're right. The AI needs that "crystal ball" to see the future as one of the steps to equalize the trading module. That's not all it needs, but it needs that as a starter.

Mike Schmidt in his 1st full season had a batting average of .196. If that's all you know about Mike Schmidt then he's trade bait because he sucks at the moment.

However, Mike Schmidt became one of the all-time greats and the AI should know that. The AI should demand gold (and lots of it) for Mike Schmidt. Think of this knowledge of the future that the AI has as just an A1 scouting team.

So as part of what I (and I said I and not everybody) want is for the AI to hold on to the stars of the future and not let them go so cheaply. And to do that, you have to give the AI a crystal ball.

[gord]

I couldn't agree with LGO more and I think your stance is absurd. These games are not perfect and we all agree that there are many improvements to be made. Pick practically any game out there and you'll find certain ways to defeat the system and exploit the holes in the AI: build nothing but tanks which the AI can't adjust, create a superarmy in one territory which the AI can't defeat, call the toss sweep over and over that gains 20 yards at a time, throw the change-up down and in on an 0-2 count which the batter can't hit, etc...

Sometimes you come to the realization that you can easily defeat the CPU using a certain strategy. If you wish to continue to play that way, great, but how fun can it be? Nobody is making you do all of these trades. Just because there are three chocolate cakes on the table doesn't mean you have to eat all of them at the same time. Play a little more realistically and I can almost guarantee that you'll get more enjoyment out of it.

[robc]

Originally Posted by rudoggy

The AI makes trades, possibly the best trades possible based on the info it has at the time, based on the players stats at that point in time. How could it possibly base its decisions on what the player is going to be like in 2 years. Realism in a game is that you -don't- want the AI squatting on players that turn into HR monsters next year.
My biggest issue with any strategy game is that i dont want the AI to cheat, and be able to see into the future. I want a fair shot at the same stars that have not evolved yet.
Your only hope is that the AI has the same crystal ball you have, and hoards players with a .150 batting average because it KNOWS in 2 years that player will dominate the league for years to come.
Im sorry, but i find this beef with the program silly when there are so many other little things wrong with it.

The players have potential ratings that the AI should be able to use to put a future value on them. I do think it does this, but perhaps not enough weight is given to it.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by gord

I couldn't agree with LGO more and I think your stance is absurd. These games are not perfect and we all agree that there are many improvements to be made. Pick practically any game out there and you'll find certain ways to defeat the system and exploit the holes in the AI: build nothing but tanks which the AI can't adjust, create a superarmy in one territory which the AI can't defeat, call the toss sweep over and over that gains 20 yards at a time, throw the change-up down and in on an 0-2 count which the batter can't hit, etc...

Sometimes you come to the realization that you can easily defeat the CPU using a certain strategy. If you wish to continue to play that way, great, but how fun can it be? Nobody is making you do all of these trades. Just because there are three chocolate cakes on the table doesn't mean you have to eat all of them at the same time. Play a little more realistically and I can almost guarantee that you'll get more enjoyment out of it.

A question for you.

If a game has a flaw in it that can be easily exploited, shouldn't that flaw be removed from the game?

If it remains in the game, the game is saying "it's okay to use me".

Yes, games are not perfect. Most software is not perfect. Does that mean we shouldn't try to improve it, or do we ask the user to "work around it"? I come from the school of you improve what you have. The user should have to do nothing more than use the software and whatever features it has that are there.

And I don't even like chocolate cake. So many assumptions, so few facts.

[Malleus Dei]

You do realize that there's an opposing opinion being expressed: that it's not a flaw and that what you did was just an exploit?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by gord

Sometimes you come to the realization that you can easily defeat the CPU using a certain strategy. If you wish to continue to play that way, great, but how fun can it be? Nobody is making you do all of these trades. Just because there are three chocolate cakes on the table doesn't mean you have to eat all of them at the same time. Play a little more realistically and I can almost guarantee that you'll get more enjoyment out of it.

Well put, but "It's your game, play it your way" implies that people without self-control can exploit the game engine all they want to. Heck, the game even lets you can go the editor and make a superteam and go undefeated if you lack any self-control at all.

But...just because someone can't control themselves doesn't mean that the game needs to be changed for everyone else. If that were the case then the editor would have to be removed.

[gord]

Originally Posted by mking55

A question for you.

If a game has a flaw in it that can be easily exploited, shouldn't that flaw be removed from the game?

If it remains in the game, the game is saying "it's okay to use me".

Yes, games are not perfect. Most software is not perfect. Does that mean we shouldn't try to improve it, or do we ask the user to "work around it"? I come from the school of you improve what you have. The user should have to do nothing more than use the software and whatever features it has that are there.

And I don't even like chocolate cake. So many assumptions, so few facts.

Now it sounds like you're the one being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

Nobody is saying that the game shouldn't be improved nor that Markus isn't trying to improve it. And yes, a trading exploit like this should be removed. But why do you feel obligated to exploit it? This is something I don't understand. You're removing the fun out of the game solely because you choose to do it.

And the game is not some sentient being that is making the choice not to fix this and asking you to exploit it. It is "your game" and you can "play the way you want" but this methodology baffles me.

[rudoggy]

Originally Posted by robc

The players have potential ratings that the AI should be able to use to put a future value on them. I do think it does this, but perhaps not enough weight is given to it.

Agree on potential, but isnt potential a crap shoot(sometimes)? I have had many 5 star potentials end up platooning on my triple A squad for their career.
We are talking about guaranteed stats, what -will- happen, not just potential.
As i said, the AI should have strong feelings on the potential, after all, the scouts are telling them this kid looks great and has great tools, he -should- go far. But he doesnt know for sure, only you know that Mark McGuire went from batting .252 in 2004, to being a HR monster the next year.
So maybe the AI should value the potential more? I have a hell of a time trying to weasel a #1 prospect from the AI. But i still think IMHO it is better that AI doesnt know that player #7485 is going to suck this year, but will have 20 win seasons from 1974-1979.
Hind-site/fore-site would be great to have. 8)

[robc]

Originally Posted by rudoggy

Agree on potential, but isnt potential a crap shoot(sometimes)? I have had many 5 star potentials end up platooning on my triple A squad for their career.
We are talking about guaranteed stats, what -will- happen, not just potential.
As i said, the AI should have strong feelings on the potential, after all, the scouts are telling them this kid looks great and has great tools, he -should- go far. But he doesnt know for sure, only you know that Mark McGuire went from batting .252 in 2004, to being a HR monster the next year.
So maybe the AI should value the potential more? I have a hell of a time trying to weasel a #1 prospect from the AI. But i still think IMHO it is better that AI doesnt know that player #7485 is going to suck this year, but will have 20 win seasons from 1974-1979.
Hind-site/fore-site would be great to have. 8)

What you say is entirely true for fictional play, or historical play without using recalc. When using recalc, the player will be kept in line with their future performance (but it isn't totally predictable).

When recalc is off and the OOTP player development is on, the potential numbers should at least initially be accurrate before the development engine takes over. After playing, then the actual and potential ratings can start to vary.

So for mking's trades it is hard to say whether the AI should have had a good idea what the future value was since we don't exactly know the numbers.

[SteveP]

One of the interesting things about this community is what no one (or hardly anyone) ever says in response to the inevitable "the AI is too dumb" or "the AI is too easy to beat" complaints. I have played other commercial sim games and the complaints are always the same. But in other communities at least some people will point out the obvious (and really only correct) answer: "you should play against other humans."

The fact that the people complaining hardly ever take this advice is irrelevant, to my way of thinking. A well-designed, complex simulation of some real world activity does not require an AI. People try to create an AI for only one reason: to make the simulation commercially viable. There is no reason to think that a small (and over-worked) team of programmers, who are able to design an excellent simulation, will also design an AI that won't make dumb decisions. AFAIK, no one has done that in any commercial computer sim.

Solving the problem of AI design is not influenced by collecting votes in a forum thread. People who think otherwise are just deluding themselves.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by SteveP

One of the interesting things about this community is what no one (or hardly anyone) ever says in response to the inevitable "the AI is too dumb" or "the AI is too easy to beat" complaints. I have played other commercial sim games and the complaints are always the same. But in other communities at least some people will point out the obvious (and really only correct) answer: "you should play against other humans."

The fact that the people complaining hardly ever take this advice is irrelevant, to my way of thinking. A well-designed, complex simulation of some real world activity does not require an AI. People try to create an AI for only one reason: to make the simulation commercially viable. There is no reason to think that a small (and over-worked) team of programmers, who are able to design an excellent simulation, will also design an AI that won't make dumb decisions. AFAIK, no one has done that in any commercial computer sim.

Solving the problem of AI design is not influenced by collecting votes in a forum thread. People who think otherwise are just deluding themselves.

So in a round about way, you are telling us to get out of ole moms basement and get a life

[robc]

Originally Posted by SteveP

One of the interesting things about this community is what no one (or hardly anyone) ever says in response to the inevitable "the AI is too dumb" or "the AI is too easy to beat" complaints. I have played other commercial sim games and the complaints are always the same. But in other communities at least some people will point out the obvious (and really only correct) answer: "you should play against other humans."

The fact that the people complaining hardly ever take this advice is irrelevant, to my way of thinking. A well-designed, complex simulation of some real world activity does not require an AI. People try to create an AI for only one reason: to make the simulation commercially viable. There is no reason to think that a small (and over-worked) team of programmers, who are able to design an excellent simulation, will also design an AI that won't make dumb decisions. AFAIK, no one has done that in any commercial computer sim.

Solving the problem of AI design is not influenced by collecting votes in a forum thread. People who think otherwise are just deluding themselves.

If this game didn't have a viable single player game I wouldn't buy it. I have no interest in playing with people I don't know. I don't play online with the XBox 360 because I just don't enjoy playing with people who are not my friends.

Other games find ways to make a fun single player experience (Civilization for example). So far OOTP is still fun single player so I still play it. That doesn't mean the AI can't be improved. A game like Civ has different difficulty settings. One the higher levels it starts to cheat by getting bonuses. One difficulty for Markus is that a cheating AI doesn't seem acceptable for a sports sim game. I think to most people it would cheapen the experience (I think it would for me). But I'm not sure that is really fair. Maybe there should difficulty settings that gives the AI teams a bit of a performance boost. One fear would be that then the motivation to improve the AI would be decreased and the game would rely on these artificial bonuses to be competitive.

So I dispute your opinion that the game doesn't require a strong single player experience. If it didn't I think OOTP would quickly sink and no longer be able to support Markus with its sales. Then it wouldn't have single player or multi player.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Well put, but "It's your game, play it your way" implies that people without self-control can exploit the game engine all they want to. Heck, the game even lets you can go the editor and make a superteam and go undefeated if you lack any self-control at all.

But...just because someone can't control themselves doesn't mean that the game needs to be changed for everyone else. If that were the case then the editor would have to be removed.

While your point I think is technically correct, there is a difference between editing the players to give yourself a super team and making trades within the rules of the game. I think when weaknesses within the game are found it is good to point it out and hope that Markus can make it stronger.

[robc]

I think that some of the posts are quick to assume that knowledge of real life baseball is driving mking's success. First, mking is not playing with recalc, so he doesn't know with certainty how a player will turn out. I am assuming the development engine is also turned on.

If the trades make sense based on the information mking has within the game, and that information is also available to the AI, the AI should provide more of a challenge. For example if looking at past performance, and current and potential ratings a trade looks good for mking, then why not make it? That information is avaliable to the AI.