Trading silliness

[SirMichaelJordan]

Not to mention that we don't know his settings. If he is using defaults then Hairston stats really don't mean anything because all the AI see is a high price aging player who has similar ratings as a cheap minor leaguer in their system.

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by injury log

A few things...- we don't even know what the Hairston trade is yet, by the way, since two players to be named later were involved.

How awesome would it be if you could do trades on OOTP for "players to be named later"? This might allow for the trading of players in the minors who are currently on the DL and would open up options for both the human and AI to target prospects throughout an organization.

For example, I was really interested in a AA reliever who had good potential and one really good pitch but he was out for 3 weeks and would be out past the trade deadline. Perhaps I could angle the trade to acquire him as my player to be named later and not take control until after he comes off the DL.

[injury log]

An easier solution to your problem is just to allow injured players to be traded. They can be traded in real life, though it requires commissioner approval.

There are really only three reasons PTBNLs are included in real life trades, only one of which is at all relevant in OOTP:

- to trade a recently drafted player (players have no-trade protection in the first year after they sign their first contract). In OOTP, if you want to be able to trade recently drafted players, you can just turn that option on in Game Setup;

- to complete a trade when one team hasn't had time to fully evaluate another team's minor leaguers. You don't really encounter that issue in OOTP either, since you have scouting reports on everyone;

- just before the Rule 5 draft, to trade someone who is exposed to the draft. Those players are often included as PTBNLs so the receiving team doesn't run the risk of losing the player immediately in the Rule 5, obviously with some contingency if the player is drafted. I suppose this might be useful in very rare instances in OOTP, but this is the least common reason for a PTBNL to be traded.

PTBNLs have been suggested before, but considering the AI implications, and really the lack of much need for them, I think it would be more trouble to code than it's worth.

[jmarsh123]

[QUOTE=pumph;3537622]

The thing I don't like about trading is that I played out an entire season, game by game, and the offseason that followed. I got one trade offer from the CPU in that time. Yet the computer basically made about a trade a day from opening day until the deadline, and averaged more than that in the offseason.
/ QUOTE]

If you have few weaknesses, you will very rarely be offered a trade. In one of my games, I had a stacked team when my left fielder went down to injury. I had a very strong 4th OF and called up another capable CF from AAA (both with strong fielding ratings at LF), but the computer kept offering me left fielders in trades because I technically didn't have a player on the roster listed as LF and the trade screens said I had a weakness there.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by jmarsh123

If you have few weaknesses, you will very rarely be offered a trade. In one of my games, I had a stacked team when my left fielder went down to injury. I had a very strong 4th OF and called up another capable CF from AAA (both with strong fielding ratings at LF), but the computer kept offering me left fielders in trades because I technically didn't have a player on the roster listed as LF and the trade screens said I had a weakness there.

Yes, that is right. I've never tried it, but I guess if you wanted to receive a ton of trade offers from the AI, you could just set the position of every batter on your roster to '2B'. Then the AI will think you're weak almost everywhere, and will offer you trades constantly.

[soxfan34]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

I don't have any issues with the "Hard" setting. It forces you to give up value to get value. I think it also makes some teams seem reluctant to trade in general for marginal upgrades, even if they are in "win now" mode, which I think is more realistic.

Depending on the circumstances, you can still find weird trades on Hard that would never happen in real life. Case in point, in the 2013 quick start I was able to swing the Mets' Ruben Tejada and good first halves by Shaun Marcum and Marlon Byrd for the Red Sox' Jackie Bradley Jr. and Xander Bogaerts. In that case, Boston was in a pennant race and had lost Jon Lester to injury for most of the year, but, still, a pretty far-fetched trade. But it'll never be perfect.

hard/neutral?

[soxfan34]

another way to get "accurate" trades is stats-only + 100% accurate scouting + 0 weight on ratings for AI Eval. I've noticed the AI will only trade players of equal value in this case. the problem is IRL there are many, many lopsided trades

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by soxfan34

hard/neutral?

Yeah.

[soxfan34]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

Yeah.

do you recall your ai eval settings?

[PSUColonel]

Did Markus change any of the trade settings in the latest BETA update?

[Xpert7777]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I can easily fine-tune the effect of the difficulty setting. If people feel that the hard setting is indeed too hard, I can tone it down a notch.

I have just found if you have it on hard it becomes near impossible to trade some players, especially vets when the AI favors prospects.

I had a similar situation where I had an outfielder mid 30's, having an above average year making $4.5M, which may be slightly overpaid for his output at the time but was in the final year of his deal.

My team was fairly terrible and in rebuilding mode, so wanting to deal him at the deadline. I could not find one team to trade me any player under the age of 25 for him. I had teams in contention with needs in the OF and got this message "We will not pay for old over priced veterans!" several times.

I would like to see something tweaked where rebuilding teams would trade veterans for prospects at the deadline, especially ones in the last year of their deal. It shouldn't be impossible to give away a decent player just because he is a veteran, just my thoughts though.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Xpert7777

I have just found if you have it on hard it becomes near impossible to trade some players, especially vets when the AI favors prospects.

I had a similar situation where I had an outfielder mid 30's, having an above average year making $4.5M, which may be slightly overpaid for his output at the time but was in the final year of his deal.

My team was fairly terrible and in rebuilding mode, so wanting to deal him at the deadline. I could not find one team to trade me any player under the age of 25 for him. I had teams in contention with needs in the OF and got this message "We will not pay for old over priced veterans!" several times.

I would like to see something tweaked where rebuilding teams would trade veterans for prospects at the deadline, especially ones in the last year of their deal. It shouldn't be impossible to give away a decent player just because he is a veteran, just my thoughts though.

Idk Im at very hard and heavy favor prospects and I was able to trade vets (all star caliber) for a bundle of prospects (1 guy in top 100 and a few prospects who may not even make it pass AA)

The vet in your example doesn't sound like he would add much to a contending team so I don't know why someone would expect the AI to give away a future player for a guy who probably wont add much to their team in his short time there. I think hard and favor prospects is a good setting for players who dont want to fleece the AI.

Also did you try sending money along with the player?

[Xpert7777]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Idk Im at very hard and heavy favor prospects and I was able to trade vets (all star caliber) for a bundle of prospects (1 guy in top 100 and a few prospects who may not even make it pass AA)

The vet in your example doesn't sound like he would add much to a contending team so I don't know why someone would expect the AI to give away a future player for a guy who probably wont add much to their team in his short time there. I think hard and favor prospects is a good setting for players who dont want to fleece the AI.

Also did you try sending money along with the player?

As of the trade deadline the player had a VORP of around 23 and would have been an immediate starter with 2 of their players on the DL and nothing much in AAA. I'm not saying I wanted a top prospect, the fact I couldn't get ANY player below the age of 25 is just silly for a)a player playing well b)a player in a position of need and c) on an expiring contract. I had no intention of "fleecing" the AI.

I tried up to 500K, but at that point, he was only owed $2M or so for the rest of the season so I wasn't inclined to give anymore.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by Xpert7777

As of the trade deadline the player had a VORP of around 23 and would have been an immediate starter with 2 of their players on the DL and nothing much in AAA. I'm not saying I wanted a top prospect, the fact I couldn't get ANY player below the age of 25 is just silly for a)a player playing well b)a player in a position of need and c) on an expiring contract. I had no intention of "fleecing" the AI.

I tried up to 500K, but at that point, he was only owed $2M or so for the rest of the season so I wasn't inclined to give anymore.

Are you using any stats in your AI Evaluation settings? What was his OVR? More importantly, is "base OVR on AI Evaluation instead of pure ratings" checked?

[bly08]

In a 2013 Red Sox start with very hard/neutral, 40/30/20/10, scouting on highly accurate, I was able to trade Daniel Nava who was 1 star/1 star in midseason, for Andrew Cashner, who was 4.5/4.5. Nava had about 20 ABs at majors level but was tearing up AAA. San Diego had a bad outfield but their worst OF was only about the same as Nava rating and stats wise. Meanwhile their bullpen was solid and Cashner was their 3rd or 4th best reliever stats wise. Still I found it highly unrealistic.

[dkgo]

After some experimenting I think hard works well in that you are unable to fleece the AI by dumping trash for usable players like you can on average, but you are also unable to get much in return for legitimate value players. I recently shopped around a 4.5* 3B, 23 years old with two all-star seasons in the majors still making the minimum and couldnt even get back a 4* potential starter. Personally though I have no problem keeping it on average and policing myself since there isnt any fun in abusing AI flaws.

[braunfullyaccused]

Originally Posted by Xpert7777

I have just found if you have it on hard it becomes near impossible to trade some players, especially vets when the AI favors prospects.

I had a similar situation where I had an outfielder mid 30's, having an above average year making $4.5M, which may be slightly overpaid for his output at the time but was in the final year of his deal.

My team was fairly terrible and in rebuilding mode, so wanting to deal him at the deadline. I could not find one team to trade me any player under the age of 25 for him. I had teams in contention with needs in the OF and got this message "We will not pay for old over priced veterans!" several times.

I would like to see something tweaked where rebuilding teams would trade veterans for prospects at the deadline, especially ones in the last year of their deal. It shouldn't be impossible to give away a decent player just because he is a veteran, just my thoughts though.

Indeed. On the HARD setting, the AI algorithm should probably weigh factors such as position in standings / in contention. (Does the manager expectation factor into trade logic?), The veteran player's contract year / money left on it also being a heavily weighted factor. (e.g. if I can dump Corey Hart or Axford to a contender at the deadline even if the AI manager's policy isn't to add salaries.)

At any rate, this game is probably the biggest distraction I've ever had. Productivity is down.

[PSUColonel]

I still keep going back and forth on these two difficulties. Still curious if Markus did ever make an adjustment to the "Average" setting by making it a bit more difficult. Does anyone know the answer to this?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I still keep going back and forth on these two difficulties. Still curious if Markus did ever make an adjustment to the "Average" setting by making it a bit more difficult. Does anyone know the answer to this?

Pretty sure he didn't. I never heard of it.

[PSUColonel]

He commented in this thread, about a potential change, and it was suggested him to make the average setting more difficult rather than making the hard setting less so.