Best Trading Setting - Page 3

Mecza · 07-25-2016, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

I must be living in a parallel universe, or in some kind of Bizarro Superman world.

I'm going to try to trick one or more of you guys into saying your name backwards and see if that works.

Or should I be saying my own name backwards? Let's see: "Urb." "Urb." Nope, still here!

Bueller...Bueller...

But really, I was able to spin Avisail Garcia for Travis d'Arnaud (0.2 WAR vs 5.3) before the 2016 season started. I was able to trade Dioner Navarro for Brett Gardner (0.7 WAR vs 3.2) in the same day. All on very hard. I got Delvers (top prospect) from the Red Sox for Mat Latos (negative WAR) and some RP. I get that real names can obfuscate decision making and contracts play a part (significant part in AI decision making I find), but I find it too easy to flip spare parts for significant contributors before the first game of the season in the standard MLB game and just can't help myself. Not complaining and I know designing player trading with valuations is tricky - I get it - but I can't help myself when the AI evaluations haven't calibrated properly. Maybe it's more of an issue with the standard game due to tons of players in the database flowing around since I find the fictional leagues to have a little more challenge.

MizzouRah · 07-25-2016, 09:07 PM

The AI evaluation needs a rework.. it needs to be dynamic instead of set values for the whole season.

wsenkow · 07-26-2016, 08:10 AM

The default trade settings Average/Neutral IMO results in plenty of players displayed when the using 'Shop Player' trade feature. It is often easy to find one of them being a good trade for the human GM. Then comes the part in which you add a prospect, click the 'Make Trade Work', go over your list of scrubs, add your worst, then add another prospect, rinse and repeat until there are something like 9 or 10 players involved, then 'Complete Trade'. Four or five hours later, you have completely retooled your roster, and with 20 to 30 prospects with potential rating of 55 or higher your dynasty is inevitable. In real life this can only be a GM's dream.

I have read several interesting articles relating to the role and experiences of MLB GM's. The bottom line is that many trades in fact take months to complete, and in rare instances, over a year. Trading is meant to be a maintenance, or a vision, and not a luxury, therefore frustrating.

Having said all that Hard/Neutral seems more realistic for me.

PSUColonel · 07-26-2016, 09:49 AM

A long time ago...OOTP used to force the human player to email the AI with a tree proposal...much the way you might receive an email now from AI teams.

I still like this way of doing things, with a few additions and changes to help out.

1. The human and AI should be required to fill out needs lists. OOTP 17 introduced this from the human perspective, and I am hoping the AI will be included for version 18. The needs lists provide a starting point for any trade. While the colored dots indicating team needs are nice, I'd much rather see the AI have a list of team needs the same way humans do.

2. Now that team needs are identified, you can propose a trade to the AI. If the trade is liked by the AI right away, the deal can be done instantly. These would likely be deals which are clearly in the AI's favor. This is because you need to be able to complete deal around the trade deadline, and also will hopefully limit the human from making ridiculous proposals. All other trades should have to be submitted. This is not to say the AI won't accept a trade in this method, but it will take a "game day" to process.

2. How do we get the AI to negotiate in a realistic way, without the constant pressing "make this work now"? I believe the AI should respond with either a flat out rejection...(especially if the AI simply won't trade the player...which should also be listed by the AI in the trading area, along with players on the block and so forth) or a list of player(s) which would complete the deal (much Like now) if you don't like what the AI proposes, you can make another proposal, and so forth. While this may seem very time consuming to many (and it could very well be) it will also cut down on the constant back and forth "gaming" of the system. It will probably feel somewhat more authentic also, as if you want to complete a trade in a realistic amount of time, you won't be wasting time with ridiculous proposals.

3. Now, if there is a way to make things real time without a "gamey" feeling system, I am all for it...but this is just what I am thinking now for the time being.

Any thoughts?

Orcin · 07-26-2016, 11:29 AM

The AI should use the "team needs" list, and only be willing to trade if the deal fills a need.

The AI should use the "untouchable players" list realistically, and refuse to trade those players.

Trades should be limited to five players total, and no more than 3 per side. I don't care if real life trades include more... this is not real life.

Cash should not be allowed in a trade beyond that which makes the trade even in terms of current year budget impact.

The "make this work" button should be eliminated. After multiple trade attempts (an unknown random number between 2 and 7), the AI GM should tell you to quit wasting his time and refuse to deal with you for some random number (between 2 and 7) of days.

If all this makes trading too hard for you, turn down the difficulty.

P.S. Shop player should be eliminated also. Instead, the player should be placed on the trading block and the AI should react if the player fills a team need.

PSUColonel · 07-26-2016, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

The AI should use the "team needs" list, and only be willing to trade if the deal fills a need.

The AI should use the "untouchable players" list realistically, and refuse to trade those players.

Trades should be limited to five players total, and no more than 3 per side. I don't care if real life trades include more... this is not real life.

Cash should not be allowed in a trade beyond that which makes the trade even in terms of current year budget impact.

The "make this work" button should be eliminated. After multiple trade attempts (an unknown random number between 2 and 7), the AI GM should tell you to quit wasting his time and refuse to deal with you for some random number (between 2 and 7) of days.

If all this makes trading too hard for you, turn down the difficulty.

P.S. Shop player should be eliminated also. Instead, the player should be placed on the trading block and the AI should react if the player fills a team need.

I agree with all of this except the AI not dealing with you. "make this work" should be gone...and as I stated above, the opposing GM, could email you a list of players he may consider to close any potential deal...it's much slower, and a little more cumbersome, but it keeps the back and forth without things getting ridiculously stupid.

I haven't really abused the cash feature, so I am not sure what type of "scamming" can go on there...what seems to be the issue with cash? Teams seem pretty stingy with it to me...I guess if you offer a lot of cash it will sway the AI?

EDIT: in terms of limiting the number of players...I think if you eliminate "make this work now" and slow down negotiations, you'll find you don't need 5 player total restrictions.

PSUColonel · 07-26-2016, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

The AI evaluation needs a rework.. it needs to be dynamic instead of set values for the whole season.

right...the ability to set the AI either monthly, or bi-monthly.

So April/May:

Ratings : 50
This year's stats: 10
Last year's stats: 30
@ year's ago stats: 10

June/July

Ratings: 50
This year's stats :20
Last Year's stats:20
2 Years ago stats: 10

August September:

Ratings: 50
This year: 30
Last years 15
2 years: 5

MizzouRah · 07-26-2016, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

right...the ability to set the AI either monthly, or bi-monthly.

So April/May:

Ratings : 50
This year's stats: 10
Last year's stats: 30
@ year's ago stats: 10

June/July

Ratings: 50
This year's stats :20
Last Year's stats:20
2 Years ago stats: 10

August September:

Ratings: 50
This year: 30
Last years 15
2 years: 5

Yes.. I would love to be able to have those AI settings change each month.. I know we can do this on our own, but it needs to be integrated into the game so it flows with the game engine and doesn't have teams going crazy each time they change.

Matt Arnold · 07-26-2016, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Yes.. I would love to be able to have those AI settings change each month.. I know we can do this on our own, but it needs to be integrated into the game so it flows with the game engine and doesn't have teams going crazy each time they change.

Keep in mind, the above naturally happens under the hood. If a player doesn't have a full season of stats, we don't just extrapolate out, so the AI won't overreact to a hot start.

raginhood · 07-26-2016, 07:43 PM

Just as I thought and play Neutral/Hard is the best setting.

)

MizzouRah · 07-26-2016, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Keep in mind, the above naturally happens under the hood. If a player doesn't have a full season of stats, we don't just extrapolate out, so the AI won't overreact to a hot start.

I understand that

but younger players need evaluated different than older, veteran players do. So maybe not change each month, but maybe eval settings for time in the majors? A rookie should be evaluated almost purely on ratings (75/15/5/5), whereas a veteran should be evaluated mostly on stats (25/50/20/5). Those are just example settings. I go with a 50/50 split so it's the best of the both worlds.. but I don't think it's ideal for all players? I use (50/30/15/5).

PSUColonel · 07-28-2016, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vladdy16

Honestly, trading is way too easy no matter what the setting. I think the only way to make it realistic is to keep in mind how often trades actually happen, and limit yourself there, otherwise you can really overturn your roster advantageously over the course of a couple months.

Don't keep adding to the trade once you get an agreement, you can really take advantage there for some reason. (pretty much any time I get an agreement on a 1for1 trade, I could use slots 2-5 to trade 4 half star relievers for 4 great prospects)

Using shop a player only is another good way to limit yourself, but again, you can really get some steals if the timing is right, so try not to get carried away.

I'd like in the future for there to be a GM reputation feature, where other GM's can grow weary of you, and your activity level can have a drastic affect on player loyalty, FA desirability and owner and fan loyalty.

I think one thing that would really help for now, would be to eliminate the "make this work now" button...it just takes things a little too easy to take advantage of the AI. I realize people could ignore it if they chose, but the problem is...it's there lol.

Hkim · 07-28-2016, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think one thing that would really help for now, would be to eliminate the "make this work now" button...it just takes things a little too easy to take advantage of the AI. I realize people could ignore it if they chose, but the problem is...it's there lol.

I don't know. That button really helps you figure out what an AI wants and different teams have different preferences.

I could insert in guys one by one until the AI is happy, but I think that would make things much more tedious than it should be.

chriskelly · 07-29-2016, 12:11 PM

i think the other thing to keep in mind here is the scouting accuracy. The AI will have a harder time making a good deal if accuracy is low and the % given towards ratings vs stats is high. Plus, you will have a hard time knowing if it's a good trade or not. I usually end up playing at a higher accuracy so that the AI will make good decisions vs my own benefit.

I do see the AI making weird decisions and often being desperate to dump players. Someone mentioned D'arnaud....in my real rosters, 2016 league, the mets will offer either of their C's for almost anything....seems the AI feels 1 has to go, but doesn't use a trading block. I also see the AI dumping prospects it has probably mis-rated for any warm body.

chriskelly · 07-29-2016, 12:15 PM

My house rules are to limit the number of deals i can make per year, all deals must be balanced, up to 3 players each but usually not more than 2 (so, a 2 for 2 deal, no 1 for 3 deals). no cash in deals. Find most trades via offers, or shopping a player.

One thing I will sometimes do if I think the AI is giving up too much is bump the difficulty up a level and try again the next day. Sometimes I will even make the trade then see what the AI does w/ the player I traded. For example, I shopped my 3rd starter and the yankees offered bettances. After the deal they made him their 5th starter which seemed too little return to me, so I alt-ctrl-delete and went back and traded them my 2nd starter instead

PSUColonel · 07-29-2016, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chriskelly

My house rules are to limit the number of deals i can make per year, all deals must be balanced, up to 3 players each but usually not more than 2 (so, a 2 for 2 deal, no 1 for 3 deals). no cash in deals. Find most trades via offers, or shopping a player.

One thing I will sometimes do if I think the AI is giving up too much is bump the difficulty up a level and try again the next day. Sometimes I will even make the trade then see what the AI does w/ the player I traded. For example, I shopped my 3rd starter and the yankees offered bettances. After the deal they made him their 5th starter which seemed too little return to me, so I alt-ctrl-delete and went back and traded them my 2nd starter instead

To me, there's no point in playing a GM simulator if you have to do all of this.

chriskelly · 07-29-2016, 01:00 PM

PSU, sure......but there is no better baseball simulator. If you want to play baseball, you have to make OOTP suit your needs. If fun to you is winning every year, lower difficulty, see how many wins or titles you can rack up, then run it on neutral and trade all you want. If you want it more realistic, bump it up and set some parameters for yourself.

I guess the real question is, does the trading work as designed or not, and thus changing the setting is an individual thing to suit your desires, or is the trading inadequate or can it be improved. I think it's 90% adequate. I'd love improvements, but I'm not a coder, so I don't know how hard that is.

marc5477 · 07-29-2016, 11:20 PM

Generally speaking, I dont trade at all. I let the computers trade but to make the game fair I avoid all trading myself. If I had to choose, I would do Very Hard - Favor Prospects and 25/35/25/15

marc5477 · 07-29-2016, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chriskelly

PSU, sure......but there is no better baseball simulator. If you want to play baseball, you have to make OOTP suit your needs. If fun to you is winning every year, lower difficulty, see how many wins or titles you can rack up, then run it on neutral and trade all you want. If you want it more realistic, bump it up and set some parameters for yourself.

I guess the real question is, does the trading work as designed or not, and thus changing the setting is an individual thing to suit your desires, or is the trading inadequate or can it be improved. I think it's 90% adequate. I'd love improvements, but I'm not a coder, so I don't know how hard that is.

Its not that hard at all (code wise). This is not a adapting AI, its clearly hard coded list of weighted comparisons (psuedo-ai). You can tell because the computer consistently makes the same bad decisions repeatedly (does not adapt). I am not trying to knock the game, its great, but you have to admit the AI has a lot palm to face moments. For the record I am not aware of any game that uses an adaptable AI. That type of AI seems limited to high level research and heavy math applications like voice/image recognition or search engine matching. I really dont know why they have not been adapted to games... It would be brilliant to have an AI that adapts.

PSUColonel · 07-31-2016, 02:20 PM

I have now really fooled around with the money portion of the trade AI (more so than usual)in my testing, and while I thought at one time average was a good realistic challenge, I can no longer say that. The fact is, on anything less than hard, the AI is entirely to generous with money, and therefore there is no way anyone should be using this setting. If you prefer hard, that's a good mix because it does appear the AI is OK with money on that setting. The truth is, I can now see the big difference between average and hard/very hard....but I don't yet see a big difference between hard and very hard.

So as this poll confirms, with most people playing "hard", average is in not a good idea, if you value a somewhat intelligent trade AI. I should have included very hard, but at the time, really didn't think it was a viable option. The option that's not viable to me now, is anything less than hard.

View Poll Results: Which combination yields the most realistic trading AI?
Avg Difficulty, neutral	35	24.48%
Avg Difficulty, favor prospects	20	13.99%
Avg Difficulty, favor Vets	6	4.20%
Hard difficulty, neutral	36	25.17%
Hard difficulty, favor prospects	44	30.77%
Hard difficulty, favor vets	2	1.40%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll

07-26-2016, 08:10 AM	#43
wsenkow Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2015 Posts: 121	The default trade settings Average/Neutral IMO results in plenty of players displayed when the using 'Shop Player' trade feature. It is often easy to find one of them being a good trade for the human GM. Then comes the part in which you add a prospect, click the 'Make Trade Work', go over your list of scrubs, add your worst, then add another prospect, rinse and repeat until there are something like 9 or 10 players involved, then 'Complete Trade'. Four or five hours later, you have completely retooled your roster, and with 20 to 30 prospects with potential rating of 55 or higher your dynasty is inevitable. In real life this can only be a GM's dream. I have read several interesting articles relating to the role and experiences of MLB GM's. The bottom line is that many trades in fact take months to complete, and in rare instances, over a year. Trading is meant to be a maintenance, or a vision, and not a luxury, therefore frustrating. Having said all that Hard/Neutral seems more realistic for me. Last edited by wsenkow; 07-26-2016 at 08:57 AM.

07-26-2016, 11:29 AM	#45
Orcin Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Indiana Posts: 9,884	The AI should use the "team needs" list, and only be willing to trade if the deal fills a need. The AI should use the "untouchable players" list realistically, and refuse to trade those players. Trades should be limited to five players total, and no more than 3 per side. I don't care if real life trades include more... this is not real life. Cash should not be allowed in a trade beyond that which makes the trade even in terms of current year budget impact. The "make this work" button should be eliminated. After multiple trade attempts (an unknown random number between 2 and 7), the AI GM should tell you to quit wasting his time and refuse to deal with you for some random number (between 2 and 7) of days. If all this makes trading too hard for you, turn down the difficulty. P.S. Shop player should be eliminated also. Instead, the player should be placed on the trading block and the AI should react if the player fills a team need. Last edited by Orcin; 07-26-2016 at 11:31 AM.

07-25-2016, 09:07 PM	#42
MizzouRah Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Troy, Mo Posts: 6,266	The AI evaluation needs a rework.. it needs to be dynamic instead of set values for the whole season.

07-26-2016, 09:49 AM	#44
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,143	A long time ago...OOTP used to force the human player to email the AI with a tree proposal...much the way you might receive an email now from AI teams. I still like this way of doing things, with a few additions and changes to help out. 1. The human and AI should be required to fill out needs lists. OOTP 17 introduced this from the human perspective, and I am hoping the AI will be included for version 18. The needs lists provide a starting point for any trade. While the colored dots indicating team needs are nice, I'd much rather see the AI have a list of team needs the same way humans do. 2. Now that team needs are identified, you can propose a trade to the AI. If the trade is liked by the AI right away, the deal can be done instantly. These would likely be deals which are clearly in the AI's favor. This is because you need to be able to complete deal around the trade deadline, and also will hopefully limit the human from making ridiculous proposals. All other trades should have to be submitted. This is not to say the AI won't accept a trade in this method, but it will take a "game day" to process. 2. How do we get the AI to negotiate in a realistic way, without the constant pressing "make this work now"? I believe the AI should respond with either a flat out rejection...(especially if the AI simply won't trade the player...which should also be listed by the AI in the trading area, along with players on the block and so forth) or a list of player(s) which would complete the deal (much Like now) if you don't like what the AI proposes, you can make another proposal, and so forth. While this may seem very time consuming to many (and it could very well be) it will also cut down on the constant back and forth "gaming" of the system. It will probably feel somewhat more authentic also, as if you want to complete a trade in a realistic amount of time, you won't be wasting time with ridiculous proposals. 3. Now, if there is a way to make things real time without a "gamey" feeling system, I am all for it...but this is just what I am thinking now for the time being. Any thoughts?

07-26-2016, 07:43 PM	#50
raginhood Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 192	Just as I thought and play Neutral/Hard is the best setting. )

07-29-2016, 12:11 PM	#54
chriskelly All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 753	i think the other thing to keep in mind here is the scouting accuracy. The AI will have a harder time making a good deal if accuracy is low and the % given towards ratings vs stats is high. Plus, you will have a hard time knowing if it's a good trade or not. I usually end up playing at a higher accuracy so that the AI will make good decisions vs my own benefit. I do see the AI making weird decisions and often being desperate to dump players. Someone mentioned D'arnaud....in my real rosters, 2016 league, the mets will offer either of their C's for almost anything....seems the AI feels 1 has to go, but doesn't use a trading block. I also see the AI dumping prospects it has probably mis-rated for any warm body.

07-29-2016, 12:15 PM	#55
chriskelly All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 753	My house rules are to limit the number of deals i can make per year, all deals must be balanced, up to 3 players each but usually not more than 2 (so, a 2 for 2 deal, no 1 for 3 deals). no cash in deals. Find most trades via offers, or shopping a player. One thing I will sometimes do if I think the AI is giving up too much is bump the difficulty up a level and try again the next day. Sometimes I will even make the trade then see what the AI does w/ the player I traded. For example, I shopped my 3rd starter and the yankees offered bettances. After the deal they made him their 5th starter which seemed too little return to me, so I alt-ctrl-delete and went back and traded them my 2nd starter instead

07-29-2016, 01:00 PM	#57
chriskelly All Star Reserve Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 753	PSU, sure......but there is no better baseball simulator. If you want to play baseball, you have to make OOTP suit your needs. If fun to you is winning every year, lower difficulty, see how many wins or titles you can rack up, then run it on neutral and trade all you want. If you want it more realistic, bump it up and set some parameters for yourself. I guess the real question is, does the trading work as designed or not, and thus changing the setting is an individual thing to suit your desires, or is the trading inadequate or can it be improved. I think it's 90% adequate. I'd love improvements, but I'm not a coder, so I don't know how hard that is.

07-29-2016, 11:20 PM	#58
marc5477 Minors (Double A) Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 146	Generally speaking, I dont trade at all. I let the computers trade but to make the game fair I avoid all trading myself. If I had to choose, I would do Very Hard - Favor Prospects and 25/35/25/15

07-31-2016, 02:20 PM	#60
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 13,143	I have now really fooled around with the money portion of the trade AI (more so than usual)in my testing, and while I thought at one time average was a good realistic challenge, I can no longer say that. The fact is, on anything less than hard, the AI is entirely to generous with money, and therefore there is no way anyone should be using this setting. If you prefer hard, that's a good mix because it does appear the AI is OK with money on that setting. The truth is, I can now see the big difference between average and hard/very hard....but I don't yet see a big difference between hard and very hard. So as this poll confirms, with most people playing "hard", average is in not a good idea, if you value a somewhat intelligent trade AI. I should have included very hard, but at the time, really didn't think it was a viable option. The option that's not viable to me now, is anything less than hard.