AI Evaluation Settings - Page 2

RubeBaker · 05-06-2017, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Default

This. I stopped playing around with & tweaking the settings. Default really is the way to go IMHO.

PSUColonel · 05-06-2017, 08:19 PM

the only setting I am now changing is trade difficulty....very hard, and really, that's it. I have employed minor league rules and such, but as far as settings go....trade difficulty is it.

EDIT: the only question I do have though, is the default in fictional leagues is 30/50/15/5....which is sort of why I always split the difference with 55/25/15/5

PSUColonel · 05-06-2017, 11:03 PM

Here is an quote from a developer about this age old debate:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold View Post
A few points:
-With the update to last year's game, each AI GM might be slightly different in their valuations. So just because you set your global values to 30/50/15/5, it doesn't mean every GM will be exactly that.
-If a player has "incomplete" data from a year (ie. current year in progress, or they were hurt for a lot of last year), then that missing portion will tend to get split among the remaining fields. So if you're 2 days into the current season, obviously we're not judging player talent based on 8 ABs
-The AI also takes other factors into account. Again, if you look at their GM settings, if they value youth over age, then they'll discount an older player.
-The largest reason why the default MLB setup has the ratings weighted so heavily is so that we can massage ratings to get players to play. If we put values too heavily based on stats, then the AI will never play some guys who they just signed in real life. Whether you like that or not is up to you to edit

As for which settings works best, honestly, I can't tell you. If you go very high on stats, then you'll see the AI release players whose ratings are high, but who hasn't been performing. If you go too high on ratings, then they may release guys who are still producing, even if at an unsustainable rate. There's no one magical setting that works best in all cases - if there was, we'd use that and wouldn't let you change it As it stands, you can fiddle with it until you get results that suit you. And with the AI GMs all having a little personality, you'll still get some GMs doing weird moves, but I would bet for each stupid one that happens in your game, there's a real life GM who does a similarly stupid move in real life.

mmarra82 · 05-09-2017, 11:02 AM

I couldn't find the answer to this...if you are set at 65/20/10/5, you are weighing more so on ratings. What ratings does the AI use? If scouting is set low, ratings could vary for players from each team's scout. Does the AI use the numbers that the team's scout has created for us to see, or is their a "hidden" rating that we are not able to view that the AI only sees?

Trying to understand the ratings weight more. Stats to me is obvious.

JamesN · 05-09-2017, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmarra82

I couldn't find the answer to this...if you are set at 65/20/10/5, you are weighing more so on ratings. What ratings does the AI use? If scouting is set low, ratings could vary for players from each team's scout. Does the AI use the numbers that the team's scout has created for us to see, or is their a "hidden" rating that we are not able to view that the AI only sees?

Trying to understand the ratings weight more. Stats to me is obvious.

It's always been my understanding that scouting accuracy only affects the human player and the AI see each player's true ratings regardless of scouting. That's why so many players advocate for putting more weight on stats, you see more realistic AI behavior rather them seeing them always play the highest rated player regardless of performance.

Orcin · 05-09-2017, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold:The largest reason why the default MLB setup has the ratings weighted so heavily is so that we can massage ratings to get players to play. If we put values too heavily based on stats, then the AI will never play some guys who they just signed in real life. Whether you like that or not is up to you to edit

Another reason why removing ratings does not make the game harder. In fact, it makes it easier by confusing the AI.

PSUColonel · 05-09-2017, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

Another reason why removing ratings does not make the game harder. In fact, it makes it easier by confusing the AI.

Yes, but he also stated that putting too much emphasis on ratings isn't good either, as players who are performing well may get the shaft.

This can happen with sudden rating drop offs

Orcin · 05-09-2017, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yes, but he also stated that putting too much emphasis on ratings isn't good either, as players who are performing well may get the shaft.

This can happen with sudden rating drop offs

So why do the developers use 65/x/x/x as their default for current MLB? Ratings weight of 2/3 seems like a lot of emphasis, especially given that even more will go toward ratings in the early part of the season where current stats are minimal.

PSUColonel · 05-09-2017, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orcin

So why do the developers use 65/x/x/x as their default for current MLB? Ratings weight of 2/3 seems like a lot of emphasis, especially given that even more will go toward ratings in the early part of the season where current stats are minimal.

I believe this was done so the "real" players within the MLB set would act or be treated very similarly to their real life counterparts....but as you and I both know, ratings are and never will be perfect. I don't care if a player who starts in real life doesn't in OOTP. I am more concerned about what's best for MY game world.

Klaus 74 · 05-10-2017, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I believe this was done so the "real" players within the MLB set would act or be treated very similarly to their real life counterparts....but as you and I both know, ratings are and never will be perfect. I don't care if a player who starts in real life doesn't in OOTP. I am more concerned about what's best for MY game world.

I'm not convinced that the default AI settings are set to have the players in the game mimic real life counterparts. In the Standard MLB we normally begin the game by playing 'into the future' so I doubt there's an attempt by the developers to project what the players in the game would do as compared to what they would do in real life as well.

If any case were to be made by your opinion it would be most evident in the 'Historical' game, not the Standard game, and the settings in that one are far different.

PSUColonel · 05-10-2017, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klaus 74

I'm not convinced that the default AI settings are set to have the players in the game mimic real life counterparts. In the Standard MLB we normally begin the game by playing 'into the future' so I doubt there's an attempt by the developers to project what the players in the game would do as compared to what they would do in real life as well.

If any case were to be made by your opinion it would be most evident in the 'Historical' game, not the Standard game, and the settings in that one are far different.

I quote Matt Arnold: (a developer )"The largest reason why the default MLB setup has the ratings weighted so heavily is so that we can massage ratings to get players to play. If we put values too heavily based on stats, then the AI will never play some guys who they just signed in real life. Whether you like that or not is up to you to edit"

Now couple this with the fact that the default for fictional leagues is 30/50/15/5 and you can pretty easily deduce that 65 is probably a tad much for ratings. I think ratings SHOULD be the majority of the analysis, so 55/25/15/5 doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Klaus 74 · 05-10-2017, 11:28 AM

As far as settings go I'm of the opinion that things sometimes are just best left alone. So the only thing I do change in the 'engine' of things is the AI evaluation, 50/30/15/5. Once I start to change a setting elsewhere there seems to be a negative consequence in yet another place. It's like an inflated balloon, push your finger upon one area of the surface and out it comes somewhere else, lol.

PSUColonel · 05-10-2017, 12:31 PM

I have put AI evaluation and trading at at least hard. I also put injuries on realistic. Then I put minor league service limits in. Other than these, I leave everything else at default....oh I use relative ratings also.

henry296 · 05-16-2017, 08:40 AM

Has anyone tried 100/0/0/0 for AI settings, 100% scouting accuracy and then using 1-5 scale to get some Fog of War for themselves? Does it help prevent bad AI decisions?

PSUColonel · 05-16-2017, 12:07 PM

It would make budgeting for scouting useless

Lordofbrewtown · 05-16-2017, 09:35 PM

Whoa, so from they way this thread is going, I think I've been misinterpreting the AI evaluation settings all this time. I guess I always assumed that the current & previous years weights were referring to the real life statistics, and a higher value on these would mean LESS variation from real life stats.

However, the conversations in this thread seem to be indicating that its referring to the player performance in the game: "hot" players have a better chance of playing, and "cold" players sitting, and that the higher these %'s, likely the MORE variation from real life stats.

Can anyone confirm this? Maybe I am in the minority; but, I would suggest the manual could make that more clear (which stats are you referring to - real life or simulated?)

Déjà Bru · 05-16-2017, 10:07 PM

Here's a suggestion for anybody still undecided. Look at your own team, the players you know best. You know how you would rate these guys.

Take a picture of the roster showing their showing their default overall ratings. Then play around with AI Player Evaluations. Be sure to click Apply Changes Now and, in League Settings/Functions, under Other Options, Run OSA & Human Scouts Rescout.

I did this a few times, comparing each roster screen print to the original default ratings, and I arrived at a set of evaluation weights that comes closest to how I would rate my own players. This is the set that I am going with.

YMMV.

MizzouRah · 06-14-2017, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I believe this was done so the "real" players within the MLB set would act or be treated very similarly to their real life counterparts....but as you and I both know, ratings are and never will be perfect. I don't care if a player who starts in real life doesn't in OOTP. I am more concerned about what's best for MY game world.

There is NO doubt to me, this is why this is done.. but as my seasons go by, my opinion is they are NOT what you want long term.. maybe not even past the initial MLB QS first season. I don't think they want people griping that Pham is playing over Fowler even if Pham was hitting 0.330 and Fowler was hitting 0.240. So the default settings help to keep those players playing.

I have always used 40/30/20/10 and I don't think it's a coincidence it took me like 14 years to win a World Series with the Indians in v17. I think the AI played better players and made the game harder.

With v18 I'm back to being the GM of the Cardinals starting in 2017 and after the first season - midway into 2018 and I'm seeing really odd choices with my manager and who he's playing. Not only in the field, but in the rotation/bullpen. ( I know in RL Matheny is a nut.. but I expect better choices in the game

)

I didn't think you could change AI eval in Challenge mode, but if you can.. I think I'm going to change mine tonight to what I've always used, maybe even going 50/30/15/5 or 55/25/15/5 (Although I really do love 40/30/20/10)

Wainwright just had a spectacular season for me in 2017 but his ratings have slipped a little and he's now in the bullpen since I signed a slightly better rated SP who's much worse stat wise than Waino is as a SP over the past few seasons.

Bears5122 · 06-14-2017, 06:33 PM

I've been using 50/29/14/7

Bears5122 · 06-14-2017, 06:48 PM

Here's a question. If you increase the scouting accuracy, would that benefit the AI if your league weighs ratings heavily? To me it seems like a flaw to have the AI weigh ratings at a high level if the scouting accuracy was normal or below. They'd be making decisions off less than accurate ratings.

It seems like if you want the AI to use ratings, the scouting accuracy should be set at high or above. Am I correct?

I'm considering trying MizzouRah's 40/30/20/10 system. Although maybe tweak it a bit to 40/32/21/7. Mainly because players can drop off quickly in the game.

One question though about moving to a more stats oriented evaluation, does this impact prospects? If you're using something that uses something that does value last season and 2 seasons ago, wouldn't that put prospects at a disadvantage? Their ratings have gotten to a point where they are MLB ready but I'm not sure how the AI would view their performance in the minors.

05-06-2017, 08:19 PM	#22
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	the only setting I am now changing is trade difficulty....very hard, and really, that's it. I have employed minor league rules and such, but as far as settings go....trade difficulty is it. EDIT: the only question I do have though, is the default in fictional leagues is 30/50/15/5....which is sort of why I always split the difference with 55/25/15/5 Last edited by PSUColonel; 05-06-2017 at 08:21 PM.

05-16-2017, 08:40 AM	#34
henry296 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 514	Has anyone tried 100/0/0/0 for AI settings, 100% scouting accuracy and then using 1-5 scale to get some Fog of War for themselves? Does it help prevent bad AI decisions? Last edited by henry296; 05-16-2017 at 09:08 AM.

05-16-2017, 10:07 PM	#37
Déjà Bru Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: United States Posts: 10,456	Here's a suggestion for anybody still undecided. Look at your own team, the players you know best. You know how you would rate these guys. Take a picture of the roster showing their showing their default overall ratings. Then play around with AI Player Evaluations. Be sure to click Apply Changes Now and, in League Settings/Functions, under Other Options, Run OSA & Human Scouts Rescout. I did this a few times, comparing each roster screen print to the original default ratings, and I arrived at a set of evaluation weights that comes closest to how I would rate my own players. This is the set that I am going with. YMMV. __________________ - Bru

05-06-2017, 11:03 PM	#23
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	Here is an quote from a developer about this age old debate: Originally Posted by Matt Arnold View Post A few points: -With the update to last year's game, each AI GM might be slightly different in their valuations. So just because you set your global values to 30/50/15/5, it doesn't mean every GM will be exactly that. -If a player has "incomplete" data from a year (ie. current year in progress, or they were hurt for a lot of last year), then that missing portion will tend to get split among the remaining fields. So if you're 2 days into the current season, obviously we're not judging player talent based on 8 ABs -The AI also takes other factors into account. Again, if you look at their GM settings, if they value youth over age, then they'll discount an older player. -The largest reason why the default MLB setup has the ratings weighted so heavily is so that we can massage ratings to get players to play. If we put values too heavily based on stats, then the AI will never play some guys who they just signed in real life. Whether you like that or not is up to you to edit As for which settings works best, honestly, I can't tell you. If you go very high on stats, then you'll see the AI release players whose ratings are high, but who hasn't been performing. If you go too high on ratings, then they may release guys who are still producing, even if at an unsustainable rate. There's no one magical setting that works best in all cases - if there was, we'd use that and wouldn't let you change it As it stands, you can fiddle with it until you get results that suit you. And with the AI GMs all having a little personality, you'll still get some GMs doing weird moves, but I would bet for each stupid one that happens in your game, there's a real life GM who does a similarly stupid move in real life.

05-09-2017, 11:02 AM	#24
mmarra82 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Long Island, NY Posts: 310	I couldn't find the answer to this...if you are set at 65/20/10/5, you are weighing more so on ratings. What ratings does the AI use? If scouting is set low, ratings could vary for players from each team's scout. Does the AI use the numbers that the team's scout has created for us to see, or is their a "hidden" rating that we are not able to view that the AI only sees? Trying to understand the ratings weight more. Stats to me is obvious.

05-10-2017, 11:28 AM	#32
Klaus 74 Minors (Single A) Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 81	As far as settings go I'm of the opinion that things sometimes are just best left alone. So the only thing I do change in the 'engine' of things is the AI evaluation, 50/30/15/5. Once I start to change a setting elsewhere there seems to be a negative consequence in yet another place. It's like an inflated balloon, push your finger upon one area of the surface and out it comes somewhere else, lol.

05-10-2017, 12:31 PM	#33
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	I have put AI evaluation and trading at at least hard. I also put injuries on realistic. Then I put minor league service limits in. Other than these, I leave everything else at default....oh I use relative ratings also.

05-16-2017, 12:07 PM	#35
PSUColonel Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 12,988 Blog Entries: 37	It would make budgeting for scouting useless

05-16-2017, 09:35 PM	#36
Lordofbrewtown Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: St Petersburg, FL Posts: 275	Whoa, so from they way this thread is going, I think I've been misinterpreting the AI evaluation settings all this time. I guess I always assumed that the current & previous years weights were referring to the real life statistics, and a higher value on these would mean LESS variation from real life stats. However, the conversations in this thread seem to be indicating that its referring to the player performance in the game: "hot" players have a better chance of playing, and "cold" players sitting, and that the higher these %'s, likely the MORE variation from real life stats. Can anyone confirm this? Maybe I am in the minority; but, I would suggest the manual could make that more clear (which stats are you referring to - real life or simulated?)

06-14-2017, 06:33 PM	#39
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 846	I've been using 50/29/14/7

06-14-2017, 06:48 PM	#40
Bears5122 All Star Reserve Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 846	Here's a question. If you increase the scouting accuracy, would that benefit the AI if your league weighs ratings heavily? To me it seems like a flaw to have the AI weigh ratings at a high level if the scouting accuracy was normal or below. They'd be making decisions off less than accurate ratings. It seems like if you want the AI to use ratings, the scouting accuracy should be set at high or above. Am I correct? I'm considering trying MizzouRah's 40/30/20/10 system. Although maybe tweak it a bit to 40/32/21/7. Mainly because players can drop off quickly in the game. One question though about moving to a more stats oriented evaluation, does this impact prospects? If you're using something that uses something that does value last season and 2 seasons ago, wouldn't that put prospects at a disadvantage? Their ratings have gotten to a point where they are MLB ready but I'm not sure how the AI would view their performance in the minors.