Anyone Care to Explain This Sudden Trade AI Change?

Charlie Hough · 12-23-2014, 04:06 PM

Last night, in my fictional league, I was looking at trade options to make an upgrade at catcher. My starter is the reigning Gold Glove winner despite having only above-average defensive ratings, but he has been suffering through a terrible offensive slump during the opening weeks of the new season.

My backup is a good offensive option, but his defensive skills are poor, and opposing teams can easily steal against him.

So I went searching for a trade, but this is a tough proposition because my trading is set to hard and to favor prospects.

Most teams wouldn't accept any kind of reasonable trade, but I found one team that was willing to part with a 34 year-old catcher who combines my starter's above-average defense with my backup's better offense.

I was offering my backup catcher, a catching prospect who projects to being a solid player, along with another decent prospect at second base. So clearly the AI was deciding to sacrifice some defense at the catcher position in order to get younger and pick up two decent prospects.

The AI said that it would accept this trade. But I wanted to sleep on it and to take a bit more time to decide.

So I saved and closed, and I decided to look at the trade again after sleeping on it and then managing one game on the following day.

But when I pull up the same trade, which is still configured and saved in OOTP, the AI now says that this is "a very bad deal for us". How can this be possible when it's the exact same players involved, only one day has passed, and there have been no injuries or other changes in the organization that would warrant a completely different evaluation?

Of course, I understand that it's theoretically possible for a GM to change his mind. After all, maybe the other GM 'slept on it' virtually and came to a different conclusion. But there is a huge difference between "yes, I agree" and "that's a very bad deal for us. I won't even bother discussing this."

That is a wild and completely illogical swing, and it implies that the AI is seeing a major difference in trade value where none could possibly exist when only one day and one game have passed.

I don't like the idea of forcing the trade anyway, and I refuse to add yet another prospect to the deal for a 34 year-old catcher. So I'm not sure that I will try to salvage this, but can anyone explain why the AI would make this drastic change, literally overnight? This seems like a flaw in the code for trade evaluations.

David Watts · 12-23-2014, 04:13 PM

What if the computer team received another offer you don't know about that made him rethink your deal? Far fetched, I know, but maybe?

RchW · 12-23-2014, 04:38 PM

I say this and it's not intended to inflame but it's great and it adds to the game IMO. Since you slept on it and played a game it's completely consistent to me that the AI can change its mind. The deal was not consummated so is subject to change.

Charlie Hough · 12-23-2014, 04:40 PM

I simmed ahead one more day, and there has been no other trade. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an offer, but I am guessing that when two AI teams make a trade, it simply happens as soon as the offer is made and it's acceptable.

I can't imagine the AI teams making each other offers that they don't accept but that cause them to suddenly turn down an offer from a human GM. Then it's not accepting any trades on any side.

TomVeal · 12-23-2014, 06:08 PM

Maybe it's a bug, but I agree with those who aren't troubled by the outcome. I can imagine what happened: The GM agreed to the trade, the owner hated it, and the fortuitous delay gave the GM time to back down, now insisting that he'd "really" thought it a terrible deal all along. He's probably blaming some assistant.

RchW · 12-23-2014, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomVeal

Maybe it's a bug, but I agree with those who aren't troubled by the outcome. I can imagine what happened: The GM agreed to the trade, the owner hated it, and the fortuitous delay gave the GM time to back down, now insisting that he'd "really" thought it a terrible deal all along. He's probably blaming some assistant.

I don't see it as a bug. I've had several deals change after a simulated day.

The Wolf · 12-23-2014, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

I don't see it as a bug. I've had several deals change after a simulated day.

Me too. Some deals have gone from acceptable to unacceptable, and some have gone the other way. Things change.

Charlie Hough · 12-23-2014, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

I say this and it's not intended to inflame but it's great and it adds to the game IMO. Since you slept on it and played a game it's completely consistent to me that the AI can change its mind. The deal was not consummated so is subject to change.

The problem is that the game does not indicate that the AI simply changed its mind. This deal did not go from merely acceptable to unacceptable. It suddenly became "a very bad deal", which is a far cry from simply sleeping on it and deciding against something that you have seriously been considering.

Also, I highly doubt that the owner is intervening or that anything else is happening in the background. OOTP is adding some kind of randomness, and we can all pretend that it's something else, but it's really just a slight change in the trade evaluation or a random decision factor.

Maybe this is cosmetic and the AI is not drastically re-evaluating the trade behind the scenes, but the language of its response indicates that a drastic shift has occurred. However, this makes no sense.

Think of it this way: if I slept on it and decided against it, I would not be deciding that it was suddenly a terrible deal for my team. If I was willing to make the trade originally, then it was a fair enough deal to be worthy of consideration. It would not be sensible or consistent for me to suddenly claim that the AI was offering me a very bad deal. In reality, I might be deciding to hold off for now or that the trade was too close either way. And my response should reflect that.

The AI should behave and respond in a way that is internally consistent and that does not create the appearance of wild swings in trade evaluation based on nothing but an arbitrary factor like the user clicking a button and simulating a day.

If the AI simply decides not to make the deal out of randomness, that is fine. But don't give me a response that makes the AI sound completely illogical and schizophrenic and pretends that somehow there was some huge change in the trade's value when no such change could realistically occur simply because one day passed in the real world.

RchW · 12-23-2014, 07:41 PM

I think you are over analyzing both the decision and the verbiage. The AI is not human and has a miniscule vocabulary so it makes no sense to critique the manner of the turndown.

Charlie Hough · 12-23-2014, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

I think you are over analyzing both the decision and the verbiage. The AI is not human and has a miniscule vocabulary so it makes no sense to critique the manner of the turndown.

Isn't the purpose of the in-game text to actually inform the human player of what is going on and how the AI is evaluating things like trade offers?

The point of trade feedback is that it gives the human GM a sense of how fair the trade offer is, how close the two teams are in terms, and how much might need to be added to make things work. The whole point of it is to create some kind of meaningful interaction and feedback that is useful to the user.

Something is driving that vocabulary in the code, and it has to be the AI's evaluation of the trade. I know for a fact that the AI computes a value for each side of the trade and makes a decision accordingly. And the feedback, while limited, is supposed to reflect this.

If it's not going to reflect the actual trade value behind the scenes and give the human GM some sense of how close a deal is and how the AI really views it, then what is the point?

Think of the in-game play-by-play: sure, there are only so many ways that an announcer can call a double hit into the gap. The vocabulary is limited by the play-by-play text file. However, it doesn't describe a double when a home run or a single is hit. It accurately reflects what is going on and what the game has calculated behind the scenes.

But lumping trade negotiations together and simply calling anything that is rejected a "very bad deal" is like calling a home run a double. It's not accurate and it doesn't give the user a true picture of what is going on in the game.

So maybe the vocabulary needs to be expanded or maybe there is a problem with the trade evaluations having wild, random swings when they shouldn't. Either way, this could be easily addressed and I think it should be.

12-23-2014, 04:06 PM	#1
Charlie Hough Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,625	Anyone Care to Explain This Sudden Trade AI Change? Last night, in my fictional league, I was looking at trade options to make an upgrade at catcher. My starter is the reigning Gold Glove winner despite having only above-average defensive ratings, but he has been suffering through a terrible offensive slump during the opening weeks of the new season. My backup is a good offensive option, but his defensive skills are poor, and opposing teams can easily steal against him. So I went searching for a trade, but this is a tough proposition because my trading is set to hard and to favor prospects. Most teams wouldn't accept any kind of reasonable trade, but I found one team that was willing to part with a 34 year-old catcher who combines my starter's above-average defense with my backup's better offense. I was offering my backup catcher, a catching prospect who projects to being a solid player, along with another decent prospect at second base. So clearly the AI was deciding to sacrifice some defense at the catcher position in order to get younger and pick up two decent prospects. The AI said that it would accept this trade. But I wanted to sleep on it and to take a bit more time to decide. So I saved and closed, and I decided to look at the trade again after sleeping on it and then managing one game on the following day. But when I pull up the same trade, which is still configured and saved in OOTP, the AI now says that this is "a very bad deal for us". How can this be possible when it's the exact same players involved, only one day has passed, and there have been no injuries or other changes in the organization that would warrant a completely different evaluation? Of course, I understand that it's theoretically possible for a GM to change his mind. After all, maybe the other GM 'slept on it' virtually and came to a different conclusion. But there is a huge difference between "yes, I agree" and "that's a very bad deal for us. I won't even bother discussing this." That is a wild and completely illogical swing, and it implies that the AI is seeing a major difference in trade value where none could possibly exist when only one day and one game have passed. I don't like the idea of forcing the trade anyway, and I refuse to add yet another prospect to the deal for a 34 year-old catcher. So I'm not sure that I will try to salvage this, but can anyone explain why the AI would make this drastic change, literally overnight? This seems like a flaw in the code for trade evaluations.

12-23-2014, 04:38 PM	#3
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The big smoke Posts: 15,628	I say this and it's not intended to inflame but it's great and it adds to the game IMO. Since you slept on it and played a game it's completely consistent to me that the AI can change its mind. The deal was not consummated so is subject to change. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

12-23-2014, 07:41 PM	#9
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: The big smoke Posts: 15,628	I think you are over analyzing both the decision and the verbiage. The AI is not human and has a miniscule vocabulary so it makes no sense to critique the manner of the turndown. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

12-23-2014, 04:13 PM	#2
David Watts Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Looking for a place called Leehofooks Posts: 8,880	What if the computer team received another offer you don't know about that made him rethink your deal? Far fetched, I know, but maybe?

12-23-2014, 04:40 PM	#4
Charlie Hough Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 3,625	I simmed ahead one more day, and there has been no other trade. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an offer, but I am guessing that when two AI teams make a trade, it simply happens as soon as the offer is made and it's acceptable. I can't imagine the AI teams making each other offers that they don't accept but that cause them to suddenly turn down an offer from a human GM. Then it's not accepting any trades on any side.

12-23-2014, 06:08 PM	#5
TomVeal All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Spanaway, Washington Posts: 1,181	Maybe it's a bug, but I agree with those who aren't troubled by the outcome. I can imagine what happened: The GM agreed to the trade, the owner hated it, and the fortuitous delay gave the GM time to back down, now insisting that he'd "really" thought it a terrible deal all along. He's probably blaming some assistant.