The Annual Settings Thread

[wsenkow]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It still accepts on default settings...no reason why it wouldn't. In fact, I wonder if I could pile more on with Average/Neutral.

And Average/Neutral was something I wanted to return to until I read your posts today. Note: A huge thanks for the screenshots of the players on the table using the lesser trade difficulty. That was highly appreciated.

Personally I think I'm losing sight of the fact that OOTP 17 is just a game, and the truth in certain areas are not attainable.

[Cinnamon J. Scudworth]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

The problem with trading is I am now (to me) is I feel I am fleecing the AI on very hard. All you have t do, is target the player you want and..

1. Offer what you feel is your best player or two.
2. The AI will usually refuse, but if it accepts, remove one of the players (if you included two)
3. The AI at this point is refusing your offer...so hit the make this work now button
4. Now you will likely have a shortlist of players the a is interested in...remove your original best player from the trade, and include the best player from the shortlist the AI gave you.
5. Now hit the make this trade work again, you now have another shortlist of players. Take the best from this list and include it, while removing the best from the first shortlist

Rinse repeat until you find a combination you and your asst GM like...you will noticed you have likely just killed the very hard AI in a trade negotiation


This leads me to question whether or not the "take this trade work" function is the best way of going about things. I think I'd much rather see AI teams actually have untouchable players, and also offer counter offers (if it's even willing to entertain a trade) the current system is starting to feel gamey to me somehow.

If you approach trade negotiations as a baseball exercise (i.e. evaluate you and your negotiation partners' goals, gaps, and surplus talent) and less like a slot machine to mix and match combos that probably would never even be proposed in real life, it will feel a lot less 'gamey.'

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Cinnamon J. Scudworth

If you approach trade negotiations as a baseball exercise (i.e. evaluate you and your negotiation partners' goals, gaps, and surplus talent) and less like a slot machine to mix and match combos that probably would never even be proposed in real life, it will feel a lot less 'gamey.'

yes, I agree this is true, but what it does illustrate IMO, is perhaps that another way (model) of conducting trades should be considered. I am not necessarily complaining about the trade engine in itself, but rather the "slot machine" way to go about negotiations. There must be a better and more authentic feeling way to do this.

[wsenkow]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I am not necessarily complaining about the trade engine in itself, but rather the "slot machine" way to go about negotiations.

First we add enough players and sometimes cash until the other team accepts the offer for the one player we were after. Now if we were to add another player we want, say a prospect, there is more than a good chance that team will accept a player of lesser value for him. You know the drill, eventually it gives appearances that although we gave a lot for the original player, each of the ones added into the deal after came to us in a bargain.

I look at it this way. If I simply accepted the trade after their first player, more often than not I have been fleeced. They have 'won' the trade. However as we add a 2nd, then a 3rd, etc. player of interest the "Make Trade Work" gives us a list we can choose of a scrub we can get rid of to temporarily finalize the trade. IMO the reason for this is there will always be an 'equity' built in to an agreement from the other club's point of view. This is the value that the other club feels it has won by so far, and I use that equity towards acquiring the player I added that I want. That is why each player beyond the original one comes to us in the appearances of a bargain. The other club 'negotiates' too, and that is why I am okay justifying such transactions.

[daonlyjmo7]

First time posting here. I have been playing OOTP for a few weeks now and am ready to start my final settings testing before starting my franchise. (Btw I am open to suggestions on what type of franchise to do. I want one type and one coach type.)

First thing I need to get down is the trade setting. I do no overall ratings but use current as potential ratings on low scouting accuracy to best simulate a real scouting card while keeping a high difficulty. The biggest flaw I see in the stats only (or close to stats only) players' AI evaluation settings is that there is way to little emphasis on past year stats. Let me explain.

Obviously when playing stats only you want ratings at 0 so the CPU judges just like you would while playing. But ratings would be used as a way to judge the accuracy of the current year stats. In real life, the closest thing to "ratings" are the past year stats. These can help us gauge how accurate the current year stats are. So essentially, past stats replace ratings.

I have just ran my first test. The best way IMO to test trade settings is sim to deadline on do not disturb and clear injuries. I picked the Dodgers because they are buyers with crazy assets. First I went to Trout. Angels wouldn't give him no matter what. Realistic. Next I went to Archer. I found a good trade that was realistic (can't remember they exact details but if anyone's interested I will find them. Then I went to Jay Bruce. Same thing as Archer. Very realistic. I also found it was nearly impossible to trade bad contracts, which I like. You don't see any bad contract being traded unless they are big contacts to still decent players.

The settings I used for the first test were 0/34/33/33. I am going to tinker with them as well as test a sellers perspective and breakout players. I'll let you guys know when I settle on my trade settings as well as my other ones.

[BKL]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Guys...there is no need to try to prove this. Trust me. It will likely be worked on.

Was this issue ever fixed or worked on? Or is this still an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[evanbarth]

Ok, just upgrading to 17 from 16. Went through all these posts with lots of different settings being discussed.

Is there a consensous on the aging/development? Default?

Trading setting?

I assume the gameplay, like the modifiers for 2B, 3B, SB, HR, etc etc don't need to be touched?

Any others that need tweaking?

[evanbarth]

anyone?

[evanbarth]

Any final opinions on this?

[BigRed75]

If you're waiting for consensus you'll be waiting a long time. Just try some suggestions and go with whatever results you're happy with.

[evanbarth]

Just curious on the aging / development. I've seen Spanish Lefty's suggestion of raising development, lowering aging. I've seen other suggestions that if you raise one, raise the other. Just curious what people found works for the most realistic.

[Spanish Lefty]

Originally Posted by evanbarth

Just curious on the aging / development. I've seen Spanish Lefty's suggestion of raising development, lowering aging. I've seen other suggestions that if you raise one, raise the other. Just curious what people found works for the most realistic.

Aging: .310
Development: 1.300 - 1.330

Those settings make it similar to real life

[raginhood]

I do not use the scouting feature and let the AI see exact stats and ratings of players so it won't make foolish trades or transactions. I do not use the wavier wire or allow players to decline being sent to the minors so the AI gets even more advantages that it "needs" to make a better team. For player trading I use "average" in player selection and trades set to hard settings. The AI doesn't always just go for "prospects" which I've seen so many never turn into anything good and the AI wastes good players for them.

I have them rate a player only by the top three categories as I don't really care what a player did 2 years ago that's in the past and things change in the future and not always for the good as you can see from Ion Desmond. I give little weight to current stats and am more interested in the ratings figure since it's pretty much exact with the scout feature turned off and the ai seeing 100% of the players abilities.
70
25
5
The ratings are more important than stats to me and hopefully the ai, not a maybe or whatif's. The AI goes for better players although the in game coaches are still rather lame. AI trading has improved somewhat with these changes and no more silly high dollar offers to old and lame players.

I have great seasons with this setup at least the AI player is fielding some better teams instead of getting potluck crapola like it used to all those years back.

Oh and keep the yearly media revenue by team location and not equal as that makes the dynasty teams get better players more often. If you go the everyone gets the same you'll see a lot of "balanced" teams out there and you can smear that type of setting because you'll still be going for the best players.

Also, to sort of fix this mix and match type of play players are doing is make a trading system where you only get one trade chance per day or week and the closer you get to the trading deadline you get more, but, not a flop till you drop feature like it is now. By doing just one trade a "day" you still get a lot of chances to flop till you drop but you won't get that player so fast doing it on one single day until you get the trade you want. There has the be boundaries to prevent the exploits by the players. Checks and balances so to speak. You could make this an "option" so if some wanted to continue to cheat and exploit they could but, give the players that like to play fair more restrictions that they have to abide by without cheating or exploiting. Humans are just like that if there's a way to cheat or exploit most of them will use it. It's just human nature. Ask the banker of any monopoly game

[evanbarth]

Curious what people think about for what players to target -- average, favor prospects, highly favor prospects. How does that practically change trades? Is one setting more challenging?

[Spanish Lefty]

Originally Posted by evanbarth

Curious what people think about for what players to target -- average, favor prospects, highly favor prospects. How does that practically change trades? Is one setting more challenging?

Very difficult trades and highly favor prospects seems to work fine but... it is still far from being "real". The trade system is very "hackable". I hope this is solved in the next version

[PSUColonel]

I feel the defaults are very good. The only thing I would suggest is turning stars off, using "scouted ratings relevant ". Do NOT check "overall Rating based on AI evaluation"

[jagreen]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I feel the defaults are very good. The only thing I would suggest is turning stars off, using "scouted ratings relevant ". Do NOT check "overall Rating based on AI evaluation"

I know this is an old thread from an old version but I don't see that option.

"scouted ratings relevant "

[Rain King]

You can change the Ratings to be relevant to a specific league. That is the setting he is talking about.

https://screencast.com/t/HqvyTWMs