 |
Quote: |
 |
|
|
 |
Originally Posted by Knight165 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You mean less atrocious like the latest D-Backs/Reds/Indians trade?! 
M.K.
Knight165
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Quote: |
|
|
|
|
|
Originally Posted by DodgerFanatic2K3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After seeing the trades that have gone down in baseball the last 4 months I will never think of another trade in the game as being "unrealistic" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trades that have happened in real life have been crazy, but I would not call them incomprehensible. I think the guy was more referring to how the CPU settles in terms of benefit, and offers trades that do not benefit them at all. For example, I got offered a trade last month where I got Brandon League, Miguel Olivo, and Brendan Ryan (a shortstop), in exchange for 1 single, average, shortstop prospect. Obviously I took it. If you simply take Ryan out of the trade, it looks a lot more realistic, since you can argue they need a shortstop for the future or something, but Ryan is a pretty young guy, and he's a shortstop, so literally they accomplished nothing at all. All they did was hurt themselves.
That's where I think the most
objective issue with the trade logic can be identified.
There definitely exists an objective separation between a poor trade, and a pointless trade. A poor trade I'd define as one where you trade something you don't need for something you want, but the values don't match. I can pay 3000 bucks for a toaster. That would be an extremely bad purchase. However, regardless of what I paid for it, it is by no means a pointless purchase. I had the 3000 to spend, and got something I value: a toaster.
A real-life example would be the Miami blockbuster trade. You can argue Miami got less than they could have, but at the end of the day, they traded what was of no value to them (failing, expensive superstars) and received something they valued highly (multiple prospects). We can argue all day about how "good" the trade is - that is, whether the benefits outweigh the cost - but I don't think it matters. At the end of the day, it matters only that there ARE benefits to the trade.
A pointless trade would me trading my toaster for another toaster of lesser quality, design, or whatever else. Or me trading my only toaster for a blender, when I already own a blender. I gave up something I value, in a toaster, and received something of no value, in the blender I don't need. These are the types of transactions I think people have the most problems with, and the type that I'd like to see diminished or protected against in future games.
To summarize: I think the issue in the trade logic is that the AI seems to only exclusively compare one side of the trade to the other. Is what I'm receiving greater than or equal to what I'm giving up? What the AI needs to evaluate more profusely, is comparing what you receive to what you already have, eg:
making the trade vs making no trade at all.