The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/11/2019 7:07 pm
TarquinTheDark wrote:
It would help with the draft issue if default ratings were reworked. Nobody wants a team loaded with default 75+ rated RBs, WRs, and DBs ... and average speed of 60.

This is the simplest yet most effective way of doing something . But in beta I am always trying to align play to match defaults . It's been a slow process . Another similar change would be player generation. Nobody below 50 speed...no small guys below 80 speed something like that would have a similar effect . I change positions right out the draft probably 50% of the time just to get faster guys or put stronger guys on the line

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By TarquinTheDark
9/11/2019 7:27 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
But in beta I am always trying to align play to match defaults . It's been a slow process .


Sometimes you just have reconcile with actuality. It's like admitting that the clothes you wore as a teenager will never fit you again.

We could work this from both ends. If we rework weights closer to the way the game is actually played, then reworking the game closer to that design becomes much easier.
Last edited at 9/11/2019 7:31 pm

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/12/2019 8:19 am
bgedgerly wrote:
punisher wrote:
bgedgerly wrote:

As someone in the first thread mentioned, I'm not crazy about programming anything to mimic certain players, but definitely adding in 'player-esque' biases towards positions (DB over DL, RB/QB over OL) and biases towards skills (Speed over Intelligence, Throwing Accuracy over Ball Carrying, etc.) in the default ratings rework would be wonderful.


dont think anyone is crazy about doing it either but i would think it is unavoided in that this whole thread i thought is for any idea that improves CPU from being Hot Garbage (signing players that are going to retire to big contracts , signing players that probably too slow for their position , etc. ) to being at least respectable (basically where people would not have to have other accounts for their leagues so they can take over teams so CPU wont screw team up where no one will take it over , CPU wont sign players that are going to retire or at least they wont give them a contract that messes up their salary cap big time , etc. ) so you basically have to start somewhere (maybe things that may not work , maybe things are silly , etc. ) to where you get to place where the idea or ideas actually will work , improve the CPU to the point it is like a difference between day and night , etc.


Coding limitations are a big bugaboo with this issue, and while I would love for the AI to have some 'personality', I think that it will probably be an easier (and therefore quicker) fix to just adjust the offseason move tendencies away from the current disaster to something more manageable.

Remember, the point of this fix won't be to make the AI-controlled teams title contenders, its to keep the open teams fixable by new owners and therefore attractive rebuild projects instead of just being a toxic pile of salary cap penalties and blown picks that no one wants anything to do with.

I don't mean to constantly disagree with you, punisher. I think that you have a good idea with regard to AI variation, but I don't think that the technology is currently available for that level of individual automation...or at least, not here. I do think that each code should bring new updates to the AI positional weights just to keep the human-controlled teams honest.



I am pretty sure the AI drafts players according to the head coaches offensive and defensive style but I am not sure if this carries over to renegotiated /FA bids for contracts. The issue is how it spreads out the bonus.

Julio Jones a vet took 97% of his bonus recently . Here that speed falls off a cliff and could hurt teams. I think that part should be more random as Terrell Owens and others have stayed fast later in there career .

The better the player the larger the bonus should be. Other guys I let test the market and keep an eye on them for a cheaper contract than the original offer at the end of season stage.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By Infinity on Trial
9/13/2019 6:20 pm
bgedgerly deserves a medal for taking on this effort and actually getting JDB's attention. This is the No. 1 thing ruining the game, and you're my new favorite person here.

There's an immediate step that could be taken, which is reverting the ownership logic to whatever it was before. It is perplexing that this didn't happen within hours, when it became an obvious problem.

Yes, the AI built weak teams, but it didn't let stars enter FA, and it didn't go over the cap. As it is, no AI team will ever be competitive because they end up -$40M in cap space and then try to field a roster of 46 featuring ancient mediocre guys with $50M contracts.

Everybody is making good points here. It makes a lot of sense to start with reworking the default ratings. I believe setherick has picked up that torch before. If nothing else, place much more emphasis on speed. (There's a bigger conversation to be had about bringing a dose of reason to player speeds. It shouldn't be easier to find an 80 speed DE than an 80 speed CB. There shouldn't even be a less than 80 CB. But I digress.)

I don't think we need to get in the weeds of trying to simulate human behavior, but there are some basic rules that would help. Like not signing a 35-year-old to a massive 6-year deal. And don't sign a player if it would cause the team to exceed cap space (including projected rookie salaries).

Perhaps the AI could determine a market value based on the average of actual contracts for players at the same position, age and rating league-wide. (The same could be used for extending players in their final season.) Humans could easily outbid the AI, but at least the AI team wouldn't be ruined when a human comes along.

Also, there's at least one big glaring difference in salary cap rules between here and the NFL. Only the top 53 salaries (and dead space) should apply, which means you could sign one-year, league-min contracts in perpetuity. Even if the AI wrecked a team, you could at least put a full roster together.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/13/2019 9:26 pm
It's broke cause of the addition of logic to make cap management harder long ago. It's bases off the contracts made by humans in the leagues that drove the current AIs so high . ..there was nothing put in to stop the AI from going over the cap though.

I suggested the NFL s 89% rule or some modified version calling it the 110% rule but the error lies in there somewhere . This rule would help a bunch of exploitable aspects but in terms of contracts there's just too much room and the AIs choices, because they don't front load contracts gets in to alot of trouble .

We just borrow from the future the AI doesn't . I am at 60% cap used in mfn1 with a decent team, but I didn't overpay for any old guys and front loaded younger players contracts.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 8:17 am
raymattison21 wrote:
It's broke cause of the addition of logic to make cap management harder long ago. It's bases off the contracts made by humans in the leagues that drove the current AIs so high . ..there was nothing put in to stop the AI from going over the cap though.

I suggested the NFL s 89% rule or some modified version calling it the 110% rule but the error lies in there somewhere . This rule would help a bunch of exploitable aspects but in terms of contracts there's just too much room and the AIs choices, because they don't front load contracts gets in to alot of trouble .

We just borrow from the future the AI doesn't . I am at 60% cap used in mfn1 with a decent team, but I didn't overpay for any old guys and front loaded younger players contracts.


And I never over bid for FAs that were highly sought after by users offering max contracts . That's what drove up renegotiated contracts across the league . The bar was set high by us

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By TarquinTheDark
9/14/2019 12:54 pm
The AI logic should never have started playing into a bidding war scenario. It's far to easy to game an AI.

AI should set the floor, minimum contracts. Walk away from anything else.

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By raymattison21
9/14/2019 2:28 pm
TarquinTheDark wrote:
The AI logic should never have started playing into a bidding war scenario. It's far to easy to game an AI.

AI should set the floor, minimum contracts. Walk away from anything else.


"Perhaps the AI could determine a market value based on the average of actual contracts for players at the same position, age and rating league-wide"

Something like this is in the logic. I don't know what it is but it should be like infinity said. More fine tuned than what we got. The younger and better the player is the more bonus laden it should be.

Change the default weights and put a more solid future cap on how far anyone can go over. Just so a team doesn't get so far into future debt. It's tricky because some users can clean stuff up by trading away talent for picks . ...then trade those picks for more future picks. Just delaying the inevitable .

Theres just too much wiggle room for owners right now that the AI fills up with horrid contracts for horrid player and picks .

The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.

I really think changing the weights would go a long way in helping the reneg/ FA signing logic . Then we could look at that seriously , but the weights might have to be reviewed each code change . Still, cause and effect of changes could get messy. That's why changing weight seems an easy fix

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By Infinity on Trial
9/14/2019 2:31 pm
I don't expect the AI to ever compete with experienced owners. I just want it to stop ruining teams (and leagues)

Re: AI Offseason Overhaul Thread

By TarquinTheDark
9/14/2019 2:45 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
The nfl 89% rules doesn't allow for all that movement of money it's distributed throughout the teams 53 contracts if it not used. Forcing teams tompay players to higher contracts . Sign he best guys and pay them is all it really does , but it does account for 4 years into the future which doesn't allow them to fall so far in to a dead cap hole like here when you gut a team to make to your liking.


Lol, do you think the money that is reported to the media for public scrutiny is all that's there? IRL, 89% creates a whole new level of financial shenanigans. That is what accountants and agents are for.

Still, a pretty good idea here.