Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

Recommended Posts

I'm also waiting to see green/red arrows attribute changes in the player profile. Besides would be nice If we can in game how in FM ask board to find new farm/affiliate team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really impossible (at least in the NHL) to trade for anyone worth anything. Unless a player is on the trade block, you really cannot trade for them. Here is a trade that I tried to make that was rejected:

c01796d6ef884ea3bb4edff284eebe5b.png

That's every draft pick of mine for the next five years plus two top prospects. For one first pair defenseman, but not elite by any means. That's ridiculous. And sometimes you will gauge interest and they will say they do not want a player that they have **** of interest in. You really cannot trade for anyone worth any kind of value unless they are on the trade block or if it is trade deadline day.

Also on another note, NHL teams never sign other teams' RFAs. RFAs almost always (I've never seen them not) re-sign with their previous team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also on another note, NHL teams never sign other teams' RFAs. RFAs almost always (I've never seen them not) re-sign with their previous team.

How many times in real life has an RFA signed with another team?

Hint, it's not often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many times in real life has an RFA signed with another team?

Hint, it's not often.

Not that much, but still, more than never, and there are a lot of instances where an RFAs rights will get traded (i.e. Brandon Saad this past offseason).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really impossible (at least in the NHL) to trade for anyone worth anything. Unless a player is on the trade block, you really cannot trade for them. Here is a trade that I tried to make that was rejected:

c01796d6ef884ea3bb4edff284eebe5b.png

That's every draft pick of mine for the next five years plus two top prospects. For one first pair defenseman, but not elite by any means. That's ridiculous. And sometimes you will gauge interest and they will say they do not want a player that they have **** of interest in. You really cannot trade for anyone worth any kind of value unless they are on the trade block or if it is trade deadline day.

Also on another note, NHL teams never sign other teams' RFAs. RFAs almost always (I've never seen them not) re-sign with their previous team.

They most likely weren't looking to rebuild which is what that trade suggests. If they are a playoff team then its really no reason to trade away their 1st team Defensive men for players who wont play for them right away. I am also willing to bet that you are also a playoff team so therefore your first round picks may not even be high picks. I am glad they AI rejected such a power gamer type of trade, 32 picks? really?

It makes 100% sense that most trades are easily made for players on the block or around the deadline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

League activation is based on a couple of things, but first and foremost it is volunteers on The Blue Line putting together the rosters for the leagues, and researching the players. So if you are willing to go there and help out with NIHL stuff then they might get enough players into those leagues to make Riz and SI think about adding it in. However, Riz and SI also have tons of other things to work on in the game to make it right for overall purposes, and new playable leagues may or may not be something high on their list to do.

Now I realize this is a wish list, just saying if you want a chance to make things playable step up and help out at the BLUE LINE...without that help the SI guys have no rosters for the leagues to make them playable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love an option to scout the NCAA instead of each individual league. Also, contract negotiations are pretty tedious right now with an offer and rejection. If they could be similar to FM, where you get feedback that would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think batdaddy was trying to offend you.

You say the next Leagues that "should" be added are Leagues whose players are the lowest rated (in the TBL Rosters for EHM) of about three dozen Leagues...so it's reasonable to encourage someone to help out who suggest adding such Leagues (because there aren't enough researchers now to cover all the playable Leagues that exist now, which batdaddy knows), and it's great you've contacted Archi about helping out!

And many feel there are needed gameplay/bug fixes that should take priority over any more adding of Leagues...

But it is a wish list, so of course people are free to wish away for new Leagues and also for different development prioritizing (and other stuff too! HaHa) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. yes you go ahead and wish for whatever you please. I was not saying do not wish for whatever you please. I was saying, go volunteer to help out at TBL, and you have. So that is great.

Thanks for being you and have a lovely life doing whatever you damn please. Wish that was always possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love any sort of negotiation when attempting to trade with the ai. Even when players are available, I see team x can't think of a good offer far too often. Even dumb asks should be negotiated, maybe? Like say I want Brodin or Seguin or something and the counter could be my best prospects/players... something to work with anyway. I've also noticed that when the ai places a player on the block, it still gets decent offers. When the human gm does it, the offers are usually pretty poor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things i want to see are the standings to include wildcard standings. It's how the real NHL does it and i think it looks better then the other standings they use in the game. The second is to include the ability to update the rosters yourself without having to use a game editor or any of those things you have to download separately. I hate having to wait months for my rosters to be updated. I want to be able to make the trades in game and update the rosters on my own if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love any sort of negotiation when attempting to trade with the ai. Even when players are available, I see team x can't think of a good offer far too often. Even dumb asks should be negotiated, maybe? Like say I want Brodin or Seguin or something and the counter could be my best prospects/players... something to work with anyway. I've also noticed that when the ai places a player on the block, it still gets decent offers. When the human gm does it, the offers are usually pretty poor.

Do you set team needs?

More hits in a game is something that I wish for and I know is getting worked on (thank gawd)

But I wish there was stat tracking for total player hits and total team hits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you set team needs?

More hits in a game is something that I wish for and I know is getting worked on (thank gawd)

But I wish there was stat tracking for total player hits and total team hits.

I do indeed. I can't think of a great example, but I usually get offers of two 4ths or a 2* prospect plus a 4th for a decent 2nd/3rd line player. It seems like the ai gets more 1st and 2nds for these types of players. Next time it happens, I'll have a better example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet, but adding onto the analytics suggestions it would be cool if you could hire a "stats guy" or analytics company that would make more data available and/or provide input on decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chemistry should have a bigger effect than it does. Adding line chemistry would be even better. There are times where I added players during the playoffs and they immediately became one of my best performers during the playoffs. To make it worst the guys were entering a new league from a different country.

I know if you make drastic changes to your roster it will have an effect on chemistry but there should be more strategy to making a decisions to shaking up your roster during a playoff race. Do I risk effecting chemistry to add few players or do I keep my team intact and ride this winning streak and top of the league position? Of course the situation is different if you are fighting for position and the trade may (or may not) improve your team. Maybe the player is good enough to offset some chemistry loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do indeed. I can't think of a great example, but I usually get offers of two 4ths or a 2* prospect plus a 4th for a decent 2nd/3rd line player. It seems like the ai gets more 1st and 2nds for these types of players. Next time it happens, I'll have a better example.

Ok, so I started a new save and did the fantasy draft. I ended up with Drew Doughty and just to see what the offers were, I did the 'offer to all'.

These are the offers I got:

2015 3rd, 2016 2nd & 3rd

David Moss, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

Ryan Hartman, 2016 1st, 2017 1st, 2017 2nd

Peter Harrold, Seth Helgeson, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2016 3rd

Zack Kassian, 2015 2nd, 2015 4th, 2016 2nd

I think the 'offer to all' option needs a bit of help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, so I started a new save and did the fantasy draft. I ended up with Drew Doughty and just to see what the offers were, I did the 'offer to all'.

These are the offers I got:

2015 3rd, 2016 2nd & 3rd

David Moss, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

Ryan Hartman, 2016 1st, 2017 1st, 2017 2nd

Peter Harrold, Seth Helgeson, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2016 3rd

Zack Kassian, 2015 2nd, 2015 4th, 2016 2nd

I think the 'offer to all' option needs a bit of help.

You can always go in and negotiate/tweak the trade offer. Im sure that is what happens between the AI teams. Im not sure the offers are suppose to be in favor of the person offering the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can always go in and negotiate/tweak the trade offer. Im sure that is what happens between the AI teams. Im not sure the offers are suppose to be in favor of the person offering the player.

I'm not looking for the offer to be in favor of me, just to be fair. A trade is supposed to be beneficial to both teams. I think there should be 2 ways to move a player out. Option 1 is placing a player on the trading block, which means that everyone knows he's available and has a slight impact on his value. Option 2 is more of the see what I can get, and if it makes sense I'll make the trade, which should not have the same negative impact on the player's value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not looking for the offer to be in favor of me, just to be fair. A trade is supposed to be beneficial to both teams. I think there should be 2 ways to move a player out. Option 1 is placing a player on the trading block, which means that everyone knows he's available and has a slight impact on his value. Option 2 is more of the see what I can get, and if it makes sense I'll make the trade, which should not have the same negative impact on the player's value.

AI offering fair trades defeats the purpose of the back and forth negotiation though. I don't think the user goes out looking to make fair deals to the AI, so the AI should be looking to make a steal as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AI offering fair trades defeats the purpose of the back and forth negotiation though. I don't think the user goes out looking to make fair deals to the AI, so the AI should be looking to make a steal as well.

Which of these looks like the basis for negotiations to you?

2015 3rd, 2016 2nd & 3rd

David Moss, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

Ryan Hartman, 2016 1st, 2017 1st, 2017 2nd

Peter Harrold, Seth Helgeson, 2015 2nd, 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, 2015 3rd

2015 2nd, 2016 1st, 2016 3rd

Zack Kassian, 2015 2nd, 2015 4th, 2016 2nd

Nothing in any of those trades is remotely close to getting Doughty.

I'm all for better negotiation ai, in fact I'm pretty sure I asked for it in this thread, but this isn't even close. I'll negotiate with the ai and I'll let you know where I end up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which of these looks like the basis for negotiations to you?

I'll negotiate with the ai and I'll let you know where I end up.

Ok, I can get "We'll need some time to think this over" or "This offer requires some serious thought" on the following:

Doughty for Seth Jones

Doughty for Wayne Simmonds & Jake Virtanen

Doughty for Valery Nichushkin

Doughty for Olli Maatta

and I get "This offer isn't too appealing" for Doughty for Jacob Truba, straight up.

So, like I said. It needs some work. I would think that Doughty could get an A prospect + or an A young player +. Especially since he's only 24.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible that Doughty's 7.00 million dollar salary is causing some issues?

The 3 single players you mention all make about a million a year, huge salary difference...even Simmonds/Virtanen is about 2 million less than Doughty

You don't mention the salary cap situation of any of the teams you mention, or whether they already have their D "set" and are looking to improve in other areas.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it possible that Doughty's 7.00 million dollar salary is causing some issues?

The 3 single players you mention all make about a million a year, huge salary difference...even Simmonds/Virtanen is about 2 million less than Doughty

You don't mention the salary cap situation of any of the teams you mention, or whether they already have their D "set" and are looking to improve in other areas.....

Fair point about what they have on D, I haven't really looked. Cap wasn't an issue for any of the teams listed here, everyone had $2-$3million in space even after they added Doughty's money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is getting that close to the Cap something all AI GMs do? or even should do?

And what about Team Budget? I don't think all teams have budgets that match the Cap

Are such big stars/contracts that easy to trade IRL?

To say "it needs some work" is more helpful if we can point out how it's not working realistically & what is going wrong in-game.....I'm not sure something went wrong or what went wrong just because some teams wanted to think about making a trade right after doing a fantasy draft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is getting that close to the Cap something all AI GMs do? or even should do?

And what about Team Budget? I don't think all teams have budgets that match the Cap

Are such big stars/contracts that easy to trade IRL?

To say "it needs some work" is more helpful if we can point out how it's not working realistically & what is going wrong in-game.....I'm not sure something went wrong or what went wrong just because some teams wanted to think about making a trade right after doing a fantasy draft

My issue, as I stated above somewhere, is that there isn't any real negotiation. It's just easier to illustrate with Doughty. A player like him, who should have value to every team in the league, surely would not garner offers of 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, 2015 3rd or picks plus C prospects in the real world. The problem I have with the trade ai is that it either over values its own players or undervalues the human gm's players when they are offered for trade. I'm not sure which, really.

So if I ask for Olli Maattaa, plus an A/B prospect, plus a pick or 2, I get turned down flat. Even if it's Maattaa plus the A/B prospect, I get turned down. As good as Olli Maattaa can be, he isn't in the same class as Doughty.

We can't ever say what realistic would be because a real world gm would make room for a player like Doughty, and conversely, a player like him wouldn't be moved at 24 with 5 years left on his contract.

If you've ever played the OOTP baseball games, they have a decent system to offer players to all the teams without it impacting the players value. There is a way to say, ok, player x is available and a way to 'shop' a player quietly.

Also, the negotiation thing is what I'd really like to see improved. Instead of a straight rejection, how about a team tells us what would work for them? Again, OOTP has a list of players you could add to make a trade work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My issue, as I stated above somewhere, is that there isn't any real negotiation.
Ah, I get it now! You have every right to your wish!

I was responding to your saying "it seems to need some work" which is completely different than a wish (IMO such things like you're talking about aren't realistic at all, and are about users who want to trade being able to force trading to occur.....which maybe we'll get that, but I sure hope the basic bug fixes and gameplay fixes/improvements are the priority)

We can't ever say what realistic would be because a real world gm would make room for a player like Doughty, and conversely, a player like him wouldn't be moved at 24 with 5 years left on his contract.
If such a player would never be traded there'd never be an opportunity for a real GM to make room, would there?

So IMO we can say what you're talking about is unrealistic (as is the concept of "offer to all" getting you good offers...I think "offer to all" represents a situation where a team really wants/desires/"has to" move a player, like the Kessell situation - expecting to "offer to all" a player and receive the best offers from the other GMs is completely unrealistic...it never happens IRL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If such a player would never be traded there'd never be an opportunity for a real GM to make room, would there?

So IMO we can say what you're talking about is unrealistic (as is the concept of "offer to all" getting you good offers...I think "offer to all" represents a situation where a team really wants/desires/"has to" move a player, like the Kessell situation - expecting to "offer to all" a player and receive the best offers from the other GMs is completely unrealistic...it never happens IRL)

Dougie Hamilton and Tyler Seguin were moved, that is as close to Doughty as we've seen in recent memory. In Hamilton's case, there were gms who didn't even know he could be had. I suspect the 'offer to all' concept is, in itself, unrealistic. I'm not looking for exact realism, we can't have that anyway. I just think that the way players are offered around should make more sense. Why is there a 'trade block' and an 'offer to all'? Why do they both tank the value of a player? In certain cases, yes, every team knows a team has to move a player out. Be it cap or contract or whatever. In those cases, the value can drop a bit, yes, but not to the extent of offering a 2015 2nd, 2015 3rd, and 2015 3rd for Drew Doughty. One of the options should have little to no impact on a players value.

I think the problem with 'offer to all' is that it has more of an impact on the player value for the human gm than when the ai offers a player out. If you look at what the ai gm gets for players they put on the block, the value they get, seems to me, to be better than what I would get for a similar player. Look at what was offered above for Doughty. The value seems closer with lower tier types of players, players who you would expect to get a 3rd or a 4th.

I don't know what the answer is. I've played EHM since the shareware and this is the one thing that has always frustrated me about the game, well that and the lack of immediate response on trade deadline day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trade block is totally different concept than offer to all. One is asking for trade value and the other is telling the league that a player is not needed by your team and is up for grabs. With that said, the AI should always look to win the trade. There is a button to negotiate the trade for a reason. You keep mentioning the 3rd round picks offered to you but you seem to ignore that one team offered you 2 1st round picks (and other picks + a player; Most teams offered packages that included a lot of 2nd round picks and another team added a 1st round pick to their package) according to your post.

You also never listed what you set for team needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trade block is totally different concept than offer to all. One is asking for trade value and the other is telling the league that a player is not needed by your team and is up for grabs.

Right, one should have impact on a players value and one shouldn't. Right now, they both do.

With that said, the AI should always look to win the trade. There is a button to negotiate the trade for a reason.

As I posted above, you see the results of the negotiation. Its all one-for-one for a slightly younger, not as developed player. Yes, I got one offer of two firsts, but I got more for lesser packages. As above, I would think that Doughty could get an A prospect + or an A young player +. Especially since he's only 24. My team needs were set at 'favor younger players'.

The problem with thinking either the ai or the human should 'win' a trade is that that isn't how trading works in the 'real world'. Years of EA Sports and gm sim games have taught us that only one team can win, and it always has to try to rip off the opposition. In the real world, a trade has to benefit both sides. A gm would run out of trade partners quickly if they only ever tried to rip off the other team or only offered players of little value. Maybe a gm reputation would be interesting to implement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, one should have impact on a players value and one shouldn't. Right now, they both do.

As I posted above, you see the results of the negotiation. Its all one-for-one for a slightly younger, not as developed player. Yes, I got one offer of two firsts, but I got more for lesser packages. As above, I would think that Doughty could get an A prospect + or an A young player +. Especially since he's only 24. My team needs were set at 'favor younger players'.

The problem with thinking either the ai or the human should 'win' a trade is that that isn't how trading works in the 'real world'. Years of EA Sports and gm sim games have taught us that only one team can win, and it always has to try to rip off the opposition. In the real world, a trade has to benefit both sides. A gm would run out of trade partners quickly if they only ever tried to rip off the other team or only offered players of little value. Maybe a gm reputation would be interesting to implement?

You seem to be ignoring the concept of negotiating a trade which is something very few sports games (console or text) have. I did not say one team should win but when the team is offering a player up for trade, the responding team should come back with a response in their favor and from there both parties negotiate and find a middle ground or the trade just doesn't happen. This is basic trade logic that's been going on before Sports were a thing...You trade this way anytime you go out shopping for something. You look for the best deal that favors you.

None of the offers were ripping you off. You just have a higher value for the player you are saying you don't want anymore while telling teams you want young players hence all the picks and few players offered to you. Try bumping the team needs to something different...

Now if teams were coming to you inquiring about Dougthery and the trades weren't somewhat in your favor or "fair" then yea I may agree with you that trading needs work in this area. Offer to all is pretty much calling all teams and personally asking for a price for your player (there was a scene like this in the movie Money Ball)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with thinking either the ai or the human should 'win' a trade is that that isn't how trading works in the 'real world'. Years of EA Sports and gm sim games have taught us that only one team can win, and it always has to try to rip off the opposition.
That may be your experience/thoughts, but not everyone thinks the same (I don't); I've never played the game with a thought to "ripping off" the AI and I never thought if I rejected an offer the AI was trying to "rip me off" (but playing online EHM/hockey pools I was offered "rip off trades" by human GMs.....human GMs that loved traded and actually believed I was playing the game wrong because I didn't love trading and want to trade like they did).....I think you describe some players well (always trying to rip off the opposition), but not everybody plays that way

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to be ignoring the concept of negotiating a trade which is something very few sports games (console or text) have. I did not say one team should win but when the team is offering a player up for trade, the responding team should come back with a response in their favor and from there both parties negotiate and find a middle ground or the trade just doesn't happen. This is basic trade logic that's been going on before Sports were a thing...You trade this way anytime you go out shopping for something. You look for the best deal that favors you.

None of the offers were ripping you off. You just have a higher value for the player you are saying you don't want anymore while telling teams you want young players hence all the picks and few players offered to you. Try bumping the team needs to something different...

Now if teams were coming to you inquiring about Dougthery and the trades weren't somewhat in your favor or "fair" then yea I may agree with you that trading needs work in this area. Offer to all is pretty much calling all teams and personally asking for a price for your player (there was a scene like this in the movie Money Ball)

I'm not ignoring negotiation, that's exactly what I want to have improved. Negotiation takes more than 'I offer you this, you say yes/no', which is where the game is. There is only negotiation on the human side, the ai never couners, it only accepts or rejects. As I stated before, OOTP has a better counter offer system in place, if you've ever played that series.

To offer a player around to gauge value doesn't mean you don't want the player, it means that you'd like to see what his value is. The game also thinks that to offer a player around means you don't want him, which is what I'm arguing against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That may be your experience/thoughts, but not everyone thinks the same (I don't); I've never played the game with a thought to "ripping off" the AI and I never thought if I rejected an offer the AI was trying to "rip me off" (but playing online EHM/hockey pools I was offered "rip off trades" by human GMs.....human GMs that loved traded and actually believed I was playing the game wrong because I didn't love trading and want to trade like they did).....I think you describe some players well (always trying to rip off the opposition), but not everybody plays that way

That, exactly, has been my experience with reading about people playing this (and other) games. Everyone plays differently, obviously. My point is that the tools should be there to make it work in an equitable way. Maybe thats more than this, or any, game can offer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not ignoring negotiation, that's exactly what I want to have improved. Negotiation takes more than 'I offer you this, you say yes/no', which is where the game is. There is only negotiation on the human side, the ai never couners, it only accepts or rejects. As I stated before, OOTP has a better counter offer system in place, if you've ever played that series.

To offer a player around to gauge value doesn't mean you don't want the player, it means that you'd like to see what his value is. The game also thinks that to offer a player around means you don't want him, which is what I'm arguing against.

But it kind of is telling teams you don't want the player. Why else would you be shopping him around? It could be a number of reason why you wouldn't want a player and salary is one of them. In your case I am not sure why you are shopping the player in the first place. Why did you draft him? Also note that trade offere get better near the trade deadline which something like offer to all was probably meant for in the first place. considering it seem only possible to trade block a player is by changing his squad staus to not needed making him available for teams to inquire about. IMO both features are different but still pretty much saying you want to move the player in question.

I play OOTP religiously and the trading mechanics in that game does not compare to here. Actually they need to take notes from EHM. Their shop a player feature only results in 1 for 1 offers and the list of players they want from your team are always ridiculous considering the quality of player you are giving them. In that game, not only would they try to win a trade but they'll reject you while also asking to pair another all star player in the deal. It gets even more ridiculous on higher trading levels.

The team gave you players (or other assets) that would make it work for them, you just disagree with it. It's your job to try and get a better deal. The AI team doesn't give you notes or back and forth conversation about other players that can make the trade work because they give you a list of players on their team and give you interest level of their own players (high stars are players on their team that they do not want to trade, lower stars are guys who they are willing to trade)

You can also initate a trade by going to the team adding one player (either their player or your own) and hit inquiry and you will get players they are willing to trade or trade for. There isn't anything wrong with the mechanism, you just do not like the initial offers you get for one specific plalyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it kind of is telling teams you don't want the player. Why else would you be shopping him around? It could be a number of reason why you wouldn't want a player and salary is one of them. In your case I am not sure why you are shopping the player in the first place. Why did you draft him? Also note that trade offere get better near the trade deadline which something like offer to all was probably meant for in the first place. considering it seem only possible to trade block a player is by changing his squad staus to not needed making him available for teams to inquire about. IMO both features are different but still pretty much saying you want to move the player in question.

I doubt we will agree on any of this, especially what constitutes wanting a player out vs. shopping one and that's fine, this is the wishlist thread after all.

I did this test with Doughty just to see what the offers would be, did the same with Ovechkin with the same results, just fewer teams interested because of $$$. Again, I don't think that gauging a player's value should make his value tank. You seem to think that 'shopping' a player is the same as 'I have to move him' vs finding out what you might be able to get for him and maybe I move, maybe I don't. NHL teams talk about players all the time, regardless of wanting to move them or not. Do you think that negatively impacts a player's value? I don't and I don't think it should in the game either. What I am saying, and have been saying, is that the 'trade block' and 'offer to all' should function differently. One should impact value negatively, and one shouldn't.

I play OOTP religiously and the trading mechanics in that game does not compare to here. Actually they need to take notes from EHM. Their shop a player feature only results in 1 for 1 offers and the list of players they want from your team are always ridiculous considering the quality of player you are giving them. In that game, not only would they try to win a trade but they'll reject you while also asking to pair another all star player in the deal. It gets even more ridiculous on higher trading levels.

I have not had that experience with OOTP (baseball, right?). In my experience the 'make this deal work now' options are better, value wise, than what I am seeing from EHM.

The AI team doesn't give you notes or back and forth conversation about other players that can make the trade work because they give you a list of players on their team and give you interest level of their own players (high stars are players on their team that they do not want to trade, lower stars are guys who they are willing to trade)

In my test with Doughty, Jacob Truba is a 4* player for his team vs Doughty as a 5* player (also valued by his team). As I said above, I get "This offer isn't too appealing" for Doughty for Truba, straight up. If the * mechanic works the way you are thinking it does, why do draft picks not have a * value? If it worked in the way you describe, the *s should change with each added or subtracted piece. I think its more of a guide to see how easy it is to acquire a player, less of a value judgement for a player. I saw someone, Riz maybe, explain exactly how the * thing worked a while ago, but I can't find it. I may well be wrong in this case about what the *s mean.

There isn't anything wrong with the mechanism, you just do not like the initial offers you get for one specific plalyer.

It isn't just one specific player, its any of those 4*/5* players. And yes, the initial offers are terrible, but the 'negotiation' isn't negotiation, as I've said repeatedly. Which makes 'my job to get a better deal' rather more difficult than it needs to be. Especially since I have no real indication of what the other team would offer, other than to low-ball me.

I'm not looking to convince you of anything, I am only looking to make suggestions on the way the ai handles trade negotiations. Maybe to actually negotiate, rather than low-ball and reject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wrong about how the * system works in the trade screen, but it still doesn't make sense to me because you can offer/receive 2 3* players for 1 4*. Add to the fact that you have no idea what the ai values draft picks at and I still think it needs to be made clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few (pretty simple?) suggestions.

There will probably be a few duplicate suggestions in here.

Search Functions:

- Ability to select multiple players

- More stats in the search screens, why isn't GAA and Sv% an option when searching for goalies based on stats?

- The ability to filter based on multiple stats, e.g. Filtering GP descending AND filter Wins descending, and so on.

- The ability to have multiple shortlist running at the same time without having to export/import. This would be extremely useful so I can have lists for all positions as I scout for the draft.

- A search filter for players that are part of the draft. E.g. I only want to see players who are in the WHL Bantam Draft and nobody else. - Sure this is possible through searching between 12-15 aged kids, but this might include players that don't take part in the draft (e.g. College kids)

Selection Info:

- Custom views, that'd be awesome. And FM has spoiled us in that regard.

- Some sort of ''assistant suggestion'' view if the latter is not possible, giving an easy view for stars the coach gives to the kids.

- Again, more and easier accesible stats would be phenomenal without having to go to Statistics.

Others:

- Obviously better resolution support because 1024 is almost infuriatingly small at times. 1920x1080 would give so much more real estate to work with, more stats to add, and so forth. It's near criminal that we're forced to use a maximum of 1024.

I probably got more ideas, but i'm hitting a blank now.

I am loving EHM:EA just as much as I loved EHM07, I do feel that the devs would do great at trying to somehow get the newer FM style layouts into the game rather than working on EHM07, but I realize that it's an Early Access game mostly designed if there's a market for a revived game franchise. And I appreciate all the bi-weekly fixes the small team of devs are implementing, you guys are doing great work and I feel that EHM:EA can become a phenomenal game once it truly moves into the modern era of design and function.

KUTGW and all that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt we will agree on any of this, especially what constitutes wanting a player out vs. shopping one and that's fine, this is the wishlist thread after all.
I think the part of your wish you base on your saying the game "seems to need some work" is what people are responding to/disagreeing with
I have not had that experience with OOTP (baseball, right?). In my experience the 'make this deal work now' options are better, value wise, than what I am seeing from EHM.
Here's an OOTP thread from only 4 days ago http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-16-general-discussions/258103-rejecting-trades.html where OOTPers talk about the things you haven't experienced (such as the AI trying to "rip off" human managers, human managers offering a "better deal" and the AI refusing it, how the AI offers the same players over and over....from one recent thread! You can easily find many more threads with similar examples, and because many issues have been ongoing you can see these threads/issues referenced back multiple years)

The impression I get is those that love trading like these things (options/extras) much more than those that love realism (the thread above also references the poor AI intelligence, another theme that those that love trading and those that prefer realism more seem to disagree on.....FYI I'm not saying that those that love trading don't care at all about realism, and I'm not saying that those that love realism aren't open to options/extras - I'd just like to see EHM take the gameplay/realism first approach, and not the lots of options approach first)

I'm not looking to convince you of anything, I am only looking to make suggestions on the way the AI handles trade negotiations. Maybe to actually negotiate, rather than low-ball and reject.
To be honest I'm trying to convince you a bit, and I think you're trying to convince me/others a bit too (at least SI I'd think).....I think your suggestion might make the game more unrealistic, easier to "take advantage of" + I don't see your OOTP reference as a supportive example for you

Regards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am loving EHM:EA just as much as I loved EHM07, I do feel that the devs would do great at trying.....
I notice you used the plural for developer HaHa

Maybe I'm wrong (and I'd LOVE to be wrong about this!), but I think it's pretty much just Riz working on EHM:EA (and in his "spare time" when he's not working on FM)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I notice you used the plural for developer HaHa

Maybe I'm wrong (and I'd LOVE to be wrong about this!), but I think it's pretty much just Riz working on EHM:EA (and in his "spare time" when he's not working on FM)

I had thought it was a very small team working in their spare time, but if it's only Riz then it's extremely impressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the part of your wish you base on your saying the game "seems to need some work" is what people are responding to/disagreeing with

It was poorly worded on my part then. I think I was just providing an example of how the ai 'negotiates' and what it's starting offers are.

Here's an OOTP thread from only 4 days ago http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-16-general-discussions/258103-rejecting-trades.html where OOTPers talk about the things you haven't experienced (such as the AI trying to "rip off" human managers, human managers offering a "better deal" and the AI refusing it, how the AI offers the same players over and over....from one recent thread! You can easily find many more threads with similar examples, and because many issues have been ongoing you can see these threads/issues referenced back multiple years)

OOTP was used as an example of how negotiations could be done differently, and in my opinion, slightly better. Is is flawed? Absolutely, because you still have the ai making value judgements about players based on whatever it's criteria are.

The impression I get is those that love trading like these things (options/extras) much more than those that love realism (the thread above also references the poor AI intelligence, another theme that those that love trading and those that prefer realism more seem to disagree on.....FYI I'm not saying that those that love trading don't care at all about realism, and I'm not saying that those that love realism aren't open to options/extras - I'd just like to see EHM take the gameplay/realism first approach, and not the lots of options approach first)

The ai is flawed in how it values players and it doesn't just impact trades. Look at the start of a game with teams over the cap. How the ai decides who they move or waive needs to be adjusted in some way. Same with who they resign vs not. How many times have you seen Stamkos, Toews, or Kane end up as UFAs, having been on teams that are good (PO success, other good players, etc) and have the cap space to resign them? That was every save for me until I started using the newest TBL rosters where Toews and Kane are already signed. Stamkos still goes UFA every single time.

I'm not asking for options, just to be able to negotiate a trade. As I said before, a negotiation isn't 'I make an offer for player x, ai says yes/no, the end.

To be honest I'm trying to convince you a bit, and I think you're trying to convince me/others a bit too (at least SI I'd think).....

I honestly am not trying to convince other players in this, a wishlist thread, of what I think. Frankly, I think its absurd that I even have to defend a suggestion I made to this extent, to other people who can't make any meaningful change to something they didn't create and don't work on.

SI, yes, but I'm not so naive to think that just because it was suggested, they jump at it. It would have to make sense within the framework of the existing game and since I don't know the first thing about programming games, I leave it as a suggestion and only that.

I think your suggestion might make the game more unrealistic, easier to "take advantage of" + I don't see your OOTP reference as a supportive example for you

I don't think that a negotiation process would make anything easier. How could it? It doesn't change the way the ai values players. It may show a player who the ai values, but we have that to a small extent now anyway with the clunky * system.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the part of your wish you base on your saying the game "seems to need some work" is what people are responding to/disagreeing with
It was poorly worded on my part then. I think I was just providing an example of how the ai 'negotiates' and what it's starting offers are.
Ah...FYI if you hadn't said it I don't think I would have ever made a return comment
The ai is flawed in how it values players
Yep, agreed! The area need some work!
I'm not asking for options, just to be able to negotiate a trade. As I said before, a negotiation isn't 'I make an offer for player x, ai says yes/no, the end.
The TBL Challenges have been going on since the release of EHM:EA, and they have used a "have to trade" challenge style and are making trades! Reading the Challenge Threads tells me that working out trades isn't as difficult for everyone...
I honestly am not trying to convince other players in this, a wishlist thread, of what I think. Frankly, I think its absurd that I even have to defend a suggestion I made to this extent, to other people who can't make any meaningful change to something they didn't create and don't work on.
Actually I worked on the TBL Rosters from 2011-2015; I did the WHL/OHL/QMJHL the last two years (I resigned a month ago to focus on retro roster work).

I still regularly do testing/give feedback on the TBL Rosters

I also created the 1974 database for EHM http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=116&t=9915 and I'm currently actively working on the 1998 database

I also do significant amounts of testing on EHM:EA, and post the results in the TBL Researcher Forum (and Riz is aware of the results too); I've also occasionally summarized what users have said and posted it.

As an example of the kind of testing I do, at the start of the summer I used three different games (yes I've bought EHM:EA 3 times so I could test faster! HaHa my wife's Steam account has the game, as does mine plus I have an account called EHMtesting HaHa).....anyways, I ran 3 different tests and looked at every Attribute for 125 different players every year for all 12 years in all three tests - I used the EHM:EA Assistant to export the needed data/Attributes and I put it all into excel spreadsheets created to summarize the results.....I actually tested which Attributes grow and which don't, and when (players were ages 13-23 at the start of my 12 year testing); I did this for EHM07 in the past too.....years ago somebody created a cool spreadsheet that has a summary/comparison sheet of all the entered data and the Attributes that grew are in green, those that regressed are in red, and I use it http://www.ehmtheblueline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=6860&hilit=attribute+tracker

Anyways, the point is I'm not trying to be a jerk when I ask questions.

I'm inquiring and clarifying because I'm trying to be helpful to the game development and beneficial to the community as a whole.

Seriously, no offense meant

Regards :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TBL Challenges have been going on since the release of EHM:EA, and they have used a "have to trade" challenge style and are making trades! Reading the Challenge Threads tells me that working out trades isn't as difficult for everyone...

I don't think its especially difficult to make trades, never has been in the EHM series. I'm more interested in making the process of trade negotiations feel like actual negotiations (I feel the same way about contract negotiations too, but FM does a better job in this area, so maybe EHM will follow). More give and take, some feedback from the ai, anything other than flat rejections or 'we can't think of anything to make this deal work'. When I look at the rosters of potential trading partners, at least 85% of the teams have something I want. Rarely do I see nothing, so when I see that from the ai at the present rate, it tells me that something is off.

We agree the ai valuation of players is off, so that may be a good starting point to make changes. Maybe if given a broader scope of values or something it may make trading feel different. Maybe if we see a more clear picture of what the ai values from his own team and how that relates to the trade, if there was some way to see if I add piece x, what does this do to the overall trade value? "We'll need some time to think this over" or "This offer requires some serious thought" don't give any indication of how the negotiation is going. More often then not, either of those responses leads to a rejection and gives zero indication of what might have made the trade work. Give me a counter-offer, please!

I don't know enough about how players are rated by the ai and why the ai responds the way it does to offer anything other than what I've suggested.

Anyways, the point is I'm not trying to be a jerk when I ask questions.

I'm inquiring and clarifying because I'm trying to be helpful to the game development and beneficial to the community as a whole.

Seriously, no offense meant

It's difficult to know what anyone's involvement is here other than Riz. I appreciate that you want to contribute to the development, as I think we all do.

My professional work is in branding and we think a lot about how people experience a brand. That means that how you interact with the game and how the game interacts with you is something I'm always thinking about and responding to. I think if EHM can get the right feel in the interaction between the human gm and the ai gm right, it will be better than it already is. The negotiation aspect is the one area that I think the game is sorely lacking in. I want to feel like the interaction leaves you feeling satisfied, something that doesn't happen when you don't get feedback from the ai.

Don't worry, I have pretty thick skin and don't really take offense to questions. I was merely voicing my concern that people in a wishlist thread may be taking things a bit too seriously.

:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...