EHM The Blue Line

empach wrote:
Yeah I suggested the same kind of thing above.
I think another key part of trading UFA rights is making the return conditional on the team signing the player they trade for. Usually that's how these things are done.

Great idea, there were no conditional trades in EHM, that could be a good addition... more generally too - trades with conditional picks for making the playoffs etc.

Another idea I just had - if it's possible, it would be cool if you could use the phone feature to call a media source (maybe a local one in relation to your team) and leak something, like saying that a player of yours is available for trade or you're unhappy with their play, or that you are looking to acquire a top six forward or a draft pick, etc. Would maybe be a more interesting way for players to be made available than we saw in EHM.

Good idea. Kinda like setting team needs in a bigger scene - and by the way dabo, team needs should have a bigger effect, they almost never get me what I want.

dabo wrote:

B. Stinson wrote:In regards to trade negotiations, would it be difficult to make this more real-time? Kind of like if you were talking over the phone? Because nowadays, I would think it's pretty rare that GM's submit an offer to another GM, and then wait in the dark for a response like EHM does it. I'd be willing to bet most negotiating is done "live" on the phone.

I think I showed on a screenshot that I have a ribbon button called Phone, that's where this feature comes in. Then you can call the gm of your choice and receive calls as well. It will be a lot more work than the "normal" way but definitely doable. If implemented well, I think this could be a very nice feature.

<SNIP>

Something like that, let's pretend that is how they negotiate. I guess then you can ask to call back in a day or two if you need time to consider an offer or just call him a fool and hang up.

I guess it would work something like the press conferences in FM 2010. This is my goal at least but hopefully it will become reality some day. If I am really ambitious trade negotiations could influence your future relationship with another gm.

I'm not sure how realistic one phone call would be. I would expect that normally when a trade offer comes in, the GM has to discuss it with his head coach, chairman, etc. - it wouldn't be a quick phone call and it's all agreed.

Instead, here's what I'd suggest:

1) Just like EHM you put in an offer and await a response. I suppose for argument's sake it could be sent as an email to the other team.

2) The other team takes time to consider the offer. If it is a very good offer or a very bad offer then the team will respond quickly. If it's an offer that is neither of the extremes of good or bad then it takes longer to get a response because the AI GM will need more time to consider.

3a) If the offer is instantly accepted then you get a message back (or it could be a quick phone call) saying it has been accepted and you then get the option to confirm or retract the offer.

3b) If the offer is instantly rejected then you get a message or phone call saying rejected.

3c) If the AI GM wishes to negotiate then perhaps it could be a conference call between yourself, your Assistant GM or Head Coach, and your Head Scout, and the AI GM, Head Coach, etc. The conference call would then be a screen where you choose how to modify your offer and the AI GM will instantly respond and/or counter your offer. Your Coach/GM/Scout could give feedback on your current offer and suggestions on how to improve it. The conference call would thus be a way in which to negotiate and either finalise the deal or get a final rejection.

You are right.

Players in EHM were too easily acquired if they had been made available I thought. Players' values shouldn't decrease too much just because their GM is open to discussion. Just my opinion with that one.

Also salary should be a more important factor in a player's value. For instance Wade Redden pretty much has negative value in the real NHL because of his contract. It would be cool if salary dumps could take place.

Good idea. I was always found annoying that the value decrease when I put a player on the block.

archibalduk wrote: I'm not sure how realistic one phone call would be. I would expect that normally when a trade offer comes in, the GM has to discuss it with his head coach, chairman, etc. - it wouldn't be a quick phone call and it's all agreed.

Instead, here's what I'd suggest:

1) Just like EHM you put in an offer and await a response. I suppose for argument's sake it could be sent as an email to the other team.

I can see your point here to an extent but I wouldn't have the response take as long as it does in EHM. It doesn't take 2 or 3 days for a real GM to get back to another GM on a trade offer. Maybe once in a while if it's something they're really not sure of but the standard trade offer should be responded to the next day, IMO.

Will it be possible to really negotiate trading a player with multiple teams?

For example:

I put Wade Redden on the block.
3 GMs call making offers.
GM1 makes the best offer.

Can I go back to GM2 and GM3 and say, "if you want to beat GM1's offer, you'll need to add a 2nd round pick" or something more general like, "if you want to beat GM1's offer, you'll need to put a better package together". Then they can either improve the offer or drop out.

(and I know I'm dreaming about Redden's trade-ability, but I'm allowed to dream, right?)

I like that idea! I never thought about something like that, could be interesting.

My first thought is that the trade deadline should be different from other days of trading. Other GMs are going to want to get deals done, so maybe you'll have to compete with the computer GMs to get a player you want. Let's say you call Burke and inquire about Kaberle. Kind of like ArtVandelay's idea, Burke would say something like "I've got a good offer from Boston right now, but if you throw in so and so and a 4th rounder, I'll consider your deal." And then you could wait and figure out a counter-offer, but if you wait too long, maybe Burke ships Kaberle out west before you can get your dynamite offer in. Basically, I believe that the trade deadline should be fast and furious, and if you snooze, you may lose out on Kaberle and have to quickly formulate a back-up plan.

Hooligan_Tactics wrote:My first thought is that the trade deadline should be different from other days of trading. Other GMs are going to want to get deals done, so maybe you'll have to compete with the computer GMs to get a player you want. Let's say you call Burke and inquire about Kaberle. Kind of like ArtVandelay's idea, Burke would say something like "I've got a good offer from Boston right now, but if you throw in so and so and a 4th rounder, I'll consider your deal." And then you could wait and figure out a counter-offer, but if you wait too long, maybe Burke ships Kaberle out west before you can get your dynamite offer in. Basically, I believe that the trade deadline should be fast and furious, and if you snooze, you may lose out on Kaberle and have to quickly formulate a back-up plan.

Yeah that would be pretty good. Day 1 of the UFAs should be similar.

Great ideas! Should be the same at the draft.. I think some of the trades in this year's draft were dependent on some players being/not being available later on... I.E. "we'll trade you pick X, unless Joe Bloggs is there in which case we'll take him". Would be cool if that could be involved too.

How about a very rare event.....the team President or Owner gets his nose in there and wants a player moved to cut costs, it could really throw a wrench into the works.
Too gimmicky maybe?

Maybe but I like that idea! when you got a press report about a players who's awful and you try to defend him, if after 2-3 weeks he doesn't get any better you got a mail from your board telling you you should get rid off that player ( Or like you said a salary dump ). Not bad.

Ogilthorpe wrote:How about a very rare event.....the team President or Owner gets his nose in there and wants a player moved to cut costs, it could really throw a wrench into the works.
Too gimmicky maybe?

Actually I'd really like to see budget issues come up. It happens all the time with real teams these days where owners pressure teams cut costs.

A couple thoughts on trading.


I think trading should be harder and less frequent. When I say harder I mean that teams wont trade the faces of there franchise for a few prospects & picks. I am able to abuse the current trade system in 07.


Players with a NTC should be more likely to agree to a trade if their team is not doing well and the team that wants them is having a good season unless the team that he is on is his favorite.

If a team trades for a star player it should increase the moral of the team or vice versa.

I agree.

It's not a secret that it's too easy to abuse of the AI in EHM, it's the thing that needs the most improvements IMO. I like your idea with the moral.

bruins72 wrote:If you're going to allow live trades that are responded to right away, there should be some sort of "mood" bar implemented. If you keep throwing stupid trades at another GM, he's will become frustrated and hang up on you. If you're close, the mood bar shouldn't move that much unless you get further away from that GM's expectations. If a GM hangs up on you, you should have to wait a week before he'll take your call again. Also, some GMs who might not like each other, or teams that are rivals, the mood bar should start off further along. You don't have as much leeway with this team so you risk getting hung up on more easily.

That is a great idea.
You would have to think that when two real GM's are on the phone that their conversation would be similar to something like a mood bar, having this mood bar would just be a way to interpret their conversation.

I like that mood bar idea. That's one thing I find that makes things too easy, and that all games seem to be lacking: you can just keep throwing things in and out of the deal until you reach that perfect combination to be accepted.

Realistically, I doubt any GM would tolerate aimless trial-and-error. And even if it's good negotiating, surely GM's are mentally drained after a while of no progress.

The way I understand it the trade screen in EHM kinda is like a phone call because whenever you change parts on either side of the deal the opinion of the other GM changes instantly without you having to confirm, so I assume it's kind of like a real-time discussion anyway and not an email exchange or whatever.

B. Stinson wrote:I like that mood bar idea. That's one thing I find that makes things too easy, and that all games seem to be lacking: you can just keep throwing things in and out of the deal until you reach that perfect combination to be accepted.

Realistically, I doubt any GM would tolerate aimless trial-and-error. And even if it's good negotiating, surely GM's are mentally drained after a while of no progress.

That's a very good point you make about the trial and error stuff. Eventually the other GM should just get tired if you keep fiddling around with a dozen of different trade scenarios. Which is why I think after 3 or 4 attempts the other GM should just end the conversation and not be interested in any negotiations at least for some time. I think something like that existed in Football Manager once, I believe.

Elicit

First and foremost, thank you Dabo for undertaking such an ambitious project. And also, thank you for allowing us to share our suggestions on a new hockey management game. I have spent many-a days, months, years (!) imagining such a project, and you are suddenly giving me hope, relief, and an open forum for suggestions. What is most appealing to me about this project is how suggestions are being made in a discussion, rather than being compiled like a list—or worse—erupting into an argument. I, like most people on this forum, would be more than willing to help you in any capacity possible. In the meantime, I will just throw out suggestions like confetti.

archibulduk's notes on trading are absolutely correctly, and provide an excellent guideline for the other suggestions within this thread. I feel that the timing of trades should not be dramatically altered from the original EHM model: simple trades that are either completely appealing or completely unappealing will elicit an immediate response appropriate to the offer; more complicated or more contentious trades will require serious deliberation, from days to upwards of one or two weeks. Of course, the exceptions to this would be during Free Agency Day, Trade Deadline Day, and Draft Day.

In these realms, I also appreciated suggestions regarding Free Agency Day (and possibly the day after) being broken down into hours. With the addition of player Agents, this could make July 1 the most exciting and complex day of the year. Trade Deadline Day and Draft Day could be altered in a similar fashion, whereby the user is able to communicate directly and immediately with any other GM. The downside to this feature would be that the user’s time is limited and the trade-market is far more competitive.

Beyond the initial issue of "trade timing," there are some really great suggestions on the issue of trading, here. Salary dumps, player preferences, conditional clauses, ownership demands, and budget constraints, are all major factors in today's NHL trade market. Of course, GM relations should also play an important role. For example, Darryl Sutter and Brian Burke have made numerous trades this season and last. Thus, they are more likely to engage in more trades together in the future. Perhaps this could be represented as a relationship, such as: “Darryl Sutter trusts Brian Burke,” or “Brian Burke is amicable with Darryl Sutter.”

The user builds his or her relationship with the other computer-controlled GMs based on trade offers (perhaps even free agent negotiations, and draft-day-decisions, as some have suggested). This is where I disagree with a number of other posters, however: I am opposed to the idea of an actually, visually / graphically represented moodbar. For one, it reminds me of the 1-100 attributes for players and staff in the sense that it allows the user to interpret someone's mood--as you interpret someone's ability--with godly accuracy. Besides, I think that the “mood” of the opposing GM can be very easily expressed textually. For example, offers will produce responses that range from ecstatic to hostile: “Sir, I will make that deal with you immediately,” “Wow, you’re a wizard at circumventing the CBA! Let me and my staff think it over, please?,” “I think you’ve created something that is beneficial for the both of us,” “This deal is not entirely what I’m looking for, but I’ll take it,” “Well, um, I’m not really sure this deal is for us, but I like where it’s going long-term. Let me talk it over with my staff.” “I’m sorry, but this deal does not adhere to our long-term plans,” “I looked it over with my staff, and this deal does not work for us,” “This deal does not appear beneficial to our club or its staff,” “This deal is a joke,” etc, etc, etc. A chain of bad offers will lead to an end of the conversation, and in certain extreme cases, a “dislike” or “distrust” relationship between the two GMs.

Interesting ideas, Alexander. In regards to the GM relationships, that could get interesting. I could see a serious rift forming between 2 GMs if one made an offer to one of the other GM's RFAs.

I personally think the phone idea is maybe a bit to arcade'ish. Also, it would get to repeatable after a while - people saying the same things over and over, making them seem unhuman. I think the EHM way to handle trades was great, if it was just improved to be more realistic.