One area where this game beats Madden and the Show - trading

[tessl]

With trades set to hard, the AI is good for the CPU. I tried to unload an overpaid center and even for the worst center on the other team or a 7th round pick no team would make the trade. They didn't want to take on the $2 million dollar salary.

I also tried to upgrade at goalie with St Louis - no takers.

[actionhank]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

With trades set to hard, the AI is good for the CPU. I tried to unload an overpaid center and even for the worst center on the other team or a 7th round pick no team would make the trade. They didn't want to take on the $2 million dollar salary. I also tried to upgrade at goalie with St Louis - no takers.

It's definitely better than both, but it could still use some refinement. It would be nice if the trade value was tied to current performance, potential, and their health. It would be nice to see someone who was suddenly dominating demand a higher value, despite their lower overall, and lower potential. Similarly, rookies with great potential, who were under-performing wouldn't be as hard hit by the rating.
This would also make a nice addition to the system for signing free agents. It would be cool if a huge season right before they hit free agency would drive up their asking price, and the number of teams interested. Similarly, an off year would make teams less hesitant to sign players, but might give you a chance to offer a guy a 1 year deal at a low price with the hopes that he can get his game back.
Feedback would be nice too. They touched on it a little bit, but they don't really say "Oh, we're close, but we would rather have x player" or "We're only willing to retain x amount of salary". Adding some actual negotiating to it would give trading and signing way more depth.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by actionhank

It's definitely better than both, but it could still use some refinement. It would be nice if the trade value was tied to current performance, potential, and their health. It would be nice to see someone who was suddenly dominating demand a higher value, despite their lower overall, and lower potential. Similarly, rookies with great potential, who were under-performing wouldn't be as hard hit by the rating. This would also make a nice addition to the system for signing free agents. It would be cool if a huge season right before they hit free agency would drive up their asking price, and the number of teams interested. Similarly, an off year would make teams less hesitant to sign players, but might give you a chance to offer a guy a 1 year deal at a low price with the hopes that he can get his game back. Feedback would be nice too. They touched on it a little bit, but they don't really say "Oh, we're close, but we would rather have x player" or "We're only willing to retain x amount of salary". Adding some actual negotiating to it would give trading and signing way more depth.

I agree with some, disagree with some. I agree a little more feedback would be nice and replicate reality as if you were on the phone with another GM. There is feedback and that is good such as not willing to take on salary, but I like your idea of "we are close".

Regarding salary based on performance, I prefer to see it based on attributes, potential and age. If you base it on performance and a good player has a subpar season the user controlled GM would have a big advantage over the CPU. The CPU would be signing overpriced players who had a good season while the user would be signing stars for less money who had a bad year.

[actionhank]

Quote: Originally Posted by tessl

I agree with some, disagree with some. I agree a little more feedback would be nice and replicate reality as if you were on the phone with another GM. There is feedback and that is good such as not willing to take on salary, but I like your idea of "we are close". Regarding salary based on performance, I prefer to see it based on attributes, potential and age. If you base it on performance and a good player has a subpar season the user controlled GM would have a big advantage over the CPU. The CPU would be signing overpriced players who had a good season while the user would be signing stars for less money who had a bad year.

I was thinking of something like what we have now, but with performance having an affect on it, but not being the single reason for contract types. But, it would be nice to see, for a player like Steen who maybe before last season could have expected 3.5-4 million, and instead ended up with a nice sized check based on his performance with and without the puck.

[tessl]

Quote: Originally Posted by actionhank

I was thinking of something like what we have now, but with performance having an affect on it, but not being the single reason for contract types. But, it would be nice to see, for a player like Steen who maybe before last season could have expected 3.5-4 million, and instead ended up with a nice sized check based on his performance with and without the puck.

In theory since attributes drive the game, performance are linked to attributes and a player with improved performance will have improved attributes as well - and a bump in salary.

If a guy with lousy attributes has a big season something probably went wrong with the AI.