Jump to content

Photo

Disable Computer Trading Completely?


  • Please log in to reply

#1

Posted October 26, 2017 - 06:09 PM

canucks

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • 12 thanks
    GM Since: September 2015
124
Rep - Outstanding

Hiya guys,

 

Just a thought that came to some of our minds as we were discussing in the chat. What if we could disable computer trading completely? Instead of the Day 20 deadline, how about just getting rid of computer trading totally?

 

Any thoughts?

 

I feel like we could definitely try this, especially with the new Worlds. I'm sure it'll fill up pretty quickly, and we could keep it really competitive between human managers.

 

@Anders, could we please consider this before the Day 20 deadline hits?



#2

Posted October 26, 2017 - 06:11 PM

MNLK

    Head Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 51 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: March 2017
5
Rep - Floater
  • LocationCanada

I think this could really really help the new world stay competitive, as leagues can start to get bland when every single computer team is raided. It's also a good way to keep new players interested if they could start with good teams.



#3

Posted October 26, 2017 - 06:15 PM

canucks

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • 12 thanks
    GM Since: September 2015
124
Rep - Outstanding

We've got 35 human managers as of right now. That's out of the possible 16*5=80. Almost 45% full, and the world's been up for less than a week.

 

We might struggle a little at the beginning, while FAs are slowly generated, etc. But, I think this will benefit in the long-run.



#4

Posted October 26, 2017 - 06:40 PM

IneffableLeafs

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 188 posts
  • 5 thanks
    GM Since: July 2016
116
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationCanada
I agree, it is an opportunity to experiment in Dangles, being a fast league, we would be able to see the effect of no computer trading more quickly.

I think it could be beneficial, but also detrimental.

On the good side, you've got more human-human interaction, which in theory would increase the realism of the game. And to add, I don't think you'd ever see an unbalanced trade again (unless it's a cap dump).

On the bad side, it's another feature (such as changing player numbers to an all star feature) that will be gone, at least from the one world. Some managers wont like this inability to trade with some teams just because they have no human manager.

In theory though, if we did try this out, I think the pros would outweigh the cons. The different dynamic and other benefits would outweigh a couple of disgruntled managers.

Therefore, I'm in for trying this out.

#5

Posted October 26, 2017 - 06:47 PM

Nicolas Senet

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 237 posts
  • 10 thanks
    GM Since: August 2015
51
Rep - Reliable
100% agreed. Has been a problem for too long. I’ll take a 6 mouths all-star account if this is done.

#6

Posted October 26, 2017 - 07:12 PM

Scorevat53

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • 2 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
73
Rep - Reliable
I can 100% behind this, one thing that also should be looked at his the under 21 player signings.
No matter what the highest ranked "classwise" along with standings wise will get it.
Congratz Senet lol

#7

Posted October 26, 2017 - 08:13 PM

Wick Schozen

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • 7 thanks
    GM Since: April 2016
166
Rep - Outstanding

Completely on board with this. I think a lot of managers have started to stray away from trading with computer teams. So far we're still seeing a normal amount of trades between teams, but for the most part they've either been a good trade off the bat or had to be negotiated a little bit. Much more enjoyable to begin with and far more realistic.



#8

Posted October 26, 2017 - 08:36 PM

GoldenBears

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 87 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: February 2015
20
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationCanada
Meh, that essentially locks some teams...if we’re concerned about value just increase what the AI what’s for value. That’s an entire feature taken away. Or have the computer make more logical decisions on who to put on their will not trade list. Taking it away completely is kind of weird

#9

Posted October 27, 2017 - 04:48 PM

GamePlanHockey

    Lead Developer, Game Plan Hockey Manager

  • Moderators
  • 1534 posts
  • 161 thanks
    GM Since: January 2015
1137
Rep - Outstanding
  • LocationSweden

Although computer trading is something I feel should be part of the game (I'm trying to improve the computer trading AI one step at the time for every update), it could be an interesting experiment to have one game world where it's disabled completely. But only if the vast majority thinks this is a good idea. So please add to this topic with your thoughts. I'll also make an announcement in game to all active managers.



#10

Posted October 27, 2017 - 05:45 PM

Scorevat53

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • 2 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
73
Rep - Reliable
Ok so maybe instead of disabling completely, is it possible to maybe limit it to 3 computer trades per season? Or is that not a thought. I still think it should be a part because it limits managers on all abilities.

There is not really a chancr to improve my team this year and it sucks because i am 11th as i write this message.

I wouldnt mind this expect limit it instead of removing it

#11

Posted October 27, 2017 - 06:41 PM

MattBerserkers

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • 13 thanks
    GM Since: September 2016
258
Rep - Outstanding

Honestly, I find computer trading to be pretty good now. But because there aren't really many players yet and because the ones that do exist seem undervalued, I wouldn't be against disabling computer trading to try it out as long as it can come back in a few seasons.



#12

Posted October 27, 2017 - 07:37 PM

canucks

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • 12 thanks
    GM Since: September 2015
124
Rep - Outstanding
We could decide to disable it for 3-4 seasons and c how it turns out?


#13

Posted October 27, 2017 - 08:51 PM

neuralhandshake

    Professional GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 171 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: May 2016
35
Rep - Reliable

Steam Profile

I like the idea of temporarily disabling it and giving it a trial run. Right now I think teams are properly competitive aside from the free agency imbalance but I don't know how to fix free agency, honestly, and I might just be salty because my account hasn't won any of the FAs yet.

 

Computer trading always just ends up with teams stockpiling top picks. 



#14

Posted October 27, 2017 - 09:07 PM

Appleseed

    Junior Scout

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: October 2017
1
Rep - Floater
I'm on board with no more computer trading.
Manager of the Mount Cobb Sonics, LIHL

#15

Posted October 28, 2017 - 12:41 AM

TheWizard

    GamePlanHockey Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 549 posts
  • 19 thanks
    GM Since: February 2016
271
Rep - Outstanding

Personally, I like computer trading, and the AI has gotten better.

 

That being said, I would be fine with testing no computer trades.  Give it a trial run and see how we do.



#16

Posted October 28, 2017 - 06:05 AM

fangwall

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: January 2016
27
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationCanada

Steam Profile

Hi Anders,

 

Please let us know quickly what you decide.  I will resign my team if there is no CPU trading.  Frankly I think that's the future to your game success.   I think there's room for CPU improvement.   I can actually see at some point some people having a CPU coach.

 

But I don't want to invest any more time a league without CPU trading.   If you go through with this I hope you'll either start a new fast or lightning league with it, or upgrade one of the slower leagues.



#17

Posted October 28, 2017 - 06:23 AM

canucks

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
  • 12 thanks
    GM Since: September 2015
124
Rep - Outstanding
For the record, CPU Coaching would be an entirely different feature. We're referring to CPU GMs.

@fangwall, any rationale you could share? We need people to voice their opinions and reasoning, so that we can make an informed decision together.


#18

Posted October 28, 2017 - 06:32 AM

fangwall

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • 0 thanks
    GM Since: January 2016
27
Rep - Helpful
  • LocationCanada

Steam Profile

Simply put, in most sims that I've played in, human trading doesn't work.   I played a season in a long standing Yahoo league.  If it wasn't for waivers and free agents it'd be awfully boring.

 

I wouldn't have signed up for Dangles if there wasn't going to be CPU trading.   

 

We don't have the right balance between free agents right now.  I'm sure it's not a high priority, and there's also the factor that we're beta testing, but your human GM trading is not strong enough to build your franchise at this point.

 

If that's Ander's goal, to not have CPU trading, which it doesn't appear to be, then it should be stated, but to put out a new league at fast speed, which I think most managers clearly wanted, and then after we spend time grooming our teams change gears seems a bit punitive, and an utter waste of times for us managers that clearly are against not having CPU trading.



#19

Posted October 28, 2017 - 08:03 AM

ColoKrabatt

    Assistant GM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 95 posts
  • 1 thanks
    GM Since: August 2017
61
Rep - Reliable

Disable trading with computers make harder to strengthen up our squads. So I'm definitely for it. But maybe there could be only one trade per season per computer team... If stays as It's now, I'm fine.


ATTACK |GHL| KINGSTON KINGSMEN


#20

Posted October 28, 2017 - 11:01 AM

Scorevat53

    GamePlanHockey Advisor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 288 posts
  • 2 thanks
    GM Since: November 2015
73
Rep - Reliable
Like I said, i wish there was a "limit" I just dont think ee can implement that.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users