EHM The Blue Line

I was just wondering, somewhat influenced by the recent discussion in the challenge thread about how it's way too easy to build a winning team, is there a way to increase the difficulty level for trades ? This isn't supposed to be an EHM flame thread or whatever, I'm genuinely interested.

The problem is, the other GMs are just stupid, it's too easy to rebuild the whole team in one offseason and completely rip off the other GMs in trades. If you wanted you could end up making 50000000 trades each offseason and no one would stop you from doing so, not really realistic.
When I start with a team I usually get about 15 new roster players, and do a ton of other trades involving AHL players, picks and prospects. Deals are the most interesting part of games like that, at least for me, apart from finding the right tactics, but I feel it's not challenging enough which can be a funkiller at times.

I was thinking that maybe incorrect asset evaluation by the AI controlled GMs is one of the issues, that lead me to the conclusion that changing all NHL GMs and coaches ability judging attribute to the max. value might help a little.
Any suggestions ?

I've never tried editing the scouting abilities of the GMs and coaches but it makes some sense. One thing I've noticed in some of the games I've played is that after a lot of the hirings, firings, and retirements you get a lot of these guys that got their jobs solely on their reputation, not their ability. I'm assuming (yes, I know what happens when you assume ) that would effect how they set up their rosters and how they evaluate their players. I supposed you could always edit your database and run a test season to find out. I'd be interested to hear what you learn.

Those things you talk about that make the game so easy... they're kind of what got us to revamp the challenge system. By making up out own restrictions, we can make the game harder.

Maybe just not abusing some "holes" in the gameplay will increase the difficulty.

I do so and I find the game interesting, sometime easy as hell other time more challenging, depending who I play

holydogg wrote:Maybe just not abusing some "holes" in the gameplay will increase the difficulty.

But what am I supposed to do ? Throw in an additional first round pick into every trade to make it more difficult ?
I don't want to restrict my creativity just to even out flaws in the code, that makes sense in a challenge with 20 participants, even playing field and all, but seems pointless when you're playing alone
If I tried to stop "abusing" the flaws, where to draw the line between clever management and "abuse" ?

Again, I didn't start this thread in order to complain, I find the game interesting as well, I was just hoping someone had similar problems and had experience with fiddling around with the config-files or changing GM attributes or whatever

I wouldn't bother if I knew there's gonna be an EHM 08, but since it seems we're "stuck" with 07 for at least a couple of years (and that's being optimistic and hoping they'll make a new one some day) any suggestions would be helpful for me.

Actually, for the past couple years, I've followed the challenge rules even when I was playing a couple seasons with a team on my own. It was just a way of controlling myself a little bit. Rather than just going crazy and doing whatever I could, I'd always have the same mindset as when I was playing a challenge. Now with the new rules, it should help reign me in even further.

Unfortunately, I think your idea with the GMs and coaches might be the best bet for what you're looking for. I know people have suggested a "difficulty slider" over at the SI forums in the past but their response was always that they just wanted to make an accurate representation of hockey management. They knew it wasn't perfect but they would rather focus their energy on working towards making it as accurate as possible than to spend time figuring out a way to adjust how it works.

Exploiting weaknesses in the AI is what makes the game too easy. Don't make blockbuster trades on your first day on the job and don't use the "instant accept" at the trade deadline and draft to squeeze out the best deal. Generally, if you don't try to rape the AI GMs cross-eyed, then it typically won't happen. There are times when the goofy buggers make an obscenely lopsided offer in your favor, and in that case make 'em pay for it, Milbury and Sather did it for years. That's realism for you!

Danny wrote:

holydogg wrote:Maybe just not abusing some "holes" in the gameplay will increase the difficulty.

But what am I supposed to do ?

Not trying to get Marc Staal, Bobby Ryan and Antero Niitymaki is already a good start!

WHAT?! But how are you supposed to win with a gameplan like that? It's madness, holydogg! Madness I tell you!!!! Mwahahahaha!

Funny...the suggestions here are starting to sound alot like our new challenge restrictions.

Maybe you actually use guys on your farm team that are a little older, and get called up when the team is not going well, instead of trading guys away en masse.

But yeah..those blockbuster 5 first rounders, 2 second rounders, and 2 3* prospects for super-players...a bit much. Exploiting the AI is the big issue.

The only other thing I would add to the table on this is something I thought about maybe for the challenges, and may do in the future... NO STAFF CHANGES.

holydogg wrote:

Danny wrote:

holydogg wrote:Maybe just not abusing some "holes" in the gameplay will increase the difficulty.

But what am I supposed to do ?

Not trying to get Marc Staal, Bobby Ryan and Antero Niitymaki is already a good start!

Admittedly I do have Ryan and Nitty currently, but I've won the Cup often enough without any of those. Again, thanks for trying the help but you people seem to be missing my point
Any trade blacklists are an absolute no go because that's even more unrealistic, no GM will refrain from making a trade because it's a rip off for the other team, I'm looking for strictly technical advice and not "don't do this, don't do that"

Try European leagues - no trading, just buying, selling and signing free agents.

I've tried some low-tier Swedish league once, it was quite funny
They didn't have any transfer budget so I had to loan like 15 players and all of them were gone after the season

I tried running a WHL team a while back. Then after a couple seasons (actually about a season and a half) I saw a job opening at an AHL team, applied, and got it. Then I spent 2 seasons running that AHL team while constantly applying for openings at NHL teams. Unfortunately, the NHL teams kept swapping GMs with each other. One would get fire and then get hired by the next team that fired their GM. I never went any further with it than that because a new challenge came around.

But back to my original point! Canadian Junior teams don't seem to have as many possibilities of being exploited (at least that I was able to find).

I start playing swedish league too with sodertalje. it took 2 season to get access to eliteserien. Really fun trying to get good free agents, my team used to have most dannish and slovakians players (fun to scout too)

Danny wrote:I've tried some low-tier Swedish league once, it was quite funny
They didn't have any transfer budget so I had to loan like 15 players and all of them were gone after the season

Hah! Yeah, in Finland and Sweden the top two leagues are professional, but below that it's basically a hobby for the players, something to do besides their day job...

Danny- I wish I could give you something that would be able to hold things to make the game more difficult. Like a difficulty slider, as mentioned. Rookie-pro-all star kind of thing. But unfortunately, it is not there.

The ways to make the game more difficult with the way it is...are really as above.

Play different leagues, where in general people's knowledge of the player base is not as high.

Work on the attributes of the staff with the editor, and see if that helps things along with making teams AI GM's value players more highly and more realistically.

I know all of this runs counter to the idea of "winning" but it ....For me, it is the self restraint, and only making rational trades that work. Not trading for the first overall pick every year. Those kinds of things. Just self restraint.

Have a fantasy draft is another suggestion...where you only choose players who would be available in your mind if there was a real life expansion draft. I dunno.

Really, I am trying the challenge rules for the challenge, and if things are still too easy, I may do more to make things harder for me...give myself a real challenge.

The biggest thing for me in this whole game is just the fun that I have with trying to win games and get my team to the Stanley Cup. I think everyone feels that way and that means that you try to grab players who will do wonders for you on the ice.

I myself don't care so much about going and trading away 3 first rounders for someone special. I feel that I can get my group of guys to do what I want them to do, regardless of the attributes that they bring to the table.

Also, I love to use the entry draft as something to always help me out in the future. I am using the Blackhawks right now and in the first season I made it to the Stanley Cup finals, then the second year I lost in the first round to Dallas, and this year looks like I am going to be in the playoffs again, but won't go past the 2nd round most likely.

All in all, I like to play the game the way it should be played. Which is by not ruining it by messing with the AI.

JVanderpool wrote:
I myself don't care so much about going and trading away 3 first rounders for someone special. I feel that I can get my group of guys to do what I want them to do, regardless of the attributes that they bring to the table.

Me neither. My teams are usually around 26-27 years old on average and I end up having 5-6 first/second rounders and never sacrifice them myself in trades. Unless I have 4 first rounders already, then I might be willing to give up one, mostly my own since it's not going to be worth that much anyway. I promote players from my AHL team all the time, I should have at least 4, if not 5, next season for example.

Nothing to do with messing with the AI, the biggest fun for me is to be creative with my line up, I once had Mike Ricci as the first line center. Hence my wish of more intelligent GMs. The reason I don't like restrictions is it's hard to draw the line between making fair deals without getting ripped off and "abusing" the flaws of the code. For instance would you consider trading a first round pick and an ok (albeit not great) prospect for a young 2nd liner in his last year of contract ? Rhetorical question, you get my point I hope. Of course I could make a poll in here whether a trade is reasonable or not and base my decision on the outcome of it. Or I'll ask Eklund

Thanks for the fantasy draft advice batdad, I might try it, I did it once with the Flames and won the Cup but I didn't really have any restrictions on the players I picked. I might try to do it again with a self-imposed cap and not picking any players above 26 and no 2007 UFAs or something.

Anyway, I'd still be thankful if anyone actually successfully changed the difficulty and was willing to share his knowledge with me.

Danny: I get your point about the difficulty, but there's no way to technically change it. It would mean programming, and we can't do that as it would mean creating EHM08 by ourselves!

So the only ways are self-restrictions and maybe some editing on the staffs.

As for the challenges restrictions...well...sure it doesn't give you 100% of liberty, but at least the results should sound realistic... When you see that nearly everyone won the Cup in 07 with the Leafs, you know that something has to be done! And what's the use of having a challenge if it doesn't challenge anybody?

We don't have a lot of room to really make the game harder. Those challenge restrictions sound interesting to me. You can take it as a concept way of managing.

And well, if you want a long-term harrassing challenge, try to control Whightlink, in UK, and make your way to the NHL That's a looooong way to go

When I wanted to make things harder, I chose to play with only players under 23 (so that draft oicks still matter) and over 33.

it's harder all right.

Try the wightlnk to NHL thread. That is good fun but quite hard to do.

batdad wrote: But yeah..those blockbuster 5 first rounders, 2 second rounders, and 2 3* prospects for super-players...a bit much. Exploiting the AI is the big issue.

I reviewed all suggestions and came to the conclusion that's really the best and most realistic thing, limiting trades. I never used picks in trades, but often my average prospects and farm team players with little upside, and I ended up with those monster trades, I remember I once sent 4-5 prospects and 3 4th liners/AHLers to Colorado for Hejduk.

I was thinking about a rule and came up with the following...max 3 assets in trades for 5* rated players/prospects, max 2 assets for 4* players and only one asset for 3* rated players and below.
That way, if you want a 5* superstar you really have to give up a very good player, a top prospect and a first round pick, for example. Also quite often a team would say "we like the deal but it causes roster problems", the solution was fairly simple, just add a low pick to the trade, mostly worked, not possible anymore due to the restrictions.

I started with the Panthers and it's really way more fun, for instance I'd love to get Cammalleri, but I'd have to give up Horton or Weiss plus my best prospect. Of course it would work with Peltonen+2 AHLers+average prospect as well, but since Cammalleri is only 4* I can't give up more than 2 assets according to the rule.