Quote:
Originally Posted by Pelican
Not to belabor this, but my preference is for trade discussions to be just that - a conversation that takes place, back and forth, until a deal is reached, or not reached.
|
To be honest, if people want realism, then this needs to be the basis of the trading model. This is largely how it works in real life, and the "easy" mode in OOTP is closer to this than the "hard mode," which is unrealistic and doesn't truly model how things work in real life.
In real life, not every trade is worked out in a single discussion, but general managers typically talk and communicate directly with each other, and it's often live, nearly in real time, or with multiple touch points in a single day. Generally speaking, they don't submit a trade offer in a "suggestion box" and then blindly wait around for answers. It's an often immediate or ongoing conversation where all sorts of options are discussed, and it's not perceived as a "bait-and-switch" when those different options are offered or changed. GMs also don't suffer a reputation hit because they initiated a preliminary offer but then discussed more options. GMs talk about different players and discuss potentially adding or changing players in the deal all the time. That's not considered bad. It's just part of the negotiations.
The "easy" mode in OOTP is unrealistic in its own ways too, but if you combine it with a higher trade difficulty and the right AI talent evaluation settings, then you get something closer to real life. If we could build on this "real-time" and more conversational approach, and improve it by making it more closely mirror how things work in real life, and eliminate the loopholes and exploitable weaknesses, then that would seem to be the best solution.
Creating something artificial that isn't really representative of real life, just for the sake of trying to make things harder, doesn't make much sense to me. OOTP Developments should work on creating the realistic back-and-forth
and the realistic difficulty.