Things I noticed and ideas for improvement for future versions

[hellz]

Hello, I've played 14 NHL seasons in FHM 6 and I noticed multiple things don't feel right and break the feeling of real simulation. I only played in NHL so everything I say is NHL related.

Trading
In real-life NHL, teams usually fall into 3 categories - playoff teams, bottom-feeders and teams in the middle. When it comes to playoff teams, they usually want to improve their roster's current strength to maximum possible (usually sacrificing their future in draft picks and prospects in order to trade for roster players). On the other hand, bottom-feeders want to do exactly the opposite, get as many futures while being ok with sacrificing current roster strength. The rest of the teams (usually around the playoff line, might and might not make it) generally do not lean in either direction.
I guess that there is some distinction in team's description in game (Win Now, Balanced, Rebuild) but I'm not really sure how are these things determined and whether they actually serve any purpose.
Most trades I see are just flat 1 for 1 player swaps, often with teams at the bottom of the league getting i 30 year old 3 star player and giving up a 23 your old 3 star. From what I've written earlier, such trade does not really make sense, and these are like 90% of trades I see. This random trading makes teams at the bottom of the league stick there for way longer because they are willing to give up their future while they should be doing the exact opposite.
The best way to solve this would be to utilize these despriptions that I wrote earlier. But at the moment, they are pretty much unusable because they don't really represent team's real state (a lot of Rebuild teams make the playoffs, sometimes even win the Stanley cup, while Win Now teams are at the bottom of the league). Not sure how these work currently, but from my observation, they don't really work as they should.
Another thing I noticed is that when draft picks are involved in in trades, it's usually something like 3 star player for 3rd round draft pick or sometimes it's lower round draft picks to balance out the trades (3 star player for 2,5 star + 6th round draft pick). I don't think I've ever seen an AI trade out their 1st round draft pick which is something that the best teams usually at the trade deadline in order to acquire superstars for their Stanley cup run. I'm not sure if this just is not programmed to happen at all or it's just because these superstar players can't really move (unless it's 1 for 1 again) because basically all teams are at the cap and can't fit anymore players there. More about cap problems later.

Overflowing one position with many great players and having other positions suck
This is best seen while looking at goaltending. Let's say a team has 4 star goaltender with 10m cap hit. This team has no problem signing (or trading for) another 4 star goalie with another 10m cap hit. These situations happen at every position but goalie situation is most apparent. At all times, you are letting 10m sit on your bench. Not to mention that these teams have no problem having another 6m goalie play in the AHL. There should be some balance in how much money can teams put into each position in order to balance out these things.

Too many players develop high ratings
At the start of the game, teams usually have maybe 2-3 4star+ players with their top lines filled with 3+ star players and their bottom lines filled with 2-2,5star players. This is how it probably should be because lower ranked players require less money. As years go on, most players continue developing (usually they stop developing around 30 years). In 10 years, there are so many 3star+ players that NHL teams simply cannot fit them anymore. All teams are at the cap and they usually have very disbalanced teams. They have 3 lines filled with 3-5star players because there are so many of them but they do not have money for the rest of the team so they sign 1,5star players that are willing to play for minimum money. In the end they have very top-heavy team with a lot of very expensive players and they have bunch of semipro players playing on their bottom lines. Not to mention that they have no reserves in AHL because they have no money for them. So when someone get's injured, they have to sign another semipro guy.
Some free agent players are willing to take less money after some time or they are willing to sign in Europe so they get to play but there are tons of 3+ star players that just sit the entire year in free agency. And when the next free agency hits, they demand the same amount of money. There are multiple of my players that have never signed another contract after I let them go.
This thing in itself causes a lot of other problems. Since there are so many good players, all teams are at the cap so it's very hard to make any trades that don't involve two players on similar contracts. Just limiting player development could be good enough. I think that I saw it in Football Manager where the development after 24-25 would pretty much stop.

Cap hit impact on player's trade value
In real life, there is a lot of talk about players that are on awful contracts. Let's take Loui Eriksson as an example. He has 6m cap hit while not being able to put up 30 points, playing on bottom lines. While the player might have solid bottom-6 value, his cap hit is so high that it pretty much removes all of the value. If Eriksson's value was a 30, his contract would be -60 resulting in negative value. If you wanted to get this contract of your team, you would have to PAY the other team to take it. Great example from last year is Patrick Marleau. Even though he had 37 points last season, he was on a 6,25m cap hit. Let's say that his points would be worth 37 trade value points and his cap hit would be worth -62, making it -25 in total. He just simply made too much money for what he brought. In order to get him off the team, Toronto had to give up their 1st rounder.
As it is in the game currently, I don't see any correlation between cap hit and trade value. Resulting in Detroit being able to get all of their awful contracts off their teams while getting stuff in return and being able to compete in first season. In reality, they will just have to wait these contracts out (while trading away everyone they can in order to get as many futures) and start competing after that.
I do not know what kind of formula there is to determine trade value (if any), nor do I know how to implement stuff like this while not breaking trading completely but it definately should be addressed.

Player rating
I am not really sure how the star rating is determined. The problem I see here is that the game gives some players 5 stars while while their individual ratings are 16-15-16-14 and then there are 5 star players 18-16-17-14. From what I've seen, these star ratings determine player's "skill level" and players with this level at the top are then chosen into the all star teams, win Hart and Ted Lindsey trophies etc. The problem is they they also demand money based on this rating and then I see Connor McDavid making 12.65m and scoring 130 points while some other player makes same amount of money and only scores 50 points. I know that offense is not everything but forward that can not score is definately that valuable. I think that forward's rating should be based more heavily on their offesive rating and defenseman's rating should be base more on their defensive rating.
Current example would be Connor McDavid and Patrice Bergeron. While Bergeron is on another level compared to McDavid when it comes to defense, McDavid is few levels higher on offense. Should Bergeron make same money as McDavid? Definately no, even though he probably should make more than he does now.

Teams not keeping their superstars
This problem is linked to the previous ones too. Most superstar players (5stars who demand over 12m) go to free agency after they start demanding a lot of money. Teams just do not even try to hold them on their roster. Again, I do not know how it actually works on the backend but when Edmonton let's both McDavid and Draisaitl walk after their current contracts end just does not make sense. Teams should definately do everything to keep their best players. Another thing that should probably be happening is that players would be willing to sign for little bit less money for their current teams. Let's say Draisaitl want 11m to sign in Edmonton but will be demanding 12m in free agency. That should go well with teams trying to keep their stars.

Sorry for the long post. Hope someone reads it

[sabrtoothtiger]

After playing FHM6 I have the following suggestions.


Trade Logic

I currently have the 2nd pick in the draft, I cannot trade down straight up for the 5th overall selection. Conversely, if you have a mid-round pick it's nearly impossible to trade up even a few spots.

On the flip side, I am unable to even get a 5th round pick for moving down 5+ spots in the draft.

*Players with negative value (see Patrick Marleau contract for 1st rounder) is not properly reflected in trade negotiations.


Contract Negotiations

It seems like there is very little wiggle room for negotiations and you pretty much have to just agree to meet the players demand. Negotiating over contract length while adding to the AAV seems impossible.


Ability to search for players

If I want to find players around the world who meet a criteria, lets say players who are 6'1 or taller, are 14 + skaters with 14+ defensive read this is impossible.

Simply by adding these features FHM can really improve.

[sabrtoothtiger]

Another thing, having the ability to view former scouting reports would be really helpful to gauge player development. I understand we get the e-mails, but being able to look at scouting history (like OOTP) would really make this game better.