New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Trade balance updates

By setherick
2/11/2016 8:03 am
WarEagle wrote:
setherick wrote:
Gustoon wrote:
I think the anomaly here is owners individual player weights. MAYBE when we do trades involving players, the 'trade engine' takes a default setting rather than our own. I don't pretend to know how how this works but think that this could possibly be the problem?


I like this and I don't like it. It allows for more balanced trading, but I could definitely see teams that know how to use player weighting well taking advantage of teams that don't. This obviously happens now, but I could see this leading to trades where I swap you a 6th round pick for a CB that I have valued in the high 70s because I don't weight zone cover at all.


I don't understand what you're saying here.

If you value this CB in the 70s, and everyone else values him in the 50s (for example), why shouldn't you be able to get him for a 6th round pick?


That's the last time I post without having coffee first.

Isn't the point of the trade balancer being based on your weights so that you fairly assess your trades? That way you can't take advantage of others or be taken advantage of yourself.

Re: Trade balance updates

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
2/11/2016 9:40 am
I made an updated to the meter last night. I've had a few reports where the trade meter is backwards on the new interface, but haven't actually been able to duplicate it in my testing.

Re: Trade balance updates

By Gustoon
2/11/2016 1:36 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
I made an updated to the meter last night. I've had a few reports where the trade meter is backwards on the new interface, but haven't actually been able to duplicate it in my testing.


ha ha, is this your biggest headache?

Re: Trade balance updates

By WarEagle
2/11/2016 4:43 pm
setherick wrote:


Isn't the point of the trade balancer being based on your weights so that you fairly assess your trades? That way you can't take advantage of others or be taken advantage of yourself.


In most cases, my opinion is that if both sides are happy with a trade, nobody is being taken advantage of. It helps if both sides are veteran owners as I have seen people try to take advantage of newbies.

If I give you a player I have rated in the 50s for a 6th round pick, I wouldn't feel taken advantage of just because your weights have him rated in the 70s, or 90s even. In fact, I wouldn't even know that unless you told me. If you did, I'd probably take another look at my own weights to make sure they were how I wanted them.

Re: Trade balance updates

By punisher
2/11/2016 9:41 pm
WarEagle wrote:
MistbornJedi wrote:


Ultimately having an algorithm accurately value trades may just be too hard due to all the factors in play. Human judgment (e.g. "I'm 1 player short of making a playoff run this season so I'm willing to overpay") should always win. I'd be in favor of a trade system that disallows really obvious unfair trades (7th rounder for an 85 point QB, say) but otherwise let's the market determine what is fair and reasonable, with a mechanism for other owners to complain if someone is upsetting the apple cart.


+1

I think maybe the only thing that will work is for what is considered to be an acceptable trade to be opened up a bit, along with a veto system.

An accepted trade could be put on hold for 24 hours while the rest of the league has a chance to vote on whether to veto the trade or not.

If after 24 hours (or one spin) the trade has not received enough votes to be vetoed, then the trade goes through.

If it has, then it remains on hold for another 24 hours in the hope that more owners will vote (so 1 or 2 veto votes don't nix a good trade). If it still does not have enough votes to pass, it is canceled.

I don't think it would work if it required a certain percentage of the entire league in order to veto a trade, as there are some leagues where owners are not very active and would never vote. I think it needs to be a majority of the votes cast.

Owners will need to accept the fact that trades are not going to be immediate. There will be a minimum of one "spin" before they are processed. Sort of like "awaiting approval by league office".



There should be a Veto Trade where the whole league can vote on it because quite frankly it would make the whole turning someone in who you think should have their trades looked at moot ( I think that's the word I am trying to use)

also by doing this then people wouldn't question what others have sent as trades either be for draft picks , 3 players for a draft pick , player for player , etc.

also should add there should be tally for how many times someone has vetoed or not voted on a trade.

reason for having a tally for vetoing every trade would be that so no one wouldn't have a way to get back at someone or where someone could abuse it by knowing who is willing to trade which players by vetoing a trade then turning around and trying to trade with one of the teams in question.

Reason for having a tally for not voting is so either you know that the player might not be active , the player might have abandoned this game or maybe they are in cohorts with the teams or team that is trading.

Re: Trade balance updates

By murderleg
2/12/2016 5:51 am
punisher wrote:

There should be a Veto Trade where the whole league can vote on it because quite frankly it would make the whole turning someone in who you think should have their trades looked at moot ( I think that's the word I am trying to use)

also by doing this then people wouldn't question what others have sent as trades either be for draft picks , 3 players for a draft pick , player for player , etc.

also should add there should be tally for how many times someone has vetoed or not voted on a trade.

reason for having a tally for vetoing every trade would be that so no one wouldn't have a way to get back at someone or where someone could abuse it by knowing who is willing to trade which players by vetoing a trade then turning around and trying to trade with one of the teams in question.

Reason for having a tally for not voting is so either you know that the player might not be active , the player might have abandoned this game or maybe they are in cohorts with the teams or team that is trading.


This is undoable. We have more realistic options in this thread. -1

Re: Trade balance updates

By sealbc
2/12/2016 7:09 am
This veto of a trade was talked over before and did not go well .You still have many others not logging in every day and others not playing accounts in each league.This will never work a veto system.Ever since jd started allowing trades he has fixed this multiple times too balance it all out.This system is never gonna be perfect.One say this another says that.If we went back too the old way.Then had no trades at all.Others are going too complain .Then ask why we are not allowed too trade.Then we can say this is one of the reason.We were never able too get it right in the balancing.We could drop the overall ratings on players all together.Then leave the rating number for skills.I am not sure if this would solve the problem or make things worse.

Re: Trade balance updates

By WarEagle
2/12/2016 7:18 am
For what it's worth, my suggestion about voting on trades did not require the entire league to participate. At least I did not intend it to sound that way.

My suggestion is that if the majority of the owners who voted vetoed a trade, then it was vetoed, and vice versa.

If a league only has 10 active owners who would even bother voting on trades, then those 10 would basically serve as the "league office" in regards to whether trades went through or not.

Also, I think the vote should only come into play on trades that the "balance bar" would otherwise not allow. It would be fine with me even if the balance bar was tightened up a bit, as long as there was a method for allowing trades to go through even if the AI doesn't like them.
Last edited at 2/12/2016 7:19 am

Re: Trade balance updates

By sealbc
2/12/2016 9:02 am
Even if the owners who are playing vote.It still opens another can of worms with a 24 hr deadline or spin too vote on up or down.Others will say i never had a chance too vote.Which could determine if a trade goes threw or not.Then you could end up with a tied vote.Even the active players are not here everyday .If any type of voting is established with a time limit.I would like too see everyone vote on the site vote on it.You always see mixed thoughts and opinions on major issues in here.

Re: Trade balance updates

By WarEagle
2/12/2016 11:17 am
Maybe:

1. A minimum of 1 complete spin before a trade can be processed. Ex: trade proposed and accepted on Monday would process on Wednesday at the earliest.

2. A minimum number of "yes" votes before a trade can be processed, maybe 5. #1 would still apply to give anyone who wants to vote to veto it an opportunity to vote. A vetoed trade could stay "active" for a full week to give other owners a chance to weigh in and possibly sway the vote in favor of allowing it.

3. As mentioned previously, this would only apply to trades that the AI would otherwise not allow.


I'm just offering a suggestion here. It's the best idea I can come up.

I just hate to see situations where 2 owners are both wanting to make a trade, and the AI won't allow it. Or where a trade is so bad it must be collusion or something.

I don't see the AI being tweeked enough to account for both of those situations in the near or distant future, which leads me to believe there is going to have to be some kind of human involvement in part of it.

Last edited at 2/12/2016 11:18 am