jdavidbakr wrote:
* Peer review for unbalanced trades.
It seems like the only way we are ever going to get to the point where all legitimate trade offers are allowed, without automatically allowing ALL trades, is to have some sort of review/veto process.
Therefore, I like this idea ONLY for trades that would otherwise be disallowed (after the meter is loosened a good bit from how it is now).
jdavidbakr wrote:
* Limit trades for owners who have not purchased credits to 2 trades per season.
I do NOT like this idea.
jdavidbakr wrote:
* Limit 'trade value' per season
I do NOT like this idea. This would severely limit the options an owner has for rebuilding a team.
jdavidbakr wrote:
* Add premium leagues. I've actually thought a lot about the idea of premium leagues, which would require 6 credits instead of 5 to join/renew and would not be free to join one per day like all leagues are now. In premium leagues, there would be no restrictions on trading, as well as some other features - like, for example, 'practice' mode where you could run single plays using your offense vs. your defense. In hand with this would be a tighter trade bar on the non-premium leagues.
I like the idea of premium leagues, mainly because I feel it would go a long way to ensuring the league is filled with active owners who actually try to be competitive.
In addition to premium leagues, I would also like to see a "champions" type league. That may be the wrong word, because I don't mean it should have to be restricted to owners who have won a championship (but that would be a nice idea also). I would like new or "bad" owners restricted from accessing these leagues. I don't think it can be based on experience. Just because an owner signed up for MFN and then joined every open league doesn't mean they should be allowed in, even if they are soon considered "experienced" based on how many seasons/games/teams they have managed.
If a league were filled with experienced owners with a proven track record of knowing what they are doing, I don't think trades would be much of an issue.
jdavidbakr wrote:
Some ideas that have been floated that I'm not keen on are:
* Make trades public before they are accepted - while fundamentally I'm not opposed to this, it does give an advantage to those who are able to be online all the time vs. those who only have a short time each day to play.
I guess the advantage would be that I could be the first to see the proposed trade, then make a sweeter offer that gets accepted before anyone else has a chance to see the first offer.
I think the positives outweigh the negative.
jdavidbakr wrote:
* League commissioner - This just feels like an administrative nightmare.
I agree. While the idea seems fine on the surface, I think it would become a nightmare
It has already been mentioned by a few people, but I wanted to mention it here again.
I think it will be VERY helpful to show the default ratings for each player on the player card, along with your own custom ratings.
A lot of the perceived "bad" trades are probably only perceived that way because of that owner's personal weights. Showing the default rating for each player might curb
some of that.
There is still the issue of cases where a trade partner values a player much more than the AI does. I don't think an owner's personal player ratings should be shown to other owners, but if they were some trades may not appear to be "bad", when otherwise they might be.
If someone questions one of my trades, I am usually happy to let them know why I thought it was a good deal for me (or the other owner).
EX:
Owner: How can you give up a first for a 78 rated player?
Me: I have him rated at 92.
Owner: Oh.
However, I want to be the one to decide if I'm going to reveal my own personal weights.
In addition, not every owner is the same, or values players/picks the same.
I saw a recent post where someone said a 7 year vet is not worth a 3rd round pick. To me they are. Neither one of us is wrong. However, the AI will say that one of us IS wrong and not allow a trade. This is particularly frustrating for experienced owners.
Don't get me started on Punters / Kickers. What? I have to give up a first for this punter? A quick and easy fix would be to take the current "trade value" of punters and kickers and reduce it by 50%.
Last edited at 8/04/2016 10:51 am