no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Suggestions / A new thought on a trading block Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Rating: | |
| Poster | Message |
|
sfniner08
|
posted: 2012-06-07 19:26:21 (ID: 43925) Report Abuse |
|
If trading had to occur (I'm not a fan of implementing it here, heck in the NFL trades are far and few between) it could be reasonable to link it to the manager title you have. You could only trade with managers of your current rank. So a bloody newb couldn't trade a player on the market for a "top manager" to bid on. I suppose it could be applied on the TM as well to prevent the "cheating" that is alleged here.
Bottom line, there aren't enough voices here to do anything with this topic. This thread has1 4 pages but only 10 or 11 different people have commented. Only 4 besides myself now since it was brought back from the dead. lol, it seems everytime some resurrects a thread it becomes heated. Perhaps it died for a reason? lol |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2012-06-07 19:26:53 (ID: 43926) Report Abuse |
|
sh8888 wrote:
I have thought about it and my conclusion is that it's NOT "quite easy to take advantage of the TM". So now its only "Not quite easy" to take advantage of the TM in your opinion. But it is possible? sh8888 wrote:However, it would be interesting to hear your ideas regarding how to cheat in the TM. The other forum users could then comment upon whether the ideas are feasible or not. I think everyone would be fascinated to see the flaws and vulnerabilities of the current TM ....please enlighten us.
Now why would i do that. And its not rocket science. If an Admin ask me to share my thoughts i will Via PM. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
sh8888
|
posted: 2012-06-07 19:32:28 (ID: 43927) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
If trading had to occur (I'm not a fan of implementing it here, heck in the NFL trades are far and few between) it could be reasonable to link it to the manager title you have. You could only trade with managers of your current rank. So a bloody newb couldn't trade a player on the market for a "top manager" to bid on. I suppose it could be applied on the TM as well to prevent the "cheating" that is alleged here. Bottom line, there aren't enough voices here to do anything with this topic. This thread has1 4 pages but only 10 or 11 different people have commented. Only 4 besides myself now since it was brought back from the dead. lol, it seems everytime some resurrects a thread it becomes heated. Perhaps it died for a reason? lol I'm agreeing with Sfniner again lol ....maybe I need a holiday 
I'd lump this one in with Height/Weight i.e. nice idea in theory, too many pitfalls in practice. Anyway, Sfniner you're right , time for this thread to be cremated once and for all, then I'll have time to read Sfniner's predictions for the next league games, you have posted them in the Dragons forum haven't you |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
canonico
|
posted: 2012-06-07 19:32:45 (ID: 43928) Report Abuse |
|
sfniner08 wrote:
If trading had to occur (I'm not a fan of implementing it here, heck in the NFL trades are far and few between) it could be reasonable to link it to the manager title you have. You could only trade with managers of your current rank. So a bloody newb couldn't trade a player on the market for a "top manager" to bid on. I suppose it could be applied on the TM as well to prevent the "cheating" that is alleged here. Nice suggestion, and to add to the Manager rank, how about we set a player rank to be traded, that would had to be in the same rank, half a star diference, or one star diference between players beeing traded would be the max allowed? EDIT - This way trades would mostly be based on positions in need on each team. And not on player value. Last edited on 2012-06-07 19:42:17 by canonico |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2012-06-07 20:50:55 (ID: 43935) Report Abuse | |
|
sh8888 wrote:
I think everyone would be fascinated to see the flaws and vulnerabilities of the current TM ....please enlighten us. And as this should not go public, you could do that via PM to me. I am always happy to learn more about such things - and I promise I will take action... |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
scottishbronco
|
posted: 2012-06-07 21:17:19 (ID: 43943) Report Abuse |
|
We might be onto something with the player rank system. So far the best idea in how to open up trading players.
Still not sure on how to combat cheating or unbalanced players. Coaches will value their players different so mostly it becomes an opinion based criticism when disputing a trade. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bellj
|
posted: 2012-06-07 21:56:08 (ID: 43955) Report Abuse |
|
Well, I am not so concerned about cheating. There are a few suggestions that could help to keep that to a minimum.
However, I am more concerned about extremely negative reactions to trades that are made and trades that are vetoed. My reasons for this are: 1. Everyone values players very very very differently - just look at how many people got their #1 or #2 draft choice plus maybe another player in their top 10. And this has happened in every draft so far, even when we needed players in every position. So very few trades are going to seem fair to anyone. Even if you argue that you are trying to fill a need, others will think they know better than you what you need. 2. Bad feelings will arise if a trade is vetoed or rejected or whatever system is used as a check and balance. If the league owners get to vote, then some owners who have a trade vetoed will also vote against any other trade - no matter what. Seems a bit childish, but it will certainly happen. 3. I predict some will quit the game because of trades that got vetoed/rejected or trades that did not get vetoed/rejected. Again this is because of the extremely subjective valuation of players. 4. Even if a system is used that calculates a "fair" trade range, there will be many out there who disagree with it. If the system says a very good WR is worth a very good RB, then some will disagree and say, "No way, an RB is much more valuable." Others will say, "Sure, they are both very good." And yet others will say, "Maybe, but I would rather have the blonde cheerleader." OK, despite all of that, I would really like to have the option of trading. (In fact, I would like to trade my entire team for certain other teams, but I am afraid those teams would not want mine.) But even one player per season would be enough for me. And I must apologize because I can't come up with any good ideas right now that could lead to a compromise that everyone could live happily with. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2012-06-08 03:35:51 (ID: 43962) Report Abuse |
|
I posted this in other thread not to long ago.
I thought it out a little better now since the last time I made a comment about it. The trading block should be browning down in to 3 parts 1 your players you wish to trade and are up for trade or pending approval of the owning a awaiting voting. 2 player on the trading block. 3 A review trade. Section 1 would have all your players that are for trade or trades pending approval. And when putting player up for trade you can list what positions that you are looking for and general attribute range you are looking for. Section 2 is where you would find player up for trade and make offers for players. I would say best would be one for one only But two for one at max to prevent cheating. Also to help prevent cheating even further make the trading block anonymous. Mean that know one know who the owners only the players. This way no counter offers can be maybe through the mailing system only through the trading block which should have general feed back about a trade like ( Not what I'm looking for, Or Need to do better than that) Section 3 is where the veto and approve system come in to play. Here ever one may vote one time on each pending trades accepted by the owns of the trade. I would say minimal of 7 to 9 vote for a trade to get a approve or disprove. But again the only way it works out right if the owners are unlisted in the trade. That means just knowing the players involed in the trade and that is it. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2012-06-08 03:42:34 (ID: 43963) Report Abuse |
|
One other thing is That if we fond a way for tradeing to be allowed.
It would be a way to allow ever one a equl chance as it would not be time base as it is with just the TM. And unlike the TM when you sell a player in hopes of beable to buy a player that you can use. Is to say the lest a shot in the dark. Some times you hit most of the times you miss. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Turtlemania
|
posted: 2012-06-08 03:49:55 (ID: 43964) Report Abuse |
|
Besides fact that my gut feeling says "trading will hurt game"
If trading comes than is really need to have "block offers by" feature right from beginning. And also this could be a thing shown on the managers profile like a quality measuring -> the higher the count is on page shown that a manager is blocked by other, the more alerted should be others when get offers by this manager It will be same like in fantasy football because there will be enough "out there" do offer ridicoulous trades. Even if react polite then you will get statements like "well this is only start" then go through several iterations of counter offers only to be more and more annoyed each time |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 2 3 4 6 > >| | |
| Main / Suggestions / A new thought on a trading block | |
