Error Icon
Check how to improve security while using RedZoneAction.org
Community - American Football Management Simulator
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 / Discussions / Player trading, read the news - second attempt Search Forum
Navigation: |<   <   1  2  3  27 28  29  >   >|  
  Poll: should we go for the described transfer system, as written below?, Poll closed, votes: 337
155
yes
122
no
60
who cares
Poster Message
petef
posted: 2013-01-18 21:53:09 (ID: 77281) Report Abuse
sfniner08 wrote:
How about we look at it after a season has gone by? I mean, I did like some of the ideas in the suggestion forum by sneaky in regards to the final X amount of hours of a bid being one last chance for each person who had a bid in to place a final blind bid. It did alleviate the being on at the end and the back and forth incremental bidding for an hour after the bid time issues.

Perhaps in a season we can look at some alternatives. I think looking at alternatives that aren't huge are the first things to look at. Some of the ideas and suggestions put forth are so huge in terms of change that they are almost dead right off.



I think this is the best idea... shelve it for a season or two. Let the suggestions keep coming but try to focus on what is liked and disliked so that a real solution can be found.
bwadders76
posted: 2013-01-18 22:35:36 (ID: 77287) Report Abuse
Totally agree. Looking at it in the cold light of day and we could come up with something that suits all.

I know player for player trading is a step many want to take and while I think it would be a great addition it would be near on impossible to bring in as so many players value players differently depending upon their needs, finances, team life cycle etc.
hosh13
posted: 2013-01-19 02:50:09 (ID: 77311) Report Abuse
bwadders76 wrote:
I know player for player trading is a step many want to take and while I think it would be a great addition it would be near on impossible to bring in as so many players value players differently depending upon their needs, finances, team life cycle etc.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with it.
notsch
posted: 2013-01-19 14:36:46 (ID: 77341) Report Abuse
panoramix wrote:
pete wrote:
FOr me the vote without "Who cares" is not clear enough. After we were going public with the option before the voting for a test, it should be much more clear. It is not clear enough, so we failed with our proposal. Back to the cave, doing a better one...



And not for the decision in itself, but because this decision tell us you are a thinking man.

Thanks, Pete.


+1
bwadders76
posted: 2013-01-19 18:41:35 (ID: 77361) Report Abuse
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
I know player for player trading is a step many want to take and while I think it would be a great addition it would be near on impossible to bring in as so many players value players differently depending upon their needs, finances, team life cycle etc.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with it.


You have nothing to say that is even of remote interest to me so I would appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on what I post. If you agree or disagree with what I say I don't care go and annoy someone else please.
scottishbronco
posted: 2013-01-19 18:54:17 (ID: 77367) Report Abuse
Has it been suggested to keeping trades league specific? For example The entire Claymore league can trade between themselves but not with other leagues.

It then becomes easier to moderate.

ps sorry for not reading the whole thread
sneaky_minotaur
posted: 2013-01-19 22:15:42 (ID: 77380) Report Abuse
notsch wrote:
panoramix wrote:
pete wrote:
FOr me the vote without "Who cares" is not clear enough. After we were going public with the option before the voting for a test, it should be much more clear. It is not clear enough, so we failed with our proposal. Back to the cave, doing a better one...



And not for the decision in itself, but because this decision tell us you are a thinking man.

Thanks, Pete.


+1


+10



sneaky_minotaur
posted: 2013-01-19 22:16:16 (ID: 77381) Report Abuse
petef wrote:
sfniner08 wrote:
How about we look at it after a season has gone by? I mean, I did like some of the ideas in the suggestion forum by sneaky in regards to the final X amount of hours of a bid being one last chance for each person who had a bid in to place a final blind bid. It did alleviate the being on at the end and the back and forth incremental bidding for an hour after the bid time issues.

Perhaps in a season we can look at some alternatives. I think looking at alternatives that aren't huge are the first things to look at. Some of the ideas and suggestions put forth are so huge in terms of change that they are almost dead right off.



I think this is the best idea... shelve it for a season or two. Let the suggestions keep coming but try to focus on what is liked and disliked so that a real solution can be found.
hosh13
posted: 2013-01-20 02:06:31 (ID: 77389) Report Abuse
bwadders76 wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
I know player for player trading is a step many want to take and while I think it would be a great addition it would be near on impossible to bring in as so many players value players differently depending upon their needs, finances, team life cycle etc.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with it.


You have nothing to say that is even of remote interest to me so I would appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on what I post. If you agree or disagree with what I say I don't care go and annoy someone else please.


Typical of those who want to be left alone in their own little fantasy world - they hate it when their BS is challenged.

Here's another chance to demonstrate that you have any clue at all -

What difference does your, or anyone else's need for a player (their own personal opinion of what a given player is worth) have to do with any sort of trade system?

Put up or shutup!

Last edited on 2013-01-20 02:16:57 by hosh13
bwadders76
posted: 2013-01-20 02:39:48 (ID: 77392) Report Abuse
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
hosh13 wrote:
bwadders76 wrote:
I know player for player trading is a step many want to take and while I think it would be a great addition it would be near on impossible to bring in as so many players value players differently depending upon their needs, finances, team life cycle etc.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with it.


You have nothing to say that is even of remote interest to me so I would appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on what I post. If you agree or disagree with what I say I don't care go and annoy someone else please.


Typical of those who want to be left alone in their own little fantasy world - they hate it when their BS is challenged.

Here's another chance to demonstrate that you have any clue at all -

What difference does your, or anyone else's need for a player (their own personal opinion of what a given player is worth) have to do with any sort of trade system?

Put up or shutup!


If you need that question explaining to you then you are far dumber than I gave you credit for
Mark this thread unread
Navigation: |<   <   1  2  3  27 28  29  >   >|  
Main / Discussions / Player trading, read the news - second attempt
© 2009 - 2024 by Pete     Visit our sister game RedZoneClash.org           IPv6 disabled! Booo, you are using old style IPv4...