New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

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 murderleg
2/12/2016 11:34 am
Personally I would only support a voting process be used on letting trades go through. I think letting other people deny trades would be annoying as ****.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: Trade balance updates

By sealbc
2/12/2016 12:29 pm
I would not have a problem with a voting system on trades.The thing that comes too mind for me is if a person has spent credits and can not vote in time.I am sure they would be upset if they did not have a voice that would be the outcome of a trade.I also look at it this way.If you have an injury and play a game.You may be waiting for the trade too pass or fail on a vote.This would prevent a team from using that player for someone injured that week.then how many more times is jd going too fix the trade issue since he implemented the trades for us.You can only do so much.Once we find a good solution for everyone.I think it is best too just stick with it.The system is never gonna be perfect.Their may be times when something is in place we do not all like.But at least we have the game too enjoy.So lets just enjoy what we have.I am sure we will have other creative ways too make the game better along the way.

Re: Trade balance updates

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
2/12/2016 12:48 pm
WarEagle wrote:
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 am leaning toward this as well.

Re: Trade balance updates

By WarEagle
2/12/2016 12:51 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
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 am leaning toward this as well.


Glad to hear that.

Another thought I just had was that the trade should be processed on the next "mid-week" spin after the 24 hours has passed, so the owners will have an opportunity to make any needed roster adjustments before the next game.

Re: Trade balance updates

By jnormaniv
2/12/2016 1:55 pm
I like all the ideas mentioned above, but I think if we do do a veto system, or voting system I think the OTHER conference should vote on trades for the other conference. Why? What if team A and team B have a trade (that is 100% fair) but it makes team A stronger and he has a division game coming up, if you were competing against that team wouldn't you say no to the trade so you had a better chance to win? Most probably would not, but enough will that it will effect some trades that are in fact fair.

Re: Trade balance updates

By punisher
2/12/2016 2:55 pm
WarEagle wrote:
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.


well I took it as you meant the whole league.

I would say if we are picking people to veto trades why not make it either 1 team from each division meaning you would have 8 total people to vote then really only the JBU could be the tie breaking vote if need to be or JBU could appoint 1 person in each league as the commissioner of that league that would veto trades if need to or approve them if need to.

Unless somehow you make it where the computer veto's trades where it looks at the logic of the trade and compare to would real NFL teams do that and either veto it or approve them.

Re: Trade balance updates

By murderleg
2/12/2016 6:52 pm
punisher wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
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.


well I took it as you meant the whole league.

I would say if we are picking people to veto trades why not make it either 1 team from each division meaning you would have 8 total people to vote then really only the JBU could be the tie breaking vote if need to be or JBU could appoint 1 person in each league as the commissioner of that league that would veto trades if need to or approve them if need to.

Unless somehow you make it where the computer veto's trades where it looks at the logic of the trade and compare to would real NFL teams do that and either veto it or approve them.


1. This couldn't work for a number of reasons. The hierarchy that would be created here would be incredibly annoying. I don't want some person I don't know deciding the trades I make without my input and also judging everyones else trades without me having vote as well. This is football, not world politics. Also, jdavidbakr can't go around judging every trade you make. The newest league is Cust 64-65 so pair that with the MFN leagues and he'd be judging dozens of trades every day. It'd be a full time job for him. Judging from your suggestion threads I sometimes feel you don't have a true appreciation for how much time and energy goes into coding games like this. It's not easy. Before you suggest things like this and blimp views of the games think of how much work would go into that. Would you like to code all that by yourself?

2. It's JDB, not JBU
Last edited at 2/12/2016 6:53 pm

Re: Trade balance updates

By Mr.Krazy
2/12/2016 7:25 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
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 am leaning toward this as well.


I am liking this idea WarEagle has presented. If I may, I would like to put in a little more in what WarEagle stated at #2, I was thinking along the lines of a 50%+ owner majority vote on whether or not a trade should be approved or denied. For Example, say a league has 24 owners and 8 AI controlled teams and Owner 1 makes a trade offer to Owner 2. If Owner 2 accepts the trade, then the approval of that trade will go to the hands of the 'league office', the 24 owners in the league (minus the 2 owners that did the trade). It could possibly be a notification that pops up on the league home to optionally vote on that trade.

Say only 12 owners vote on approving/denying the trade before the next game stage hits, and 7 owners approve of it and 5 owners deny it. Since the majority voted on approving it, more than 50%, then the trade would be approved by 'league offices'. The other way around where 5 owners approve of the trade and 7 deny it, then the trade would be denied by league offices... with discussion of the trade optional.

I see this as an easy way of handling trades that the AI would say are too much in one's favor where really the AI is overvaluing the trade.
Last edited at 2/12/2016 7:29 pm

Re: Trade balance updates

By murderleg
2/12/2016 7:59 pm
I'm generally opposed to this vote idea as a whole. The new trade balance meter works so well, I would hate to make it unless and have a bunch of malicious owners vetoing my every trade. The only was I could see this working is a report button after the trade has gone through, so that once enough reports were collected by the system it would get rid of it altogether. What's so bad with our current system?

Re: Trade balance updates

By Gustoon
2/13/2016 5:24 am
WarEagle wrote:
jdavidbakr wrote:
WarEagle wrote:
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 am leaning toward this as well.


Glad to hear that.

Another thought I just had was that the trade should be processed on the next "mid-week" spin after the 24 hours has passed, so the owners will have an opportunity to make any needed roster adjustments before the next game.

+!