The number one complaint I get here an MFN is the fact that many people feel the trade balance bar is too restrictive in some cases and also lets too many lopsided trades through (sometimes both complaints being strongly stated about literally the same trade). There has been a lot of discussions on the forum about how to solve this, but the fact of the matter is no matter what as long as there are trades there will be people feeling like there are unfair trades happening. I've been trying to figure out an effective way to solve this. I don't want to eliminate trades altogether... for those who haven't seen a large amount of the discussion, here are pieces I'm seriously considering:

* Peer review for unbalanced trades. This would allow any trade to be submitted, but if the trade is beyond a certain point on the balance bar it would require a peer review. Once accepted there would be 24 hours for the community to accept or reject these trade. Once a certain percentage (probably 40 or 50%) of the owners in the league voted one way or the other the trade would follow that decision. If the 24 hours expires then the decision would be based on the current majority decision. Owners involved in the trade as well as any owners who share an IP history with an owner in the trade would be excluded from voting. In a tie, the trade would be accepted. Pros: All owners would get the chance to give feedback on controversial trades. Trade values could be debated in the forums before the decision was finalized, and newer owners could learn from these conversations. Cons: time-sensitive trades would be delayed, which could cause issues especially during the draft. Owners could try to reject an otherwise acceptable trade just because they have an issue with one of the owners.

* Limit trades for owners who have not purchased credits to 2 trades per season. Trades would not -cost- credits, but you would have to have a balance of 6 or more credits to participate in a trade beyond those 2. Owners would not be able to offer trades to other owners who are not eligible. Pros: this forces owners to have a vested interest in order to participate in a trade, and those who have not purchased credits would be forced to be a bit more choosy with trades they make. Cons: this skates on the line of pay-to-win which I am adamantly opposed to - although I'm not completely convinced that it does. It also reduces the number of potential trading partners.

* Limit 'trade value' per season - each player/pick/etc. carries a value which is used to determine the balance bar ratings. This idea would limit the total amount of trade value score an owner could participate in each season. What point this would be would still need to be hashed out, but it would probably limit trades containing 1st round picks to one or two per season. (Later round picks or lower value players of course would not rack up the points as much). A corollary to this idea is to just limit 'blockbuster' trades to one per team per season. Those 'blockbuster' trades are what get the most flack (no one really cares if you trade a 7th rounder for too many 50-rated players) but it would at least limit each team to executing one each season.

* 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.

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.

* League commissioner - This just feels like an administrative nightmare. First, finding enough users who would want this responsibility would be difficult enough, then the first time the commissioner approves a controversial trade we're right back where we were with the added accusations of a biased commissioner.

Is showing the default rating still an option?

Also might I add lessening the value on certain players (K/P, 9+ year vets). As it stands now you have to give up first rounders for 90+ players for these types of players. Personally, Id have no problem securing a possible low second rounder for a 90+/9+ year vet if they want him for a playoff push.

Personally, I really don't like any of those options. Just a thought - why not default "unbalanced" trades to the site admin for review? Not that you want additional tasks, but it takes any responsibility from owners to "self" manage. The only really unbiased person here would be you, and no one would value the integrity of things more. Maybe the discussion shifts to what constitutes an unbalanced trade and go from there.

- Having to buy credits every year to trade or join premium leagues to trade defeats the purpose and doesn't really fix any underlying problems.
- I think peer review really would only be effective in leagues with long term owners. I trust the majority of the MFN1 owners since I have played many seasons with them. But, what happens when there is owner turnover or new leagues...that balance changes.

Just to throw another 2 cents in... One tweak I would like to see in addition to whatever the final outcome is, is to find a better weighting system for players and picks. I used to be able to offer a really balanced/fair trade. I can't really get close now because it swings way too far to one side. There have been times I "throw in" a 5th or 6th Rd pick to help balance it and all of a sudden it goes way over to the other side. Any trade I have made in the last couple of seasons always look overly favorable to one team.

Lastly, I also do agree that the default position should be listed in the trade so someone can't make a 90 rated RB a 30 rated K and trade them. Or maybe, if the current position has an X difference from default rating then default rating kicks in.

Here is what I would like in this regard.

I would like the Default Rating (but I'm not sure what that is, doesn't all our Head Coaches have different Weights?), the Sending Team Rating and the Receiving Team Rating.

That way we have a transparency.

Some times I feel like I'm being offered a 'sucker trade', but then I sit back and think 'What if his Weights are just really different than mine... maybe that 68 for me is a 75 for him, which makes this Trade look really different than what I'm seeing. I still don't want the guy, but now I can see he's not sending me a **** trade, just a trade my Weights value less than his.'.

But then, I DO actually reflect on these things, being new. Because I don't want to accuse a Veteran Owner of trying to take advantage of me when it could be a matter of me having 'stupid Weights' that makes the deal look silly. After all, I'm still new... so what do I know of Effective Weights?

I also think the 2 Pick Gap and the Total 4 Items limits hurt Trades. But I can also understand them being there.

I like the idea of Trades being discussed, and I think having 'Non-Green Bar Trades' go into a Discussion is good for the game. Because then both Players and Developers can actually READ this feed back of why a Trade is overall Good or Bad, which in turn could go back into 'tweaking' the Bar so it performs it's function better down the road.

I love that the Developer is open to hearing our voices, and look forward to playing this game for a long time because of this.

I really don't care what route we go down, so long as something IS done.
The problems I have experienced range from league to league, in some I have just given up trying to make trades at all.

Oh, the other item I forgot to mention above (I knew there was something) is to make it harder to build a super-team by having the best players request contracts that will force you to choose which ones you want to keep. This is already in the works (but will not be part of the next release).

I came into Denver with a 40 Million Dead Cap issue. I've fixed that in my 2 Seasons (well, starting my 2nd Full Season right now).

What most Vets tell me is that the Salary Cap isn't even a concern. They don't notice it, it doesn't stop them from doing the things they want/need to do.

I mean, I was literally told not to worry about 40 Million in DEAD CAP... to me, that was a 3 Alarm Fire!

I think FA's (and those you are trying to Retain) should consider more things than Money/Length to a greater degree... things that tie into other things and matter. Things like Current Coaching Staff, both in Ratings and Play Books.

Now, if a WR is getting killer Stats and Winning he might not care that the HC is a 'Run Balanced' guy. But for another WR that maybe isn't the focus of an Offense, maybe that 'Run Balanced' HC is starting to be an issue, and he'll give a 'discount' or have more 'interest' in a Pass Heavy (or what ever fits his Weights) Play Book HC/OC.

This would lead to more Owners looking for 'Staff Ideology', as now having guys in the same 'System' of a Staff would actually have a meaningful value (better chance of Signing FA's and Retaining your own guys that 'fit the System').

I also love the idea of Premier Leagues... but not as a 'solution'. As a place to test these things to see if the game can be broadened and expanded into new areas. Like the Unlimited Trade idea attached to it... maybe it works really well, or maybe it's a train wreck, either way we have a good idea of if this is something that can work for All Leagues. The real draw of Premier Leagues would them be that Owners would have access to things in that League that aren't even in the other Leagues at all, and can help 'test' entirely new concepts which could influence the Entire Game and how it continues to develop. (I know MFN 1 is a 'test league', but that's for tweaking the Game Engine, I'm talking testing completely new Concepts.)

Anyways, I love that you are so involved with the Community, and if there are things I can do to help please let me know.

The commissioner idea worked really well in Freekick [a now defunct soccer game developed by one guy] I don’t recall there ever being an issue and since the position was voted on by other members in the league in preseason it pretty much insured that issues on cheating were non-factor.
If a person wants to cheat they will find a way and it has always been a big problem with online games. Hattrick and Buzzerbeater [both decent online games] lost a lot of players who had been long term players who did it for fun and the social atmosphere [IMO] when “alleged” cheating became widespread and the problem was ignored. I think MFN is one of the best online games I have played and while I’m not a computer expert can appreciate all the work you have done Jdavidbaker. I would be willing to pay for a premium league with dedicated players who have a vested interest in said league.

On option 1 - peer review of trades, what about having the trade review go out to all leagues in MFN except for the league in which the trade is happening. This would make the review of the proposed trade more unbiased then having owners in the same league deciding the outcome.

Secondly, since you would now have a larger pool of potential peer reviewers maybe instead of being a strict 24 hour review period, it could be based on 24 hours OR "x" number of reviews. That way trades might get approved quicker than 24 hours.

I imagine a "trade review" tab on the top menu that an owner could click on, see a list of all open trades and then click to review them. You could even incentivize it by handing out credits for every "x" peer reviews completed.

I recommend (if possible) loosening the trade meter for the team initiating the trade. If the owner initiating the trade is happy with the outcome, it should be accepted more often than not.

This would stop teams from being able to offer outrageously unfair trades to inexperienced owners, but allow experienced owners to offer trades that the meter may not currently allow.

One example from my point of view; I like to offload players I know I'm going to cut for a cheap price. I'm not looking for fair market value, I just want something rather than nothing. The players I need to cut would do some teams a lot of good. Many owners would rather trade for them than fight for them on the open market. In the end, they get a player they want/need and I get a draft pick or a position player that I'm in more need of.

This idea would make it so there is no need for a peer review and no further limiting to trades.