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: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By Rakor
4/09/2017 11:16 am
There should be a way for the other owners to veto a trade if they feel it is too one sided. If more then half of the owners vote against it, then it should be denied.
Last edited at 4/09/2017 11:16 am

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By mikecouil
4/09/2017 12:26 pm
That's what the balancer is for. Incompetence is far different than collusion as well.

When the Vikings acquired Herschel Walker, it didn't go down as a terrible trade until years later. AL Davis made mind boggling trades yearly.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By setherick
4/09/2017 2:18 pm
mikecouil wrote:
That's what the balancer is for.


The balancer is worthless. Players that are worth a 1st round pick usually don't rate above 100 trade points. Players that are worth a 4th round pick are usually rated 2000+ on the balancer. Positions that are always overvalued are TEs and LBs while it's "easy" to trade a 6th round pick for a 4,000+ yard QB if your trade partner isn't paying attention.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By mikecouil
4/09/2017 3:14 pm
setherick wrote:
mikecouil wrote:
That's what the balancer is for.


The balancer is worthless. Players that are worth a 1st round pick usually don't rate above 100 trade points. Players that are worth a 4th round pick are usually rated 2000+ on the balancer. Positions that are always overvalued are TEs and LBs while it's "easy" to trade a 6th round pick for a 4,000+ yard QB if your trade partner isn't paying attention.


So then your fix is to scrap the ONLY thing currently providing checks and balances in favor of a majority wins trading system? The balancer is flawed, but far from worthless. Perhaps simply fixing the wheel rather than reinventing it makes more sense here.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By setherick
4/09/2017 3:23 pm
mikecouil wrote:
setherick wrote:
mikecouil wrote:
That's what the balancer is for.


The balancer is worthless. Players that are worth a 1st round pick usually don't rate above 100 trade points. Players that are worth a 4th round pick are usually rated 2000+ on the balancer. Positions that are always overvalued are TEs and LBs while it's "easy" to trade a 6th round pick for a 4,000+ yard QB if your trade partner isn't paying attention.


So then your fix is to scrap the ONLY thing currently providing checks and balances in favor of a majority wins trading system? The balancer is flawed, but far from worthless. Perhaps simply fixing the wheel rather than reinventing it makes more sense here.


Absolutely, yes, scrap the thing. I get more frustrated trying to make reasonable trades work with the balancer than I do with people potentially colluding. People that actually cheat get caught. (And these types of threads show why.)

I've seen way too many uneven trades by rookie GMs BECAUSE of the trade balancer than I have seen the trade balancer protect. When GMs don't have their weights dialed in, and they are using the balancer as a "guide" to make a trade, they become much more susceptible to really bad trades.

The trade balancer also doesn't stop the "pick swap" trades that KoB gets called out on so much. And they don't stop the "unannounced position switch" (making an LB a DT or a FB an OL to make the player more valuable) trades that I've seen others get caught up in.

Pro tip: when trading players that you have switched positions on, trading etiquette demands that you announce the switch if the player has not reached ideal weight for the position.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By WarEagle
4/09/2017 10:01 pm
setherick wrote:

I've seen way too many uneven trades by rookie GMs BECAUSE of the trade balancer than I have seen the trade balancer protect.


In all fairness, you don't see the trades the balancer doesn't allow (unless they are trades you are proposing).

I'd be in favor of a combination. Keep the balance meter, but also allow a veto if 17 owners vote to reject the trade.

That doesn't mean the balance meter can't be adjusted/improved, it definitely can.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By Ares
4/09/2017 10:20 pm
I really hate the trade meter. The valuations are so obscene. In 75, there's a DB with 20% retirement probability on the block that would cost me an entire draft, rounds 1-7, to match on the meter. There's also a 6-year offensive lineman without any speed but otherwise maxed who would cost me two entire drafts. This basically means there's no plausible way for me to actually trade for those players, because there's no universe in which their value is anywhere close to that.

I get that it's trying to prevent exploitation, but like setherick noted, it can just as easily be used to really abuse new players who may (justifiably) trust its general advice in determining fair value. Exploitation and cheating can easily work their ways around it, and the types of cheat trades that it does prevent would be easily called out by other active owners.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By Gustoon
4/10/2017 2:24 am
Ares wrote:
I really hate the trade meter. The valuations are so obscene. In 75, there's a DB with 20% retirement probability on the block that would cost me an entire draft, rounds 1-7, to match on the meter. There's also a 6-year offensive lineman without any speed but otherwise maxed who would cost me two entire drafts. This basically means there's no plausible way for me to actually trade for those players, because there's no universe in which their value is anywhere close to that.

I get that it's trying to prevent exploitation, but like setherick noted, it can just as easily be used to really abuse new players who may (justifiably) trust its general advice in determining fair value. Exploitation and cheating can easily work their ways around it, and the types of cheat trades that it does prevent would be easily called out by other active owners.


I've pretty much given up on trades, for reasons you've stated. It seems to be a part of the game that is difficult to determine value, add in people's own value and most trades are perceived as being world's away

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
4/10/2017 9:17 am
I'm considering doing some combination of the following:

* Private leagues allowing for no trade restrictions (in addition to being able to require approval for joining by the user creating the private league) This one actually will almost certainly happen soon.
* Simple leagues that have some combination of no trading and/or no game planning. These would be pushed to newer users to help them get their feet wet. Not sure I'll pursue this just because I don't want there to be so many types of leagues that it gets too confusing.
* Trade veto system - loosen what the trade meter will allow, but if the balance is beyond a certain threshold it would be able to be vetoed by a percentage of ownership before it's processed. This would delay the processing by probably 24 hours for those trades unless it hit the approval threshold first. I'm still mulling this one, it's been discussed quite extensively in the past.

Re: Collusion happening in CUST-21, CUST-35. CUST-9 and CUST-64 also at risk.

By oukjweather
4/10/2017 12:50 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
I'm considering doing some combination of the following:

* Private leagues allowing for no trade restrictions (in addition to being able to require approval for joining by the user creating the private league) This one actually will almost certainly happen soon.
* Simple leagues that have some combination of no trading and/or no game planning. These would be pushed to newer users to help them get their feet wet. Not sure I'll pursue this just because I don't want there to be so many types of leagues that it gets too confusing.
* Trade veto system - loosen what the trade meter will allow, but if the balance is beyond a certain threshold it would be able to be vetoed by a percentage of ownership before it's processed. This would delay the processing by probably 24 hours for those trades unless it hit the approval threshold first. I'm still mulling this one, it's been discussed quite extensively in the past.


I like the idea of a Trade veto system, however I think the threshold needs to be at least 2/3rds majority if not 3/4ths of human users to overturn a trade. Otherwise I would be concerned for people vetoing trades just because it did not benefit them, or benefits a competitor in a given conference or division.