Just to clarify what I mean by loosening the trade meter...

Have the meter show the trade in the green, yellow or red the way it currently does, but allow a trade to be accepted at the far end of the yellow rather than the far end of the green.

The biggest dilemma seems to be certain owners are biased in their opinions. We talk of emulating the NFL and yet the NFL owners don't review opponents with the option to veto them. Why would a rival owner approve a trade their main competition made that helped that rival? Built in conflict of interest.

Case in point: I made a trade with another team in league 2. Several owners didn't like it because our team came out ahead, at least in the initial season and now they claim it is cheating. The trade was legal and both parties involved approved the trade.

As a follow up, I trade 8-9 players for a 2nd and 3rd rd pick 3 years in the future and these same owners throw a stink. Now any trade is biasly viewed in a negative light by them.
The commissioner/admin is objective and non-biased, whereas a team owner in a given league has built in bias.

Terrible idea having owners involved in approving/vetoing as the conflict of interest in unavoidable

I would like to concur with a good part of what Webster has stated here. I am still a bit of a newbie here myself with only a few seasons under my belt, but while I totally love "the art of the deal" and like offering and being offered on trades, here at MFN, I like to think in most cases, I am trying to trade somewhere in the "fair value" range with other owners. In most, most that is say 80% or more, the trade bar meter is in favor towards the owner I am in the trade deal with, especially if I am initiating the offer. I don't care much for doing any real deal with anyone really getting the "raw end". I just don't see it as good business and all. I love the game so far, but I don't ever want anyone thinking " Man, that CooterBrown guy really hosed me on that deal 2 seasons back". And then they get ****-hurt and never ever wanna trade, even if to their best interests or benefit, or even worse they quit playing the league or MFN entirely. Heck, I wanna win. I wanna have successful franchises. But I don't wanna be a J.Jones trying to do so.

So, the only thing I would add that I have seen that concerns me as to the game and trade deals mostly is how some "rush a new guy" to a league. Offering up say 2 or 3 aging veterans on the backside of their careers and then taking a couple of 1st and 2nd round high selections of a newer owner with a team that really should value those draft picks and use them to retool and rebuild. Not sure what could be totally done to prevent that exactly. And do not wish for JDB or any of you veteran owners to have to nurture and mentor every new guy to MFN. But it makes for a better game and more interest generated from rookies, I would think. I know I myself have appreciated talking to some of you fellers and some of the feedback/insight ya'll give. LOL, not sure if I have heeded to it all, or gotten any better or smarter. But it does make me more knowledgeable and more fun and try to play on a fair table for everyone. (Gets down off the box to catch some air) Laffs.

JDB, thank you for the thoughtful post and for giving us a peek into your thought process. Personally of the options you laid, I think this one has the best potential to be effective.

However, I think everyone needs to understand that there is no single silver bullet solution. This is a deep and complex sim (which is why we are so addicted to it) things need to be addressed from multiple directions. Combined with some of trade value limit, I would like to see 2 other large changes.

1. The trade bar needs work as it won't allow reasonable trades. We all seem to have an example of this, I'll share mine from today in CUST35. I have a serviceable 7 year veteran WR that I just don't have room for on the 53 man roster. Based on default weights he's a WR3-WR5 type guy, depending on the depth of the team. Knowing I'm going to cut him I sent out offers to several teams that looked like they might be interested in him (but maybe not, all depends on weights.). The trade meter pretty much required me to ask for a 3rd round pick for this player in order to get a deal through, and even then was pegged far into the other team's favor. Others may disagree but I think a 3rd rounder is too expensive for this kind of player and I should be allowed to ask for less in return. I'm not sure how to fix the balance issues, but it's definitely an issue.

2. Player Motiviations. Right now the only thing that players care about is the bonus money, and we're all aware of how easy it is too use that to re-sign your stud players to contracts that just aren't realistic. I know JDB is working on some changes that sound good, but I think the solution that I'd love to see (and one that will admittedly take significant development effort) is to give different players different personalties or motivations. Tom Brady will take a "hometown" discount, but other players won't. Some players will take less money to go to a good team. Perhaps older players would take a deal for less total money that is front loaded with larger salaries the first 2 years (note that we can't structure deals that way right now). Putting more nuance into how a free agent makes a decision or how an existing player decides to accept or reject a contract extension would not only make the game more interesting but coupled with some of other changes being considered could help cut down on the roster inequities.

It's been a very long day, so hopefully some of this long post makes sense. Love this game and love how passionate the user community is, so I'm confident that we'll continue to improve it.

I've got 2 leagues playing Week 16 games tomorrow and I need a win to clinch the division in both...so it's off to do some gameplanning. Go Smugglers! Go Killer Rabbits!

Lol, yeah MBJ best of luck. And go Killer Rabbits! Lol (makes me think of Elmer Fudd singing..... kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit!....lol... with my spear and magic helmut)

.............I've read this thread and no one has yet mentioned how time consuming some of these changes could be. If any of these changes mean more time organising every team I (you) own, that can only be bad for the game and indeed owners. I know its not MFNs fault but I'm already struggling with the teams I have and don't really want to give any more up, but will if I have to.

Just my 2 cents but "Limit 'trade value' per season" looks like a good idea
and premium leagues would work for me, even with the trade question set aside.

I definitely don't like the limit to 2 trades per season based on credits idea. I'm very invested in the game even though I don't buy credits, and this solution would be unfair to those like me who are unable to buy credits due to whatever circumstances (e.g. kids playing probably don't have credit cards, people may not have money to spare, etc).

The trade value limit also bothers me. It limits how fast you can retool a roster or rebuild a bad team.

I agree with the proposed solution that teams offering trades should have more leeway in how unbalanced their trades can be.

Finally, player attitudes towards re-signing is something I've been interested in for quite a while; it'd make free agency much more interesting.

How about a "Get advice" button which sends the potential trade to a new public forum section. Where it can be scrutinized by the public as advice requested by owner.

Or something similar for only block buster trades (or just 1st and 2nd rounders) involving newer owners. Depending on game knowledge, reflected by record, is what dictates whether the trade goes to a new forum section for debate. These are for informational purposes only and may not be able to stop the trade, but will bring the trade to light before it is accepted .

Just to note I was scrutinized for 3 out of 4 trades I ever made. It was not bad or bothersome, just I gave up alot because the meter was wierd. Still, the 1.15 I gave up ended up busting. So that went my way. The two other still need drafts to happen to truly tell who won or lost.

I want to stop newer owners one or two seasons in from letting go of low first or second rounders for a guys that do not fit there gameplan.

It seems like the only way we are ever going to get to the point where all legitimate trade offers are allowed, without automatically allowing ALL trades, is to have some sort of review/veto process.

Therefore, I like this idea ONLY for trades that would otherwise be disallowed (after the meter is loosened a good bit from how it is now).


I do NOT like this idea.


I do NOT like this idea. This would severely limit the options an owner has for rebuilding a team.


I like the idea of premium leagues, mainly because I feel it would go a long way to ensuring the league is filled with active owners who actually try to be competitive.

In addition to premium leagues, I would also like to see a "champions" type league. That may be the wrong word, because I don't mean it should have to be restricted to owners who have won a championship (but that would be a nice idea also). I would like new or "bad" owners restricted from accessing these leagues. I don't think it can be based on experience. Just because an owner signed up for MFN and then joined every open league doesn't mean they should be allowed in, even if they are soon considered "experienced" based on how many seasons/games/teams they have managed.

If a league were filled with experienced owners with a proven track record of knowing what they are doing, I don't think trades would be much of an issue.



I guess the advantage would be that I could be the first to see the proposed trade, then make a sweeter offer that gets accepted before anyone else has a chance to see the first offer.
I think the positives outweigh the negative.


I agree. While the idea seems fine on the surface, I think it would become a nightmare


It has already been mentioned by a few people, but I wanted to mention it here again.

I think it will be VERY helpful to show the default ratings for each player on the player card, along with your own custom ratings.

A lot of the perceived "bad" trades are probably only perceived that way because of that owner's personal weights. Showing the default rating for each player might curb some of that.

There is still the issue of cases where a trade partner values a player much more than the AI does. I don't think an owner's personal player ratings should be shown to other owners, but if they were some trades may not appear to be "bad", when otherwise they might be.

If someone questions one of my trades, I am usually happy to let them know why I thought it was a good deal for me (or the other owner).
EX:
Owner: How can you give up a first for a 78 rated player?
Me: I have him rated at 92.
Owner: Oh.

However, I want to be the one to decide if I'm going to reveal my own personal weights.

In addition, not every owner is the same, or values players/picks the same.
I saw a recent post where someone said a 7 year vet is not worth a 3rd round pick. To me they are. Neither one of us is wrong. However, the AI will say that one of us IS wrong and not allow a trade. This is particularly frustrating for experienced owners.

Don't get me started on Punters / Kickers. What? I have to give up a first for this punter? A quick and easy fix would be to take the current "trade value" of punters and kickers and reduce it by 50%.