| Poll |
| Is trading in divX worth trying? |
| Yes, this is worth experimenting with. |
|
57% |
[ 82 ] |
| No, it would never work. |
|
42% |
[ 61 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 143 |
|
swilhelm73
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
|
 Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:59 |
 
|
In general I like the idea of auctioning or selling off players, though I'm not quite so keen on true trades due to the mammoth potential for abuse. I also think that something along these lines *will* prove necessary in divX with the new rules or else we will see few teams live to an old age - keeping TR at a certain rate is fine, having teams die regularly is not much fun...
That being said, I think that we should give the new rules some time before we even consider modifying divX more, both to give purer data to the BBRC/Tom Anders and more importantly so we can see how they work out exactly... |
|
|
AsperonThorn
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:59 |
|
I think Mixx has makes a good point. A lot of it comes down to the know how and equipment so he is correct that the "go inflate your own ball and play somewhere else" line is kinda worthless.
I would also like to point out that Ski Junkie has said, in the past, that he plans on implementing as many rules, optional rules, and house rules as he can until he burns out. I don't see why, if Mr. Klipp or Christer, or someone else with the power, know how, and will to do it, couldn't add such rules as "Trading" to the site, and make it part of the Tourney divison.
What I had in mind would be a list of options that the creator of a tourney group would have when he created a tourney group (teams allowed, rules, acceptable ofab, trading, negative winnings) that he could check. Fun things, like trading players, could be then managed at a smaller scale, and have no relevent impact on Experimental Rules, or straight LRB open division.
Now, I will repeat, This would have to come from someone with the Skill, Power, and will to do it. I don't think it is necessary, nor am I requesting it. I am simply suggesting a kinda of compromise, that I think could satisfy a lot of "Requests for this or that" while not compromising the statistical information that Fumbbl can generate for the BBRC.
Asperon Thorn |
|
|
Mr-Klipp
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 22:59 |
|
|
MixX
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 23:41 |
|
first, thanks for the link BMM. I didn't mean to say "I want this for me and if you don't give it to me you're mean". I really appreciate Fubbml, but I suppose any more from me would be seen as rude also, so I'll just shuttit and go look at that web manager stuff. |
|
|
Athoria
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Feb 26, 2004 - 23:59 |
|
i think Mully is right. It is the purpose to build up your own players, and have fun in that. But it IS very annoying to get hammered badly, and then have to retire someone to a coach? that sucks, and with the new money problems from the negative winnings.... selling off players to increase your money is a good idea... but not the trading. |
_________________
Courage is not the absence of fear; merely the presence of fear combined with the willpower to overcome it. |
|
Colin
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 00:05 |
|
Hey, guys, why so cranky? I've been helping m0nty crystalise some of the ideas for trading players, because it's an interesting option. However, I am of the opinion that we should let the present rules bed in for a while (several months) before we attempt to add more, which gives us more time to invent a workable system.
Lets stay away from the lobbying and heated argument, and try to think of something that does work. If we polish it enough, then the admins may include it on merit. If it isn't up to scratch, we polish it some more until it does work. I foresee that a workable system would be quite complex, with lots of checks and balances, much like a real transfer market.
There's no sense in getting upset. |
|
|
Grumbledook
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 00:37 |
|
hey the olbbl is an online league that has player trading and other such house rules ;]
the bottom line with the trading of players is the cheating aspect and the only ways around it are to have every trade run through a moderator like new teams are atm or to make it not exactly worthwhile, which begs the question why would you then do it and people could still cheat using it
also i don't see how this really ties into the negative winnings aspect of it, specially seeing as no team has really played anywhere near the number of games using the new rules for a "fix" for negative winnings to be bought up this early on, if it turns out to be totally flawed then sure we can look at other options but until then. hnnnnnnnnnnng |
|
|
cataphract
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 02:25 |
|
yeah like grumbledook said hnnnnnnnng |
_________________
"the eunuch should not take pride in its chastity" |
|
Matt_wyeth
Joined: Nov 29, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 04:38 |
|
innovate a solution if you can't figure out one. just because you forsee cheating by adding the option of trades doesn't mean that the problem of cheating couldn't be solved. you buy stuff on ebay and ebay doesn't check all of it goods but you uslaly don't get riped off when buying on ebay. have a coaches trading rating so that players could comment on a teams trades and rate them. and really bad ratingcould ge tinvestigated by the admins. if your only reason for not adding the trading option or even experimenting with it is because of the potential for abuse i don't really see why youur not doing it. now I'm willing to wait to have the trading rules developed or thought over in deeper detail, but please don't shoot down the idea without considering it first. |
|
|
m0nty
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 04:45 |
|
OK, just to summarise, here are the proposed rules for trading as workshopped (pun intended) in this thread and with Colin:
- Coaches can only buy players to fill legal positions in their team. This means usually that trades only happen between teams of the same race, although Allied teams can trade with single-race teams. Big guys (and goblins et al) can be traded between teams of different races who can both use them. Coaches can not trade between their own teams. Teams which are unranked can not participate in trades. Each coach can only make one trade with a single other coach in each calendar month, although they can make multiple trades with different coaches.
- Prices are fixed. All calculated prices which don't result in multiples of 5000 are rounded up.
- Sellers only get back the cost price of their player, minus 20% of the price for each injury on the player (multiple niggles and stat decreases all count separately), for a minimum of 10k subtracted for each injury.
- Buyers pay the price calculated by the site, listed in brackets after the cost price in the team page, plus a 25% agent's fee. For rookie players, if this price is still under the cost price, then the cost price plus 25% is paid.
- The Fan Factor of the selling team goes down by one, since the fans don't like seeing a star leave.
- When a bought player's SPPs are higher than 50, all existing players on the buying team's roster whose SPPs are higher than 50 become angry that a star has been brought in to steal their limelight. On a roll of d6 for each player, a result of 1-3 will mean that the disgruntled player leaves the team and does not become a coach.
- The system would involve the seller clicking a link or button to "List For Transfer" a player from a drop-down list. Prospective buyers then go to race-specific pages on FUMBBL where eligible transfer-listed players are listed. The prospective buyer would then select their team and submit an offer, which the seller would then need to approve. If a player is transfer-listed and then through playing in further games earns more SPPs or sustains an injury or MNG result, that would void all outstanding offers from buyers. |
|
|
Grod
Joined: Sep 30, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 05:25 |
|
After reading through all these proposals the following seems clear to me. Assuming players are sold to a communal pool then
1. The main effect of selling players is to allow for teams to correct their negative treasury, rather than by playing games to do it.
2. People will be selling players far more than buying them because simply its not worth all the problems to buy them, and realistically no one has the amount of cash needed to buy an advanced player.
So basically you have a complicated trading system merely as a way to recover from negative treasuries in div X. Im fairly sure it is not worth it. |
_________________
I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.
Oscar Wilde |
|
poodle-man
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 06:44 |
|
Seems to me, with the benefit of no experience in these sorta matters, that to keep trading legitimate enough to avoid cheating within the open format it has to be tweaked to be nearly useless to the player buying, or at least very unatractive, in almost all cases.
Furthermore it is being considered to combat a forseen problem potentially caused by the implemtation of a new rule, namely neg winnings.
Now in a perfect world of infinite monkeys to oversee things (while they take a break from typing the complete works of shakespeare) a trading system could be an excellent tool for coaches to adjust their teams, much like it is sometimes used in rl league's. But this just aint realistic because of a lack of person power to oversee the trades.
So my suggestion, made purely from a pitiful attempt to be helpful rather than a further demand for free stuff, is to allow an overseen trading system in closed tournaments, organised howerver the tourney organiser wants to do it. See how it works out in the smaller circle of a tourney, like the infinity open for instance, before even considering its implementation in div x or whatever. While i assume that doing so would involve even more work for Christer, et al, once the framework for the behind the scene's things gets implemented it would cease to be a concern of the various admin's.
Personally i cant imagine myself using trade's alot, so it doesnt really phase me one way or another. But i would like to see how the new changes to div x work out before throwing another complication into my already confused bb strategy.
Just my 2 cents |
_________________
The Tr th. |
|
Faulcon
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 07:10 |
|
Page 38, LRB under the heading Blood Bowl Leagues - Starting the League:
A coach may not swap money, players or anything else between the teams that he runs. For example, he may not make a ‘special loan’ from one of his teams to another, or swap players between the teams, and so on. Note that a coach can carry out such actions between one of his teams and a team run by another coach (assuming the other coach agrees, of course!), he just can’t do it between two of his own teams.
It seems to me that a pretty wide gap is left here in the official rules for people to include trading if they wish. |
|
|
Chickenbrain
Joined: Aug 02, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 09:51 |
|
*sigh*
As poodle-man said: Where is the sense to buy. 
EBay: well, thats real money. Cheating would hurt yourself usually. And i know lots of cheated offers. Or fun bidding offers.
Logic: Who pays for the player when you put him into the transfermarket? So tons of coaches willing to sell, but noone except CHEATERS willing to buy em. |
_________________
Join Themed Blood Bowl for the joy of Themed Teams. |
|
poi66
Joined: Aug 16, 2003
|
| Posted:
Feb 27, 2004 - 10:03 |
|
Chickenbrain: I agree. In a non cheating way I can see the sense of selling a player, but not with buying.
Why can´t we sell players for the half price like we buy them, with imaginary money? To create a team you get an imaginary million to spend. Later you are sick of a player for what reason ever, you dump him for half of the price, get some imaginary money and the player disappears in a black hole. |
|
|
|
|
| |
Claw/MB
Search
