Press conference
2.2
Trade/Lending players:
Team made a trade offer
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
88 S
4 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
88 S
4 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
88 S
4 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
88 S
4 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Started to play in a new team after a trade
--
88 S
4 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
This trade was reported as unfair. However, the Fair play committee decided that this trade is fair.
--
88 S
11 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
How the Fair Play Committee members voted:<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 4<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 5<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
2 - Suspicion that trade’s goal is to help one of the teams<br />
1 - Salary drop (one or more useful players are exchanged for useless player(s) with the only goal to reduce salaries)<br />
<br />
1 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: <br />
--- unfair trade for competition. Level 10 restrictions does not provide a chance to do whatever trade users decide.<br />
-- 88 S 11 d.
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0<br />
- volunteers voted "Revert": 4<br />
- volunteers voted "Fair": 5<br />
<br />
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting:<br />
2 - Suspicion that trade’s goal is to help one of the teams<br />
1 - Salary drop (one or more useful players are exchanged for useless player(s) with the only goal to reduce salaries)<br />
<br />
1 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: <br />
--- unfair trade for competition. Level 10 restrictions does not provide a chance to do whatever trade users decide.<br />
-- 88 S 11 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
The voted results shocked me, maybe some the FPC members should have to improve their abilities in my opinion.
My goal in this deal is to get TOP players. Does anyone know how many 14-15 yr with 10 pot players have been scouted in the past few seasons? That's the value of this 10 pot player . RUN is trade for combat player and long term player.
One voted "Salary drop" ,I don't understand it very well. Lei is power player with good health for WL1.1. Both Han and Zuo is 24 yr loaned player. And their weekly salaries are very low.
Level 10 has a big advantage in the trade, but that's no reason to voted for unfair trade. -- 88 S 12 d.
My goal in this deal is to get TOP players. Does anyone know how many 14-15 yr with 10 pot players have been scouted in the past few seasons? That's the value of this 10 pot player . RUN is trade for combat player and long term player.
One voted "Salary drop" ,I don't understand it very well. Lei is power player with good health for WL1.1. Both Han and Zuo is 24 yr loaned player. And their weekly salaries are very low.
Level 10 has a big advantage in the trade, but that's no reason to voted for unfair trade. -- 88 S 12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
1.1
Even if the value for a 15 yo Pot10 player is accordingly high, how many users in the game do you think could make that exact trade?
Right. Almost nobody.
You give away 57092 Eu salary and take in 0 Eu.
That alone defies any logic for me.
In addition, such a trade shifts any balance in the lower leagues, if there are players who actually do not belong there.
You are shocked by the result of the vote.
I am shocked that the trade was not revoked.
That's how different the opinions are!
Quote from a FPC member: "Level 10 restrictions does not provide a chance to do whatever trade users decide."
In my opinion, this is absolutely the case here. -- 88 S 12 d.
Right. Almost nobody.
You give away 57092 Eu salary and take in 0 Eu.
That alone defies any logic for me.
In addition, such a trade shifts any balance in the lower leagues, if there are players who actually do not belong there.
You are shocked by the result of the vote.
I am shocked that the trade was not revoked.
That's how different the opinions are!
Quote from a FPC member: "Level 10 restrictions does not provide a chance to do whatever trade users decide."
In my opinion, this is absolutely the case here. -- 88 S 12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+2
What's problem i trading excellent 10 potential players for instant player, we accord with level 10 trade rules, unequal salary is allowed between two teams, There is no problem as long as there is equality of value between us players
--
88 S
12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
In your opinion, if the transaction is based on salary and not value, then you want game developers not to open up level 10 transactions
--
88 S
12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
Lipinski You're wrong, this is not the first time such a deal has been made.There will be more and more level 10 users in the future. In case you didn't know, most users were able to improve their restrictions' level for credits from last season.I don't want to say anything more about the salary. Suggest that you give your opinion to the administrator. On a side note, when I first saw a similar level 10 deal, I went to report it just like you did. Later in the last season when I went to Upgrade to level 10.
The purpose of the trade is not to keep the league balanced. -- 88 S 12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+0
I got your point. I'm not holding you personally responsible either.
Unfortunately, it's just that with the recent changes to the Trade Restriction Rules (Upgrades via Credits spent), it's becoming more and more pay-to-win.
That is a great pity.
Unfortunately, the game administration will not be dissuaded from their plans by my opinion. -- 88 S 12 d.
Unfortunately, it's just that with the recent changes to the Trade Restriction Rules (Upgrades via Credits spent), it's becoming more and more pay-to-win.
That is a great pity.
Unfortunately, the game administration will not be dissuaded from their plans by my opinion. -- 88 S 12 d.
--
(Translate)
(Translate EN)
+3