交易資訊

接受

資訊
協商開始	2020-08-03- 20:59
協商結束	2020-08-03- 21:01
限制等級	9

Iso Reapers

Jake Peralta
薪資:	6436 Eu
合約:	4 賽季	年齡:	19 歲
RT:	126	身高:	203 公分
潛力:	8
Nate Noke
薪資:	2520 Eu
合約:	1 賽季	年齡:	18 歲
RT:	99	身高:	210 公分
潛力:	7
Dale Andrews
薪資:	-
合約:	學校潛力新秀	年齡:	15 歲
RT:	44	身高:	187 公分
潛力:	8

NW Shockwave

Pinchas Alfandari
薪資:	13778 Eu
合約:	5 賽季	年齡:	20 歲
RT:	183	身高:	202 公分
潛力:	6

Reapers

交易/租借球員: Reapers & Shockwave

-- 77 賽季 1 天

球隊提出交易請求

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

球員: Jake Peralta

交易後開始在新球隊比賽 -- 77 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

球員:

交易後開始在新球隊比賽 -- 77 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

球員:

交易後開始在新球隊比賽 -- 77 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

球員:

交易後開始在新球隊比賽 -- 77 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Shockwave

交易已接受 -- 77 賽季 1 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

公平競賽委員會

這筆交易被檢舉為不公平交易，但是公平競爭委員會決定這筆交易是公平的。 -- 77 賽季 3 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

公平競賽委員會

How the Fair Play Committee members voted: 
- volunteers voted "Revert and punish": 0 
- volunteers voted "Revert": 5 
- volunteers voted "Fair": 6 
 
These reasons were chosen by the volunteers during voting: 
1 - Significantly unfair to other users (for example, when strong and cheap player is moved to lower division). 
2 - Overuse of disbalanced trades. Players' trade somehow has to benefit both teams (financially, in respect of team composition, etc). Good but expensive player can be traded to a bit worse but cheaper player. This type of trade can not be overused. 
 
2 - Other reasons. Volunteers wrote explanations: 
--- 
--- not a fair trade in terms of player quality, too much one-sided trade. 
-- 77 賽季 3 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.4 Frankebasta

Excuse me, I see that there are 11 votes.
And on the page of FPC I see there are 11 members of FPC - TOTAL.
Balotelli is among them.
Does it mean Ballotelli was _ALLOWED_ (???!!!@@@***???) to vote ON HIS OWN TRADE?
and he was the decisive vote?
ARE YOU KIDDING? -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 1.1 Mirza

Ballotelli did not vote. FPC member can't vote on own trades. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

1.1 4.5 bananajohn

frankebasta one of members left fpc -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

2.2 4.4 Frankebasta

bananajohn do you mean he left AFTER this vote? -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

I think we should reconsider going back to a trade system without any restrictions since that's how trade system works for most of the clubs. :) Let's make it fair for everyone as long it's not the same owner or friends behind 2 trading teams -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

funny to me to see sudden uproar over a trade of two 8s and a trash 7 that gets cut for a 9 where neither of the 8s will have a chance to get to the level that the 9 will be :). but whatever. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

I think it's more about all the trades that been happening. I seen some ridiculous trades that got reverted, the ones banana did, the lion(not sure if him) did and got reverted like 3 times in a row, even if it was completely logical. Only problem clubs have is different treatment which is absolutely disgraceful -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

I agree
I made some recommendations quite some time ago that would have fixed a lot of the situations that you mention and would make the FPC more consistent. My suggestions were not embraced by the community then nor the administration..
By the way, I don't recall any time that there were no restrcitons on trades. It must have been long before I started playing. that would not be the way to go, but making the restrictions the same for all, I completely agree with it. I say this and I have a 10 level. My situation is a little different than some of the other 10 level managers, my 10 wasn't due to investment in the game,.but for my commitment to developing a solid USA community and members of other communities. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

my suggestion was to revert to what was mostly the pre-fpc restrictions for all with just a couple of tweaks on restrictions.
This would still allow a lot of trading as there was a lot of trading before the FPC
it would make it easier for the FPC to analyze trades and make it more consistent (which we all want).
no restrictions would open the door to some crazy trades that would not be good for the game as you suggested. There are way too many issues with that idea, I don't want to list them,.just use your imagination some and I am sure you can come up.with some. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

anyways I don't see it changing,.even to a more consistent sensible direction. if it did, members that invested in the trade system would still need to have some considerations somewhere - they "improved" the game. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

well.their investment was intended to. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

That suggestion was ironical seeing same trades reverted or approved judging just who is the owner of the team. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

顯示隱藏回應: 19

the way it is now, it is difficult for the FPC to analyze what is "fair enough" trades.

I also would agree with God
when he mentioned that level 10 trades still need to be fair.
no restrcitons on a trade to me, doesn't mean anything goes. the restrcitons are just guidelines. the trade overall still needs to be "fair enough" with justification from both sides. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

also would add that in my experience with the FPC and in comments and reports that I have seen over the seasons, is many times complaints made have been made without looking into the trade as much as the members of the FPC regularly does. Do they at times make errors? of course.
I have also promoted an idea of creating a "trade machine" to analyze trade fairness, I was with four kings on this idea/concept. It too was shot down.
End point being, it doesn't look like it will change, so it is what it is. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

Stormtrooper

TheCoach - it's sad to say but all existing trade system is a big misunderstand. I do not see anything well working in it. But as you said, that some people invested into this update (but if you see investment data, the update was previous one, not the final version with limited trades per season) and they still needs to have benefits - there is only one possible solution to make game fair for everyone in my eyes. There should be availability to buy level 10 trade restrictions with same conditions it was bought in the past (as we have new users coming into game which had no chance to invest into that update when it was done). And present time situation is simply discriminating new users.
The other option which could make this enormous gap of trade to be reduced is to increase standard trade level to level 9. But we all know this won't happen.

Anyway it's just one of two parts which needs improvement. The other part is FPC - which is becoming only a joke in this game. No rules, no restrictions, just freedom for personal opinions and relationships. -- 77 賽季 4 天

-- (翻譯) (翻譯 EN)

交易資訊

接受

Iso Reapers

NW Shockwave

限制等級

計算方式

此限制等級的交易規則

快速指南

檢舉這則貼文