The 1.1 pick doesnt have to be more valuable than any existing player, it only needs to reflect more what that true value is along with the risk it carries. I drafted the 1.1 in L19, he lost 11 points in default during training, from a 99 to an 88, then another point so far in preseason, and now his trade value is at 1000. He is still much more valuable than a 6 yr TE with 94 default and great atts that registers over 2300 on the meter. And he is currently more valuable than my next season first round pick, which is at 700!! And it not just my own personal player values, this is standard across the game based on transaction records and trade blocks where hi value TE's sit there with no offers. There's one right now sitting on the L19 trade block, top of the list. His trade meter value? 2340 Can I trade my first round pick for him? Nope, my first rounder is only worth 700. I wouldnt trade it for a TE if it was high enough for a direct swap.

Any first round pick should be at least 1000 pts on the meter, 1.32 should not be as valuable as the 1.16, but it should not be substantially less. If the 1.1 is worth 2500, the 1.16 should be around 1600-1700, not 800 or 900 pts with the 32 pick at 1200.

This is why there is a "gold rush" for 1st round picks before their value is established for the draft, their value is so low and players can anticipate teams that are not going to finish with winning records or even dead last, making that 1st rounder more valuable. So they can easily structure a trade based on the 1st round pick being 800 pts. Whats that gonna cost em? How hard is it to put together 650 pts worth of backups or older vets with high ratings? not hard at all.

The trade value for future first round picks is higher for a perennial loser than for a perennial contender (or maybe it just takes last and/or this season into account).

I agree with what you are saying about certain positions being overvalued. And there should be more of a decline in value once a player begins their decline in ratings or reaches a certain age (depending on position), whichever comes first.

And a declining or old player shouldn't demand the same signing bonus as a similarly rated 24 year old at the same position.

As of now, I don't think QBs should be valued as highly as equally rated players at other positions. In real life, QBs are the most valuable player on the team. In MFN they aren't even close to being the most valuable.

I think JDB has mentioned working on some changes so that QBs with great skills actually play like that in the games (would be good for other positions as well). When this is implemented and is actually reflected in-game the value of QBs should rise significantly.

It's great having highly rated players (and believe me I love highly rated players), but the reality is there isn't much in-game difference between someone rated 95 and someone rated 65, regardless of position (especially if they are fast). The actual skills don't matter as much as they should. It's all random luck, with a better roster/gameplanning simply tilting the odds slightly in your favor on each "dice roll".

Yeah, feel sorry for the guys who have those super high rated TE's, usually that they inherit when they take over a team, and the TE sits there forever on top of the trade block board. And cudos for a most excellent comment and opinion posted by War Eagle in the above post regarding both the QB value vs "real life" and how the player ratings apply to game play.

Here's a good example of values being way off, one that just happened to me. Was trying to work a trade for a FS who's meter value was only 280, his default value was not much but his key attributes were terrific! Speed and coverage skills, good tackling, for those of you who are a good judge of player value, you know what Im talking about. There was also a DE he had that I was interested in with a trade meter value of 140, for a total value of 380. So I put together an offer with an LB with a tm value of 73 and a 2nd round pick. The 2 pick value was 390 for a total of 463 The meter bar is in his favor by 183 points. As is my concern, I think the pick value is much lower than it should be, but... the two players are also worth more than their trade meter value, at least double.

The result? Trade was rejected, quickly. And I got a message saying that the FS was one of the best players on his team, which I would now agree with, really, he has very good attributes.

Again, the point is that 1. player value is not anywhere near reflected in the trade meter value. and 2. Pick value most certainly isnt. Not criticizing the game at all, just posting this with the hope of seeing it improved if others agree that this is a problem. It may not be a problem to some or the majority here. I will admit that I pulled off a trade today that shocked me as far as the trade value imbalance and whether or not the person offering it really meant to offer that or what? The right thing, based on my personal views, to do was to double check and make sure
that was what he wanted to offer as he may have made a mistake or regretted making the offer after he posted it. But I clicked accept before thinking about it, snatching up the deal. Dont get me wrong here, there should be winners & losers in trading, along with break evens, but would like to have the player and pick values more closely reflect their basic true value which would make judgement errors, mistakes, and abuses less likely to happen.

So let me get this straight.

You went on a huge rant about Owners fleecing other Owners.

Then you tried to fleece this Owner?

You KNEW that Safety was much more valuable than his Trade Meter Value... but you tried to play the 'Trade Point Game' to get him. Except the Owner had the Knowledge to protect himself by recognizing that Safety was one of his best Players on his entire Team, and rejected your offer.

Is that about right?

Now, the point of this is simply to point out when an Owner sees an Opportunity, they go for it. Just as you did.

No, that is about wrong. The point of all this and my "rant" as you call it, is that the values are way off. And Im not the only one saying this, several of the other gms Ive traded with over the past 2 weeks are all saying the same thing.

A first round pick, and I dont care if its high or low in the round, should not be valued at 550 on the trade meter. A 5 year, starting CB1 or 2, with 100 speed and hi rated cover skills should not be valued at 50. A TE with high attributes should not be valued at 2400. Would you trade 2 first picks to get a 2400 rated TE? I know that I sure would not.

Most, if not all, of the problems associated with highly unbalanced trades taking place are the result of innaccurate values on the trade meter. In many cases, they are not just an innaccurate value of the player or pick, they are way, way off the mark.

You just said it was obvious that the S you were trading for was a Great Player, despite the Points not agreeing (which we've all said don't trust the Points, whether Overall or the new Draft Values, when you were calling out Trades and basing them on Players Overall Ratings)... yet you made the Trade.

You fleeced the guy.

Then on the other deal you were 'in a hurry' and accepted a trade you would 'usually have messaged to make sure they were certain' on.

In ONE Post you showed us TWO Trades in which you took, from your previous definitions on the subject, advantage over other Owners in a Trade.

Now, I'm not even saying it's wrong. I merely showed you this because it's what ALL GM's do. You see an opportunity, you take it.

If that Owner was 'second guessing' the pick 'right after clicking the button' he'd have Cancelled it already. So I'm not sure why you'd send a message to make sure he still wanted to do it "usually" even though you didn't do it this time.

I'm not arguing with you at all about the Trade Values being off... I agree. What I am saying is you gave TWO different examples of YOURSELF completing advantageous trades that shorted the other Owner. Now, I haven't seen the Trades... you could be wrong (because many of the Trades I did look over were not the horrid trades you painted them to be)... so maybe you're just being hard on yourself. But you literally said that YOU had received these sweet deals.

I mean, I can go back and Copy/Paste with Quotes your exact words... but you literally said you accepted uneven Trades. Twice. Well, clarification... that you PROPOSED an Uneven Trade that you KNEW was Uneven, for it to be Rejected by the Owner because he agreed the S was way more valuable than the Points and thus an Uneven Trade.

So you PROPOSED an Uneven Trade for the S, and Accepted an Uneven Trade from some one else in a hurry.

That's what I'm calling out.

At this point Brex, I can tell you that I have had the one trade that I thought was way in my favor and accepted it before I considered sending a message to the gm who proposed the trade to me. I have also had a gm cancel a trade as I made a mistake in sending the counter offer without knowing that I had not changed it the way I thought I had meant it to be. I told him that I understood if he wanted to accept, but it was a mistake on my part, and he graciously did not take the trade and we corrected it. The most important thing here is that I didnt use or take advantage of a dummy or dupe account. I didnt take high round picks for a 10 year or older veteran player. That's what I have a problem with, not the debate about which player is better than the other. I was surprised by a proposed trade that I thought was much more in my favor..... maybe it wasnt! or not as much, I couldnt say, will tell you how it all worked out later.

Same for the trade that I proposed, I did not know how the trade proposal would be considered, it was worth a try. Maybe I was the one who was over-valuing, depends on what your player weights are and what you value in a player/position. Guess what? A good trade meter with more accurate valuations will go a long ways to preventing mistakes and mis-evaluations, won't it?

What I dont want to do at this point is to take the focus of what is the primary cause and problem with unfair or unbalanced trades, which is the trade meter values. Pick values, especially 1, 2, and 3 picks are half or less what their true values should be. Seriously, a Round 1 pick for less than 600 on the trade meter ??? That is the primary reason that experienced players with very high winning %'s, constantly troll for those high round picks with hi rated players that are approaching the end of their careers. The trade blocks are loaded with them. They are over-valued. There is also the case of players who are major contributors to their teams and are valued at less than 100 on the meter, who should be great, hi value assets in a trade, but arent.

New players are especially vulnerable to trading a round 1, 2, or 3 pick for these aging veterans with both high defaults and a high trade meter value. That is why jdb put the 30 day restraining period on them, which is good but does not do enough to prevent them being taken advantage of. The problems with trade abuse that we have been discussing heavily over the past couple of months are solved with more accurate pick and player valuations.

Would say that is probably one of the most accurate statements about player ratings and their performance and output. Even though I have not been playing long, I have experienced what you are saying about actual skill values not having as much impact as "general" skills such as speed. Witnessed a very high default value MLB in game with 100 value skills and ratings that really was not having much if any impact. Looked at his card and saw that his speed was 48.
On the other hand, I would much rather have a player with both a high default and individual position ratings than to have one or the other. Its not the only thing to help a gm and their team "dominate" their league, but it is a significant advantage (Having 30% or more "blue chippers"). Knowing how to gameplan and utilize rules & overrides is the most important aspect to the game, followed by having superior players, especially with speed from what I have seen and experienced so far.

I had someone offer me a late first rounder for this guy https://cust12.myfootballnow.com/player/4900
Not an unfair offer but he's another one of those guys that the default rating and the trade bar undervalues, to me he's pretty much perfect for a FS and it would take a lot more than a late 1st rounder for me to move him because as we all know it can be difficult to find quality DBs. I actually drafted him in the 4th round as a project Linebacker and a season later realized his skill set was falling into that of a FS quite nicely. It's nice when you can get what ends up being a 90+ (by my weights) FS that late in the draft.

I have this player at 83 with my weights. Probably because I put more of an emphasis on discipline and run D for my safeties than you do (trying to avoid those defensive holding / pass interference calls on 3rd & 20).

This is one of the things that is great about this game. We all evaluate and value players differently, and we also use players differently. Being able to set custom weights is a great feature!

This is also one of the things that makes the trade meter ****.
Using this player as an example, who knows how the AI evaluates him? For all I know the AI considers this player 95 because they only care about speed and punish receiver for this position. Or maybe the AI sees this player as 60 because they put a lot of emphasis on B&R coverage, run D and discipline.

Because the trade value for a player is tied to the AI's perception of that player, you get some great players with very low values, and some awful players with really high values, the combination of which makes for some interesting (if not questionable) trades.

I have some players on my teams that I consider to be pretty good and contribute to my success, but the AI shows their value as less than 100. Some of these players I wouldn't give up for a 2nd, maybe even a 1st, but the AI would move them for a case of beer.

We need to go back to using our own weights when evaluating a trade.

Can someone find a way to abuse that? Sure. But they can abuse the current system too. I can offer up a trade right now involving some scrub that I know the AI will love but actually isn't any good and get much more in return than he is worth (at least to me).

The trade window should show:

Your rating for each player.
The AI default rating for each player.

Your trade value for each player.
The AI default trade value for each player.

Trade meter based on your weights.
Trade meter based on AI default weights.

I guess trade value for picks would remain the same since it's not based on anything in MFN anyway.