[MadMACS]

I'm not sure that I agree with "cancelling" trading below a certain point, but perhaps at a certain point, the other player(s) should have an option to intervene.

For example, I have 2 whites, and two other players each have 1 white.
For whatever reason, p2 wants to trade the white to p3 for 700.
I should have the option to intervene and give 730 for the white...
ie it should be auctioned.

Otherwise, it becomes a little too much like "teaming" in my mind.
And I've definitely seen that happen before where trades happen "around" me so that I end up being the first person to bankrupt.

[mark]

this idea is insane! then every one will pay too much for extracts n black! they will be too rich by the time ppl begin to trade

[tamir]

[Popovitsj]

I don't like the idea. At +20 there can be made a lot of profit on sets still. Green for example, can easily be very profitable if it's upgraded no earlier than at -250

[tamir]

Why this is needed?

Lets say you're playing a five player game and your player A.

Money at START is approaching 50 (almost receason).
Player B owns 2 greens and a bunch of other properties.
Player C owns the third green only. (He got the most cash in the game: lets say $9000)
Forget about Players D and E now.

Player B is willing to trade his two greens to Player C for $2000-$3000 which in reality is a fair trade.
But no matter what, Player C will still have a bunch of money left over and fully upgraded green. He will surely win the game.

Thus, limiting trading at some point in the game when Start is approaching receason or even 100, provides a balanced game for everyone or players like you, D, and E who spended their cash on other random properties on the board.
_________________
Human population of the world today: 6.5 billion.
Population today's 6.5 billion people in 120 years: most likely 0.
Like it or not, your grave is awaiting you.
Make your statement before its late! Like here in GM!