NEW DT / FANTASY RULES

Oct 14, 2011
66,409
111,579
AFL Club
Richmond
Just came to this. Simple and brilliant. Infact the best idea for DT/Fantasy ever.

Teams field their whole squad of 30 each week.
Only 22 players make up the team's weekly score - as happens currently.

**NO EMERGENCIES** Make it so none are able to be set at all.

Weekly score is made up of teams BEST scoring
6 Defenders
8 Midfielders
2 Rucks
6 Forwards

With the 2 lowest scores in each position counting for nothing. It's that simple.


Main effect:
Late outs and green vests become almost irrelevant as it won't impact a team's score unless they have more than 2 vested or out in 1 position - hardly ever happens. Let's face it, DT is not about vests and late outs and it's something we shouldn't even have to spend time considering! We have no control over it at all so it should NOT impact scoring like it currently does. Too much luck involved the way things are now. How does it make you feel that so many people with crap teams are ranked higher than you simply because of LUCK? Take a look at all of the sub-par teams at the top of the rankings. It's clear that most have had great LUCK avoiding late outs/ green vests and with their bench.

My friends, I've just seen the light and let me tell you we've been playing a bad format this whole time. It should have been this way right from the start.

What i'm proposing takes luck out of the equation completely and your team is scored by its true strength, making the game entirely about SKILL, as it should be.

The quicker Virtual Sports and FanHub adopt my idea the better.
 
Taking out the luck factor then you may as well remove the Captain and Vice Captain and just have the highest scoring player get double points???? Because that is as much luck on who turns up on the day.

.......There is luck but it also adds skill and trading with DPP, having bench cover, etc. I personally would prefer the emergencies.
 
Oct 14, 2011
66,409
111,579
AFL Club
Richmond
It's something that AF will probably bring in seeing as they love making the game easier for those who casually play.


I'm the most hardcore player and I don't want to make things easier for the "casual" players. I think you're looking at this backwards as this will make it HARDER for the casual players. Currently they have the luck factor to assist them in beating better teams and to climb the rankings. I'm proposing to get rid of the luck factor so it's more difficult for the casual player. This is a move towards skill.

The more skilled players will have a better squad of 30 to make up their best scoring 22.
 
I'm the most hardcore player and I don't want to make things easier for the "casual" players. I think you're looking at this backwards as this will make it HARDER for the casual players. Currently they have the luck factor to assist them in beating better teams

So correctly choosing rookies to purchase to cover as an emergency is luck?

Having DPP players so that you can trade to cover injuries is luck?

Making you choose between the rookies or selecting multiple rookies in one position is luck?

If you have a couple of late outs, that is bad luck but everyone is in the same boat. The way it is now you still need 30 players but there is more skill to it.

Next people will say get rid of the buy rounds because people dont want to plane for them.

haha sorry I am having a bit of a rant but I dont like it.
 
Oct 14, 2011
66,409
111,579
AFL Club
Richmond
So correctly choosing rookies to purchase to cover as an emergency is luck?

Having DPP players so that you can trade to cover injuries is luck?

Making you choose between the rookies or selecting multiple rookies in one position is luck?

If you have a couple of late outs, that is bad luck but everyone is in the same boat. The way it is now you still need 30 players but there is more skill to it.

Next people will say get rid of the buy rounds because people dont want to plane for them.

haha sorry I am having a bit of a rant but I dont like it.

Sorry, I don't get it. Or I don't know if you understand the idea completely.

Most of the things you mention would still be involved across DT and Fantasy. You would still need to cover for injuries, still need to have dpp strategies and choose the right rookies in the right positions and also just generally not suck. Why would all those things suddenly be omitted this way? Don't forget everyone plays by the same rules so you'd need to keep up these things just to be competitive.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2011
6,166
7,090
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Leeds United
A big part of DT/Fantasy, particularly early on in the season, is being able to make the right calls on which players (invariably rookies) to play on the field and which to bench. I normally have 5-7 spots up for grabs on the field for these players in the first month at least and it takes skill in deciding who gets benched. Your idea would more than likely remove all this as everyone would get the same high scoring rookies (because, let's face it, there aren't a massive amount of viable rookies to choose from early on).
 
Oct 14, 2011
66,409
111,579
AFL Club
Richmond
everyone would get the same high scoring rookies (because, let's face it, there aren't a massive amount of viable rookies to choose from early on).


Are you saying that as it currently stands people don't jump on most of the same high scoring rookies? What game are you playing? If you play DT or Fantasy surely you'd see that most teams started off with the same rookies who should score best/ have best job security (polec, tyson, langdon etc).

I'm confused lol. The last part of what you said shows you understand why things are currently this way.... the fact that there aren't a massive amount of viable rookies to choose from early on. People jump on whichever rooks they think will score the best / have best job security, and because there isn't a lot to choose from most teams have the same ones. That happens now and would still happen across fantasy football no matter what the rules are so again not sure what you mean by saying these rules will make everyone get the same high scoring rooks.... as it's already happend since the start of dreamteam in like 2002.

Anyway it comes down to when and how you trade those rooks that separates the men from the boys. That's 100% skill.

Which rookies to bench and which rookies to play is more luck than skill. Nobody knows what a good rookie is likely to come out and score. The #1 rookie is as likely to score a 50 as he is a 100. If a rook scores 100 in round 1 you're going to start him on the field in round 2. Where's the skill in that? I know that's all part of the game whether it be luck or skill.. but with the new rules you'll still need these good rooks and you're still going to be gunning for them to do well so not that much changes.

The idea proposed removes most of the luck involved whilst removing a minute amount of the skill. The "skill" it removes - whether you play the highest averaging rook, or the rook coming up against an easy team. I'm happy to trade that in favor of scoring teams in a more accurate way as the bit of skill that will be removed currently comes down to mostly luck as it currently stands.
 
Last edited:
Aug 14, 2009
1,513
680
Port Kennedy
AFL Club
West Coast
These rule changes would even further destroy the mid pricers. They already are massive risk selections.

This way you may as well take an extra premium and extra rookie as you can risk starting 2 or 3 rookies out of 5 because at least a couple of them should do well and you remove the fails.

Having to pick the rookie you put on field makes it harder and you want to minimise the amount of rookies you are forced to start that could fail
 
Apr 18, 2012
2,960
1,465
AFL Club
Adelaide
Interesting to hear new ideas, but don't think I'm keen for this one if I'm understanding it correctly.

We need increased differential between teams, with this we'd end up too similar and many on the same round score. If some of this is luck-based - so be it, variety is very important (it's the main reason I'm shying away from 2 trades per round although I enjoy it - it means less variety)
 

VSTone

Brownlow Medallist
Jul 17, 2010
16,264
15,415
AFL Club
Adelaide
do away with price all together and pick 18 new players each week... and 4 emergencies
like an expanded match day... pretty much DT died in 2014 for me
 
Oct 14, 2011
66,409
111,579
AFL Club
Richmond
do away with price all together and pick 18 new players each week... and 4 emergencies
like an expanded match day... pretty much DT died in 2014 for me

Don't play it then. DT dieing is not not the experience i had this year.

Big difference between 2 trades a week and "18 new players" a week, as you say sarcastically.
 
Apr 18, 2012
2,960
1,465
AFL Club
Adelaide
do away with price all together and pick 18 new players each week... and 4 emergencies
like an expanded match day... pretty much DT died in 2014 for me

Should give Fantasy Punt a try. Good fun and I've made about $300.

DT definitely isn't dying. It's a shame some people feel like that. The main fantasy website should be much improved next year and if you don't like the format there's others with limited trades you can play.
 
Keep RDT as it is, reduce Fantasy trades as 2 per week is too much. By the end of the year most games I looked at were decided by 5-10 unique players.

The solution is a permanent rolling lockout, that way if you have access to change your team when a player is a late out you could potentially save yourself
 

Fitzey

Painting The Town Red
Jun 2, 2011
11,061
8,392
Tas
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Gold City Royals
I think this needs to be considered: Have a total pool of 40 trades for the year but you can use as many as you want per week as long as you do not go over the 40?
 
The solution is a permanent rolling lockout, that way if you have access to change your team when a player is a late out you could potentially save yourself

That is a horrible idea. I left supercoach (The game I played seriously as opposed to dreamteam) because of it. I dont want to spend the whole weekend changing emergencies, captains, vice captains and missing out on life.

Honestly if this happens I wont play next year. I have time for forums/dream team during the week (sporadically on weekends) but i am personally not going to play a game where you need to dedicate your whole weekend.

It should be about checking scores occasionally and venting.

I guess thats just me. others might agree but.......
 
Sep 24, 2010
7,310
8,057
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Phili Eagles + Sixers
If it wasn't for the stupid loophole setup I would be all for rolling lockout. Teams are announced 90 minutes before each game and there is Facebook and Twitter accounts that you can get updates on the late changes from. It doesn't take much to check Facebook in the 90 minutes before a game starts.

Teams are making more and more late changes. It's almost getting to a stage where DT has to make a change. Rolling lockout would also reward a solid bench/DPP setup towards the end of the season.

I'm also interested to see if either comp tries to counter these massive late season restings we have seen this year.
 
Apr 18, 2012
2,960
1,465
AFL Club
Adelaide
Oh and Fantasy Punt ruined itself with their unlimited salary cap. It went from requiring skill in picking midpricers/under valued players to just picking the best and relying on luck more than anything.


Yeah it's not as fun. Played it way less this year but still done pretty well.

If it wasn't for the stupid loophole setup I would be all for rolling lockout. Teams are announced 90 minutes before each game and there is Facebook and Twitter accounts that you can get updates on the late changes from. It doesn't take much to check Facebook in the 90 minutes before a game starts.
r.

It's still a pain in the arse. Lots of people can't get on to check teams before every single game...the people that are able to gain a significant advantage. I like locking in my trades Friday night and then I'm done for the weekend, I can check my scores when I want after that and nothing will change. It's so easy to mess things up with rolling lockout, and that's far more frustrating than a late out. If you've had disasters this year learn from it and have better bench cover in 2015.
 
Last edited:
Sep 24, 2010
7,310
8,057
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Phili Eagles + Sixers
I had Wingard at F7, Masten at M9 and using DPP with I could cover an out on any line with those 2. My depth was fine and I still got hammered. With a rolling lockout I would have been benefitted by my good depth setup but the lack of rolling lockout reduced the reward for planning ahead.

I don't think we are going to agree on a rule setup as you are probably after a ruleset more suited to the casual DTer whilst I'm in the view that the more competitive the better.
 

warnie

All Australian
Jun 25, 2007
774
67
DT Talk
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Warne Dawgs (DT)
Keep RDT as it is, reduce Fantasy trades as 2 per week is too much. By the end of the year most games I looked at were decided by 5-10 unique players.

The solution is a permanent rolling lockout, that way if you have access to change your team when a player is a late out you could potentially save yourself

Two trades per week will stay. I would say that there were basically the same amount of uniques with RDT v AFL Fantasy Classic. No correlation between the 30 trades or the two trades per week. In fact, two trades per week probably increased/created differentiation in the last few weeks.
 

dylan123

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2008
8,691
6,559
AFL Club
Adelaide
Two trades per week will stay. I would say that there were basically the same amount of uniques with RDT v AFL Fantasy Classic. No correlation between the 30 trades or the two trades per week. In fact, two trades per week probably increased/created differentiation in the last few weeks.
Having played the the 2 trades a week style for two seasons now I don't feel as if it's any more/less unique than RDT.

I think my issue is that if you fall behind the 8 ball in Fantasy, it seems to be a hell of a lot harder to catch up. Started poorly last year and was basically a step behind the best for the rest of the season since everyone was permitted with 2 trades a week meaning that previous aspect of the game that I could have used to catch up on those ahead was gone. The old system/RDT at least has a limited supply of trades which in turn leads to it being more possible to gain/drop ranks imo (for the first time in a few years we would have seen massive changes at the end of this season for anyone that still had trades in hand). Obviously no way to prove that, just how I feel after two very different seasons of the 2 trades a week, one side being terrible and the other being strong from the get go.

Do hope the rolling lockout never comes in, and if it does, it's done in a way that there's no possibility for loop-holing scores.
 
One thing I was thinking that could be good but keep the same rules as last year. The only change:

1. Rather then fielding 22, field 21 but still keep the 8 reserves
2. You can select the same amount of reserves as last year and there role is the same, replacing non playing players.
3. Then, have 1 sub. The sub can be a player of any position. At the end of the round, the sub will replace the lowest score of any on field player regardless of position (if the sub scores higher then the lowest scoring player).
4. The sub is not a reserve, so if one player misses the reserve will take the non-playing players place, however if the emergency is the lowest scorer (or is a donut), Rule 3 will be abided.
5. The 1 less player on the field has to be in the mids

Therefore every week you will only have 21 scoring players. I think this would mimic the current AFL system, provide a little bit of extra cover for DT'ers (only having 21 scorers as opposed to 22) and not affect the lockout (like i said I was a supercoach player until the lockout rules.)
 
Last edited:
Back