Game Rules 2015 SC Proposed Changes

Status
Not open for further replies.

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ex President

Team Captain
Jun 27, 2008
548
333
Melbourne
AFL Club
Essendon
Wouldn't unlimited trades mean you can completely overhaul your team?
No - if you've used 20 trades during the season, you have 10 for finals, which you can then use as you see fit. eg. you might make 5 trades in the first week of finals, none in the 2nd week, 1 in the 3rd week and then 4 in the GF.

Having that added flexibility only for finals would be a good change IMO.
 

Pocket Aces

Club Legend
Mar 4, 2009
1,755
371
Crown Poker Room
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Bushrangers, Man U, Denver Broncos
I would like to see emergencies removed and your best 6 defenders, 8 midfielders, 6 forwards and 2 rucks count.

Also if 1/3rd of teams have a bye then your best 15 count which is a 1/3rd reduction as well.

1 trade a week only that can be banked for future use if required. So theoretically you can use 23 trades in round 23.

No to the VC option as then you need a deputy vice captain to cover a donut, this was the reason the VC was bought in for in the first place.
 

bananatigz

Norm Smith Medallist
Apr 26, 2012
5,012
13,083
AFL Club
Richmond
No real changes, being able to use your trades in finals with no restrictions is a good call though.

Change the interface though, was so clunky and cumbersome this year, much preferred the one from seasons before
 

Suns of Anarchy

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 7, 2013
6,166
12,485
AFL Club
Gold Coast
Other Teams
Rams, 76's, Brewers
1. Change it to 25 scoring players - but only your top 22 scorers are counted toward your score.
This will help contend with the sub issue and late withdrawals. Also allows us to keep trades at 24.

2. The end of a close game scoring is utterly ridiculous too. A player that has no impact on a game in 118 minutes shouldn't be rewarded for 5 minutes or one play.
i.e Zac O'Brien came on as sub v Carlton. He got a free kick, Carlton gave away a 50 and put him in the goal square for a gimme. He scored 67 points for that one play!
JPK subbed off with 18. By the end of the game he's on 39. Hmmmm call me cynical.
 

TheOz

Brownlow Medallist
Jun 29, 2008
22,480
31,146
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Token American sports team
1. Change it to 25 scoring players - but only your top 22 scorers are counted toward your score.
This will help contend with the sub issue and late withdrawals. Also allows us to keep trades at 24.

2. The end of a close game scoring is utterly ridiculous too. A player that has no impact on a game in 118 minutes shouldn't be rewarded for 5 minutes or one play.
i.e Zac O'Brien came on as sub v Carlton. He got a free kick, Carlton gave away a 50 and put him in the goal square for a gimme. He scored 67 points for that one play!
JPK subbed off with 18. By the end of the game he's on 39. Hmmmm call me cynical.
It's got to do with scaling, points are not distributed evenly across the four quarters rather they are scaled relative to how close the game is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Daniels

Premiership Player
Apr 17, 2008
3,793
2,050
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
New Orleans Saints
You must be joking, Max King shone like a diamond for me this year.
Ehhhh. No jokes. I know it's perfect for constant loophole option, but you are kidding yourself if you think you can maintain a full playing bench either way. In long run I would prefer another MID cow option!
 

Jiska

Moderator
Feb 24, 2013
26,479
33,901
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Storm
Once finals start, unlimited amount of trades you have remaining.

ie: go into finals with 6 trades, cluster fu*k of injuries like this year and 5 dounuts, can do 5 trades if you want. just ridiculous that you manage you list all year, then come finals your team gets deciamted and you have trades you cant use.
You can't have managed your team all that well if you've got more trades left than you can use.

Would have a massive affect on overall standings too.
 

Feerits Elf

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 28, 2008
8,243
13,757
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
St Kilda
You can't have managed your team all that well if you've got more trades left than you can use.
He means trades left that you can't use in that particular week (e.g. go into Round 21 with six trades left, have five donuts to cover, but only be permitted to use two that week).

Still not a good idea though.
 

hoddo

Premiership Player
Mar 13, 2005
4,456
5,043
Geelong
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Chelsea, Oakland Raiders, Celtics
I'd like to see changes that put a bigger emphasis on getting your team right from the outset. Those who had the forsight to include players who have a breakout year should be properly rewarded for it, whereas now all they gain is a week or two with those players before everyone else trades them in.
The problem is, how do you do it? Doing away with trades completely is the obvious way, but that would take the team building element out of the game and I'm sure no one would want that. A balance needs to be found between making it necessary to identify the best players from the start and still being able to build your team through trades and price changes.

The other problem that needs to be addressed is that of donuts, whether they be throughout the year or at finals time. Real teams don't take the field with less than 22 players and neither should SuperCoach teams.

I'd really like to see the following setup implemented. I think it would work well.

(1)
To do away with donuts each SuperCoach team should have an extra 10 players, giving it a total of 40 players which is the same size as most real life senior lists. This could be made up as follows:

6 starting defenders (5 reserve defenders)
8 starting midfielders (6 reserve midfielders)
2 starting rucks (2 reserve rucks)
6 starting forwards (5 reserve forwards)

The cost of each player could be scaled down so that the extra players can fit into the $10mill salary cap without making the initial starting 22 any weaker than at present. This will make it easier to start with the best rookies, but that will be offset by my proposed changes in part 2.

(2)
In order to put far more emphasis on identifying the right players prior to round one, I would suggest allowing a maximum of 2 trades per round for each round of the season, which will allow for team building, but offsetting that by requiring everyone to also nominate their own "trade pool" before round one. That means that as well as selecting your initial squad of 40 players, you select a further list of say 50 players from which you can choose your trade ins during the season.

The trade pool list could be made up of any players not already in your squad regardless of price or position, but the skill will be in not only identifying the best possible players, but also having the right mix of positions and prices to allow you to make the best trades as the season unfolds, remembering you have to trade down as well as up. If you trade a player out he goes into your trade pool and you can trade him back in later if you wish, but if a player isn't in your initial squad or your trade pool you can't possibly get that player.

With these changes we might actually see substantially different teams come the end of the season instead of the vanilla ones we have now.

I doubt major changes will be made though because those who run the game want to dumb it down so that those who don't do the initial work to get their team right can still compete throughout the season .... a bit like having an unnecessary final 8 in the real comp so mediocre teams still have something to play for late in the season.
 

Feerits Elf

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 28, 2008
8,243
13,757
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
St Kilda
I'd like to see changes that put a bigger emphasis on getting your team right from the outset. Those who had the forsight to include players who have a breakout year should be properly rewarded for it, whereas now all they gain is a week or two with those players before everyone else trades them in.
They already are rewarded for it - they don't need to use any trades to get those players into their team, plus they get the benefit of those players' scores before everyone else trades them in, plus they get them at a reasonable price. What more do you want? It is a trading game after all.

A balance needs to be found between making it necessary to identify the best players from the start and still being able to build your team through trades and price changes..
I think that balance is pretty good as the game stands now TBH.
 

hoddo

Premiership Player
Mar 13, 2005
4,456
5,043
Geelong
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Chelsea, Oakland Raiders, Celtics
They already are rewarded for it - they don't need to use any trades to get those players into their team, plus they get the benefit of those players' scores before everyone else trades them in, plus they get them at a reasonable price. What more do you want? It is a trading game after all.
I think that balance is pretty good as the game stands now TBH.
No, these sports fantasy games are games of skill based on putting together the best possible team. The trading component, which SuperCoach brought over from DreamTeam, was added to DreamTeam and gradually increased to keep the interest of those who stuff up their initial team for whatever reason. It's a great addition, but it's a secondary one.

What more do I want? More equity. Those who had the foresight to include players like for example Swallow or Parker, (I didn't btw), deserved more than just a saved trade and as little as a single week's score. I don't believe the balance is right, but we're all entitled to our own opinion.
 

Feerits Elf

Norm Smith Medallist
Mar 28, 2008
8,243
13,757
Maribyrnong
AFL Club
St Kilda
No, these sports fantasy games are games of skill based on putting together the best possible team. The trading component, which SuperCoach brought over from DreamTeam, was added to DreamTeam and gradually increased to keep the interest of those who stuff up their initial team for whatever reason. It's a great addition, but it's a secondary one.
Funny, I seem to recall being able to trade players when playing Ron Barassi's Supercoach in 1997.

I don't have any issue with coaches who pick breakout players from the start not being entitled to their exclusive benefit for anything more than a week at the least. If they're good enough coaches then while everyone else is scrambling to get those players into their teams, they'll be making trades to improve their teams in other areas or holding them to use when the time is right. That's the advantage they carry over the rest.
 

GUMBLETRON

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 1, 2008
12,754
13,121
NASA
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Coburg
All first-year players priced according to draft order, from #1 in the ND at about $350k down to the last-picked rookie at $100k.
 

dylan123

Norm Smith Medallist
Jul 3, 2008
7,473
4,304
AFL Club
Adelaide
What more do I want? More equity. Those who had the foresight to include players like for example Swallow or Parker, (I didn't btw), deserved more than just a saved trade and as little as a single week's score. I don't believe the balance is right, but we're all entitled to our own opinion.
I think back when it was 20 trades a year you were rewarded far more for your initial side because their value was so much higher meaning anyone that had to blow a couple of trades early to grab the guys they missed out on would feel it late in the season when these few trades were used to better improve a starting side/donuts. With byes 20 trades isn't enough, but 24 which was brought in during the first set of byes was a decent number.

With 30 trades it devalues the starting picks more imo but it pleases the masses having more trades to burn.

Those that play the game 'seriously' for overall rank are the minority which is why it won't ever reverse back to fewer trades (at least I don't believe it will) and why we've seen other games do a complete flip such as AFL Fantasy with 2 trades a week to keep the masses active every week.
 

writeoff

All Australian
Aug 12, 2006
692
217
Somewhere in time
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Socceroos, Adelaide United, Barca
Get rid of the rolling lockout so I can relax after the Friday lockout and enjoy my weekends rather than having to check Twitter, afl.com.au etc for late changes and injuries.
It's difficult to have a life on the weekends AND play SC seriously.

Give a prize for the number one ranked league at the end of the season. $3,600+ ($200 per team captain) should cover it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom