rocker_oz33
TheBrownDog
Plus Bartel.
I dont think there will be many def/mids maybe NDS,Kelly,Simpson Unsure on Bsmith I prob forgot a few names.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
2015 SC Proposed Changes
- Thread starter Ex President
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I dont think there will be many def/mids maybe NDS,Kelly,Simpson Unsure on Bsmith I prob forgot a few names.
- Jun 29, 2008
- 22,480
- 31,842
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Token American sports team
- Banned
- #78
Bartel could be M/F next year.
- Thread starter
- #79
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.
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.
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.
- Apr 26, 2012
- 5,119
- 13,836
- 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
Change the interface though, was so clunky and cumbersome this year, much preferred the one from seasons before
- Aug 7, 2013
- 7,938
- 17,011
- 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.
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.
- Jun 29, 2008
- 22,480
- 31,842
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Token American sports team
- Banned
- #83
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.
Sack R4 and have another EMG in MID. M11 looks good!
You must be joking, Max King shone like a diamond for me this year.
Hoges64
Premium Platinum
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2024
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2024
Veteran
Cake Connoisseur
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2023
Western Bulldogs - Ed Richards Player Sponsor 2023
Western Bulldogs - Nathan Mullenger-McHugh Player Sponsor 2017
Western Bulldogs - Bailey Dale Player Sponsor 2017
Yep, Archie Smith knew his role in the side too and performed exceptionally well when called upon.
You mean you guys weren't on the Liam McBean train in 2014? Wild ride!
GOAUS!
Norm Smith Medallist
- Apr 20, 2010
- 9,782
- 7,519
- AFL Club
- Western Bulldogs
Liam McBean is so 2013. 2014 was all about the Currie King combo.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kadog
Brownlow Kentallist
- Feb 16, 2013
- 17,853
- 43,298
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Liverpool Detroit Lions
Sorry bud but that is a dumbass idea. Who the f would pay $350k for a rookie straight up??
- Aug 12, 2006
- 692
- 219
- 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.
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
Similar threads
- Locked
