Desired SuperCoach Improvements

[Ed_Gein]

supercoach idea.

came up with an idea, although most likely a shitty one.

you get the norm of 8 emergencies, but instead of being restricted to 2 from each line, you can select 8 players from any position you want. that way, you could probably do away with finding a 4th ruck that's going to play and get another player from a different position.

could be a strategy in selecting rookies in itself. can load up on 5 mid emergencies that will most likely make the most cash, but at the expense of only having 1 emergency that can play in defense, ruck and forward etc...

or would this make it a bit too easy if you had quite a few mpp players that you could switch between lines quite easily as opposed to the current system of having to have an mpp player in each line before being able to switch?

 

[Outside Sledge]

Re: supercoach idea.

It's certainly got merit especially in years like this when quality rookies are thin on the ground....and it would have saved me from having a starting midfield of Ablett and 7 rookies. The 4th ruck does seem to be a waste, maybe just make that player flexible ie::1 utility rookie.

 

[mrmatt]

Re: supercoach idea.

I think the squad balance in SC is supposed to closely represent an actual squad - I can handle the 4th ruck as everyone is in the same boat - ruck strategy was/is a pretty interesting factor this year.

But what annoys me is the VM (or whoever creates SC functionality) has decided to represent the 3 emergencies actual AFL in the manner they have in the fantasy game. To me it's a massive annoyance that even if you have depth on all four lines - you cannot use that depth to your advantage (ie you can only pick E's on 3 lines). So most weeks (barring lack of options etc) you don't name a ruck E. This is just a red tape kind of situation that really adds nothing positive to the fantasy game and doesn't reward player with team depth - in fact it hurts them the most.

I think for the sake of squads and positioning you really need the current situation where the bench players are spread across the lines but I think there should be a reworking of the Emergency rule where you could name your 3 E's from any line to cover any position, give them a rank and should you cop a donut your emerg no1 will substitute etc, etc. This is what happens in the real game after all - if you a team plays interstate they usually take one travelling emergency who is the option to replace any unforeseen pre-game injury (they don't not field someone to replace a ruck because they are not a ruck and play 1 player short!)

I see that this may be open to abuse - ie not naming a second ruck and having a 7th mid as priority 1 emerg. So maybe it needs some workshopping - but surely the result would be better than the current arrangement

 

[Zim^zuM]

Re: supercoach idea.

I think the only change theire should be is you can pick 1 EMG from each line on game day. It's not like an AFL club starts a man down because they didn't include a ruck as an EMG

 

[SJ]

Re: supercoach idea.

In at least the first year of SuperCoach (2006) you were able to use emergencies from any line to cover holes on any other line.

Most people used it as an opportunity to get another midfield 'onto' the ground.

 

[Lets Roar like '44]

Id like to see the Vice Captain score 1.5 times his score.

A scenario would be like this:

Captain plays- gets 2x (like normal)
Vice Captain plays- gets 1.5x

Captain doesn't play:
Vice captain scores 2x (like normal)
Emergency will now score 1.5x

Vice Captain doesn't play:
Captain scores 2x (like normal)
Emergency will now score 1.5x

Something like this. I just think it makes more variety in teams and requires a little more thinking. Instead of everyone just going Ablett and everyone scoring the same, picking the right VC could mean the difference.

 

[Jbomb967]

A variation to the above re the VC being worth 1.5x, is that if either your C or VC don't play, they get replaced by an emergency (if selected) but just get normal points... I don't like the idea of an emergency getting 1.5x or 2x if either C or VC don't play... It doesn't reward the safer choices in what should be still a risk reward scenario...

 

[Outside Sledge]

Id like to see the Vice Captain score 1.5 times his score.

A scenario would be like this:

Captain plays- gets 2x (like normal)
Vice Captain plays- gets 1.5x

Captain doesn't play:
Vice captain scores 2x (like normal)
Emergency will now score 1.5x

Vice Captain doesn't play:
Captain scores 2x (like normal)
Emergency will now score 1.5x

Something like this. I just think it makes more variety in teams and requires a little more thinking. Instead of everyone just going Ablett and everyone scoring the same, picking the right VC could mean the difference.

I floated this idea a while back on this forum to general derision so I don't think there is going to be much support.
For the record, I love the idea.

 

[shaun1800]

These have probably been mentioned but:

1) A reverse trade option on the iPhone app. This got me in big trouble in round 2 and I can't understand why they it wouldn't be incorporated.

2) The ability to select 4 emergencies

 

[MightyMark]

These have probably been mentioned but:

1) A reverse trade option on the iPhone app. This got me in big trouble in round 2 and I can't understand why they it wouldn't be incorporated.

2) The ability to select 4 emergencies

I agree, I cant understand why they wouldnt make this option available, it cant be that hard to include.

 

[1989]

Let you have a League team and an Overall team. It's fun and rewarding to play SuperCoach both ways, but impossible at the moment.

I like to play for overall ranking, but nobody else in my league cares about it, so you run the (huge) risk of limping into the finals and getting eliminated. Very frustrating.

 

[MightyMark]

Let you have a League team and an Overall team. It's fun and rewarding to play SuperCoach both ways, but impossible at the moment.

I like to play for overall ranking, but nobody else in my league cares about it, so you run the (huge) risk of limping into the finals and getting eliminated. Very frustrating.

I play the same way, and none of my mates care about overall.

My whole philosophy about it is that if I do well overall it should translate to some descent league results as well.

All comes down to luck anyways, every year I get beaten by some shit team that flukes a win with complete random players all pooling together in the same week to get their one and only 100+ score for the year. You can’t fight it, it's inevitable.

 

[Daniels]

All comes down to luck anyways, every year I get beaten by some shit team that flukes a win with complete random players all pooling together in the same week to get their one and only 100+ score for the year. You can’t fight it, it's inevitable.

League games in a nutshell

 

[nabmeg]

would like to make subs in between matches, only for players who are yet to play

so if you get a spud scoring 17, and have two players on the bench yet to play, you could end up getting a better score. would be fun gambling prems scoring 40 and subbing rookies in their place hoping to get a better score. would imagine to help with injuries and subs giving lower scores

 

[borrat]

absolutely LOVING the reversable trades

love being able to trade on a monday and not be punished anymore

about time the arseholes who think its to easy and want it harder when its already hard enough didnt get their way like they always seem to for once

 

[Parasite]

I think maybe when you reverse your trades, they should make a big teddy bear animation come out of the screen in 3D and give you a massive cuddle. Also, maybe they could determine what trades you should make based on the stats and then make them for you on a Monday automatically. Save people from thinking too much. Then you could turn on the Auto-Trade-Cuddle-Mode. Also, I think it should also get rid of emergencies, just make it choose your 22 highest scorers and then those that choose to use Auto-Trade-Cuddle-Mode also get a bonus of having their captain automatically assigned to their highest scorer each week. Imagine the fun and the high scores!

 

[thedaz47]

absolutely LOVING the reversable trades

love being able to trade on a monday and not be punished anymore

about time the arseholes who think its to easy and want it harder when its already hard enough didnt get their way like they always seem to for once

I think that, more importantly, their server load would be loving it.

 

[CaramlThickshake]

Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

Okay, so every year and just about every week there is an example of players scores being so distorted by the scaling system in supercoach that they seem absurd. The scoring system is obviously designed to reflect a players impact on the result, hence the heavy scaling towards key moments in the game, but is this the best approach for fantasy sports?

So my solution is, adopt a dream team style scoring system, with no scaling at all (both to 3300 and towards key moments), but continue using the statistics that reflect efficiency as well as volume, which is the beauty of supercoach as opposed to dream team. If the system is well designed it should also allow a more even scoring spread between midfielders, forwards, rucks and defenders, which i believe would make the competition more interesting. I have knocked up a tentative scoring system in which 6 of the top 10 average scorers (in 2011) are not midfielders (buddy, cox, sandi, cloke, bock and merrett).

Thoughts? And what statistics would you like to see used?

 

[SJ]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

So in a match where four goals are scored total, and one forward kicks three of them from only three touches, he'll score low in your system.

 

[CaramlThickshake]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

So in a match where four goals are scored total, and one forward kicks three of them from only three touches, he'll score low in your system.

yes....haha, not saying its perfect, just an alternative.

 

[SJ]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

yes....haha, not saying its perfect, just an alternative.

It would be interesting but across a season of 22 matches I doubt there would be huge differences in the top players.

The weighting system may have effects over individual games, but it's pretty hard to fault the scoring of players across a season.

 

[CaramlThickshake]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

It would be interesting but across a season of 22 matches I doubt there would be huge differences in the top players.

The weighting system may have effects over individual games, but it's pretty hard to fault the scoring of players across a season.

you're right, across the season the scaling isn't such an issue. but one of the other things that i dislike about the scoring systems in both SC and DT (this is going away from the point of the thread a little) is the dominance of midfielders. I think a well designed fantasy competition should allow the best forward (buddy) the potential to score as well as the best midfielder (GAJ), and same for other positions. this could also be achieved using the scaling system, but obviously champion data is not going to change their system to suit fantasy sports.

 

[Catsace]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

One area where the scoring could be called into question may be evident with the score of Ablett (150) in a loss against the Dogs playing mainly a defensive role as a backline sweeper, and Jay Schultz scoring just over 100 for a decisive 7 goals against North. Not many players score 7 anymore, and his game certainly had more proportional impact on the match than Gazza.

Perhaps the comparative paucity of quality disposal by Gazza's Suns team mates made his score better than his game actually was, so often his team mates would butcher the ball coming into the forward 50...in the 2nd and 3rd quarters it was a crying shame as until late in the 3rd the Suns were going toe-to-toe with the Dogs.

 

[mrmatt]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

I don't think the issue here is with weighting the scores but with the scoring system itself. Given that each game has the 3300 point limit on it, it becomes nearly impossible to compare what Gazza did against the doggies (in comparison to everyone else who played in that games) to what Schultz did against the Roos (compared to the other 43 players there).

I'm pretty sure Champion Data tweak their scroing system each year to reflect changes in how the game is played and what measurements they believe have the most impact. I'm pretty sure last year that things like a mark on a lead up forward had a significant scoring increase (note: I'm sure I read that somewhere - but will stand corrected if anyone has a broader knowledge).

As for key forwards v midfielders scoring: there have been some big key forward scores this year - but the nature of how the game is played means midfielders can do that far more consistently.

Maybe there is an argument to increase the scoring for what happens in the forward 50 - or forward and defensive 50s.

But I'm not sure abolishing the weighting will help this one way or the other.

 

[Hawks2009]

Re: Supercoach Scoring Gripes: Solution?

The only thing i have a problem with is what they class as effective and ineffective kicks/handballs. watching the pies geelong friday night and watching the stats updated live. I thought it was effective if you retain possession. Sidebottom kicked forward and it bounced 3 or 4 times, cloke won the footy but it was classed as ineffective. Another 1, Swan won the footy and was on the boundary, kick it forward, gained 45m and went out in the forward pocket. No 1 was near to kick it to and he clearly meant it, but was ineffective. 1 last 1, sidebottom kicked to a lead, went over the head and Geelong won the footy but were tackled and there was a ball up. Classed as effective. Ive got no idea how they rate the disposals but thats the only part I can think of that needs fixing.