DT/SC boss says more trades/emgs for 2011

Remove this Banner Ad

makingmemark

Team Captain
Apr 16, 2007
484
0
Melbourne
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Live update from DigitalSportsSummit at the MCG guys.

Peter Jankulouvski, MD of Vapor Media, was asked about how they will deal with GC17 and the byes next year.

He said that they'll do "less than more", so no big changes to be implemented. It's still to be decided but "more trades or emergencies" are likely.
 

Ammo_Lover

Debutant
Jun 30, 2008
116
70
McKinnon
AFL Club
Essendon
no more trades, i agree

surely for teams that have the bye you can bring in any player that is worth less than that player missing, and after the bye your team automatically reverts back to original player would be the best option.

Maybe only if that player played the previous week, can he be replaced
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Thumpy

All Australian
Dec 14, 2009
651
80
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Sturt
I would much rather VS leave things the way they are. Makes the game a whole lot harder and the smart DT/SC coaches who put in that extra effort in the pre-season will be rewarded.

Personally my idea was for the player (who has the bye) to recieve a 3-5 game rolling average as their score. It's a fairer way of doing it as players like Stanton (who has been terrible in the past 3-4 weeks) will get a score based on his recent form (70-80 mark) rather than his overall average of 100.

Obviously to be fair there must be a ceiling average in place so if GAJ/Swan averaged 150 over the past 3 weeks then that score would be reduced to the ceiling average which IMO should be around the 130 mark.

I would also suggest that you can't trade in a player who has the bye the next round. If that weren't the case then people would know exactly what score the player was going to get which wouldn't be fair either.
 

The Falcon Strike

Hall of Famer
Nov 18, 2008
35,365
27,016
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Leave it as it is - we all get more zeroes - and it affects everyone evenly whilst not changing up the rules for just one season.

All it does it promote the use of additional strategies such as using DP, makes selecting your bench more than just a cash accumulation exercise and makes trades more strategic.

It aint broke - don't fix it.
 

Anzac16

Club Legend
Jun 21, 2009
2,843
2,831
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Central Districts
I dont like the idea of having more trades if Im honest. Sure they'd come in handy but it would make the game easier.

I think something I would like to see is them establish some balance with the bench. Considering there is only 2 rucks, and we get 2 bench ruckman, I really only feel that we need just 1 bench ruck.

I would like to see this happen for next year-

7 backs (3 emg)
6 mids (3 emg)
2 rucks (1 emg)
7 fwds (3 emg)

Would help you cover the players with the bye better, and could also affect the players you have there. IMO its not a massive change to the game and it could just be for next year.

Either that or just leave it and we will have to use DP to help cover
 

magpies03

Club Legend
Mar 26, 2007
1,364
77
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Cavs
I agree i hope they dont introduce more trades. Im happy with 20. As he said tho they will be doing less rather than more aka the changes they make arnt going to be anything drastic. Even taking players averages and choosing a player of lesser value it all becomes to complicated. I think they should just leave it the way they are, perhaps have a few more emergencies to reward people for having a strong bench but thats it. All it does is encourages coaches to choose a wider spread of players from a variety of different clubs.
 

krankychops

Rookie
Aug 15, 2009
40
20
AFL Club
Adelaide
Personally my idea was for the player (who has the bye) to recieve a 3-5 game rolling average as their score. It's a fairer way of doing it as players like Stanton (who has been terrible in the past 3-4 weeks) will get a score based on his recent form (70-80 mark) rather than his overall average of 100.
A potential problem with this is the deterministic nature and its potential impact on captain choice.
 

Budgie63

Senior List
Jun 1, 2007
258
9
Brisbane
AFL Club
St Kilda
A potential problem with this is the deterministic nature and its potential impact on captain choice.
I agree I don't like the rolling average method at all. Weekly fluctuation of scores is normal and I think by allowing a rolling average to replace missing players this is just another way of evening the competition. Plus the addition of the bye adds an extra element of strategy to team management in dealing with the constant threat of donuts.

I agree with Lemma, just add another emergency to backs, mids and fwds (and perhaps remove one from the rucks), keep the 20 trades. I'd prefer that, along with these changes, we retained the current salary cap just to make it a bit harder. However on past performance VS seem unlikely to do this in their quest to appeal to the masses and would probably raise it to accommodate the extra emergs.

Or, Option B: change nothing!
 

4#Didak#4

Premiership Player
May 21, 2007
3,591
2,669
Victoria
AFL Club
Collingwood
There is two games with each of SC & DT:
1. The league competition that most DT/SC players are interested in.
2. The overall rankings which more serious players are interested in.

Having a bye shouldn't effect the overall rankings that much & thus shouldn't need rule changes. It perhaps does influence trades in that players who have already had a bye will be more attractive to trade in. But all in all no reason to change the rules.

From a league perspective this is a problem. With no rule changes basically the guys who have the least players with byes in finals are going to win, which makes the league competition compromised & given most people play to win their league some may lose interest.

I don't think it possible or practical to have different rules for league games & overall rankings.

I think its in their interests to change the rules to keep league players engaged.

My only thought is to have a squad selected. Currently we have 30 lets say make it 38. Still have 22 on ground & 8 emergencies, however you have another 8 players to draw on if you are looking at donuts. This actually more closely aligns itself with a real game of footy - when was the last time your AFL side ran out one short for any reason?

I think this idea means it will be harder to balance your salary cap as you would still keep that fairly tight meaning the squad players will have to be cheap fringe types & that brings in the difficulty factor. It will mean more sides will be different (one thing that has annoyed me this year is similar teams). It will reward those who can pick good talent.

It will also mean there is more skill in picking your side as your emergencies will need to not just be the left overs but the best of the rest.
 

Papa Juggs

Hall of Famer
May 10, 2007
30,772
13,245
South Brisbane
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
Liverpool
The team will be boosted past 30 players.

There's already too much money to spend. If they keep the cap the same but give us more bench players it will help cover doughnuts, increase the difficulty and maybe bring midpricers back into the game a bit more.

It's going to be exciting to see the lineup for Gold Coast in DT pricing. Anybody scouting them out already? :p
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Churto

Draftee
Jul 7, 2010
1
0
Hobart
AFL Club
Essendon
no more trades, i agree

surely for teams that have the bye you can bring in any player that is worth less than that player missing, and after the bye your team automatically reverts back to original player would be the best option.

Maybe only if that player played the previous week, can he be replaced
Surely they will increase the amount of MPP players to allow for more flexibility dont you think?

There were a fair few players who could have been named MPP that werent so my thoughts are that there will be a big increase there, also i agree that there will be more emergencies.
 

Thumpy

All Australian
Dec 14, 2009
651
80
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Sturt
Surely they will increase the amount of MPP players to allow for more flexibility dont you think?

There were a fair few players who could have been named MPP that werent so my thoughts are that there will be a big increase there, also i agree that there will be more emergencies.
Champion Data are the ones who determine the player positions, not VS. For them to classify more players as DP for next year they'll have to overide the CD's set of rules/positioning.

As I mentioned before the rolling system could be a good alternative option if VS decide that leaving things as they are is not the right answer. There a few minor things that would need tweaking (ie: substitutions/captains etc.) but overall IMO that is one of the best options.

My favourite option would be for them to just leaves things as they are but I get the feeling that they won't do that. More trades is just absurd. I don't mind the extra reserves though and also if they changed the positioning so it stands 6, 8, 2, 6 instead of 7, 6, 2, 7 which is much more realistic to the modern game.
 

warnie

All Australian
Jun 25, 2007
774
67
DT Talk
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Warne Dawgs (DT)
Champion Data are the ones who determine the player positions, not VS. For them to classify more players as DP for next year they'll have to overide the CD's set of rules/positioning.

As I mentioned before the rolling system could be a good alternative option if VS decide that leaving things as they are is not the right answer. There a few minor things that would need tweaking (ie: substitutions/captains etc.) but overall IMO that is one of the best options.

My favourite option would be for them to just leaves things as they are but I get the feeling that they won't do that. More trades is just absurd. I don't mind the extra reserves though and also if they changed the positioning so it stands 6, 8, 2, 6 instead of 7, 6, 2, 7 which is much more realistic to the modern game.
I'm a huge fan of the 6-8-2-6 combo.
 

Kid A

Club Legend
Aug 2, 2005
1,517
228
Melbourne
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide
what a ****ing bad solution. the game is going to become wildly affected by the new team so instead of making some new mechanics, VS are just going to find a 'solution' that appeals to all the idiot noob players out there.

let's face it, VS = hack ****ing organisation, piece of sh*t rabble can't even get partial lockouts sorted out properly. they exist to appeal to the lowest common denominator hence their encouragement of sh*t teams to make teams halfway through the season to take advantage of weekly prizes. VS's best interests aren't served by changing game mechanics or innovation; just throw more trades and more cash at players because everyone deserves to have a midfield with 6 handball jr's.
 

Crow-mo

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 31, 2005
24,557
51
Mo Mansions LA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
adelaide
trading is the best part of the game, and from their POV a lack of trades can cause disengagement. which is the ultimate no no.

I think there should be 1 trade every week, and 5 floating wildcard trades.
 

Crow-mo

Brownlow Medallist
Suspended
Dec 31, 2005
24,557
51
Mo Mansions LA
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
adelaide
what a ****ing bad solution. the game is going to become wildly affected by the new team so instead of making some new mechanics, VS are just going to find a 'solution' that appeals to all the idiot noob players out there.

let's face it, VS = hack ****ing organisation, piece of sh*t rabble can't even get partial lockouts sorted out properly. they exist to appeal to the lowest common denominator hence their encouragement of sh*t teams to make teams halfway through the season to take advantage of weekly prizes. VS's best interests aren't served by changing game mechanics or innovation; just throw more trades and more cash at players because everyone deserves to have a midfield with 6 handball jr's.
might be time for a nice cup of tea and a lie down.
 

warnie

All Australian
Jun 25, 2007
774
67
DT Talk
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Warne Dawgs (DT)
what a ****ing bad solution. the game is going to become wildly affected by the new team so instead of making some new mechanics, VS are just going to find a 'solution' that appeals to all the idiot noob players out there.

let's face it, VS = hack ****ing organisation, piece of sh*t rabble can't even get partial lockouts sorted out properly. they exist to appeal to the lowest common denominator hence their encouragement of sh*t teams to make teams halfway through the season to take advantage of weekly prizes. VS's best interests aren't served by changing game mechanics or innovation; just throw more trades and more cash at players because everyone deserves to have a midfield with 6 handball jr's.
Bad call, Caro.

They aren't doing this for the "idiot noob players", but in saying that... they aren't doing it for the 5% of hardcores (ie. people reading this and caring about this). They also do what the AFL wants/needs. They want people playing, and staying engaged with the product.

See it as a challenge! In all honesty, the better Dream Team coaches (and thinkers) will rise next year much more than this year... considering the 'gimmie' picks people had this year.
 

borrat

Club Legend
Jul 24, 2009
1,848
189
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
i forgot to mention in my earlier post

surely get rid of the rookie draft inflated prices?????

and the gold coast players like toy,dixon etc should be 2nd lowest price
 

Thumpy

All Australian
Dec 14, 2009
651
80
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Liverpool, Sturt
Bad call, Caro.

They aren't doing this for the "idiot noob players", but in saying that... they aren't doing it for the 5% of hardcores (ie. people reading this and caring about this). They also do what the AFL wants/needs. They want people playing, and staying engaged with the product.

See it as a challenge! In all honesty, the better Dream Team coaches (and thinkers) will rise next year much more than this year... considering the 'gimmie' picks people had this year.
Agree with the bolded. The people who put in the hard yards during pre-season will be the ones who will be rewarded, mark my words. A lot of things will have to be taken into account next year (first and foremost the fixture) that have never even been considered when picking a DT side before. The n00bs who pick their whole side a week before lockout won't get anywhere near the top 500, regardless of how many trades VS let us have.

In saying this I can see where Kid A is coming from. The game is slowly becoming more easier for n00bs. The fact that they decreased the magic number from last year to inject more cash into the competition is ridiculous. It's no wonder why everyone has the big guns this year (GAJ, Swan, Montagna, Chappy, Goddard etc.), VS has made this happen by fiddling around with the MN and now league games are substantially less entertaining because everyone has the best players.

I do understand Warnie what VS are trying to do by making it easier, they basically are attracting more people and as they find it easier to play (and get good rankings too) they get addicted, just like all of us did:rolleyes:. Personally I don't think this is the right idea. DT is in a war with SC at the moment and if they continue to make the game easier for n00bs then I think you'll find some of the top notch DT coaches converting to the other game. IIRC SC didn't make dramatic changes to their MN/Salary cap this year so it doens't suprise me that they currenty have an extra 80k registered coaches.
 

54Dogs

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 18, 2008
9,150
5,429
Nowra
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I'm a huge fan of the 6-8-2-6 combo.
Agree Warnie, there's no downside to this IMO.

It aligns more to the current game but also puts more players where the greatest pool of options are which by definition makes teams more unique.

Teams will always be similar at the back end of the year because everyone wants the best in each position but with 8 mids coaches won't be able to afford the top 8 and there will be 20 possible options at the bottom end rather than 5. The smaller pool of backs / fwds will also have a greater spread with only 6 needed.
 

archiemoses

Premiership Player
Sep 15, 2007
4,109
2,532
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Liverpool
I like the wild card idea as well.

What about providing additional cash for teams where cash can be spent to purchase additional trades? It would introduce a whole new element to the game.
 

Remove this Banner Ad