Future DT Structure - Emergencies - No Passengers Discussion

[54Dogs]

There's a thread on the main page which started off with a strange petition to change DT rules to make it easier but as it moved on has actually generated some interesting conversation about ideas to make DT teams a little more original by changing the bench structure.

Walesy, Neb and myself have had a little input but I thought I would transfer some of the ideas across to use the creative minds of the NP board to generate some conversation about ideas which may have merit.

Some of the ideas below relate to things such as flexibility in how many bench players you choose and a different value for players if they are playing as opposed to sitting on the bench.

I guess the main thought process with any ideas would be to get people choosing more diverse players and to think more creatively about their own team rather than just feeding of others ideas.

Would be interested in any thoughts.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

POSTS FROM MAIN BOARD

Post by GreenNick
I think it would be good if either emergency player could sub in for a player in the same area. You should just have to select who is your number 1 pick. So, I could select Myers as my number 1 emergency, however if I had a second player pull out without warning, N J Brown could also sub in for the second player. I see no reason why they don't do this, it would make it more fair for those who have a few unlucky withdrawals. Would make it particularly good for the split round!


Post by GusToGumby
I dont know if this has been suggested... No Emergencies

If you get a '0', the highest scoring bench player in that position comes in.Like me, most peoples bench players are guys who are on the brink of thier club's best 22 and are named on the extended interchange most weeks, making it very difficult to choose the corredct emergency. This takes the guesswork out of it without allowing people to abuse the system or advantaging the less skilled. Late changes and emergencies are becoming more luck than skill.


Post by TheFVK
Totally don't agree. How easy do we want dreamteam to be?? It's a game of decisions and this would simply be taking another decision out of the game. The more skilled and well-researched dreamteamer would have an edge in this department anyhow as they would check the teams each emergency plays, potential weather conditions etc. and make an educated gamble which would pay off more often than for those who hadn't done their research.

You just gotta roll with the punches, stop complaining. If anything we want to make this game harder- but I like the of idea of extending the interchange bench while keeping the same salary cap. Let's see the mid-tier players come into this more.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Post by Nebula1971
Some points that have already been raised that I agree with:

# The bench extension is a great idea as long as the salary cap is not adjusted.
# Having the capacity to select 4 emergencies

One suggestion I'd like to make is that if they were to introduce an extended bench, it becomes entirely up to the coach whether they want this feature. If one decides to maintain the current structure they can and should not be forced to add the extra emergency/ies.

Currently we have a total of 8 emergencies. If they were to increase it to 10, that would be sufficient in my opinion. Furthermore, the coach should be able to elect how many emergencies they want in each respective position. Given the circumstances of this years backs, a coach may opt to select 4 in that area, 3 in the centres, 1 in the rucks and 3 in the forwards.

The decision needs to be made at the beginning of the year as to whether a coach wants to go 8, 9 or 10 emergencies. This is where you would need to weigh up the benefits of going with 10 as opposed to the 8 and so forth.

10 emergencies will bite into your salary cap, but it will also mean you are generating extra cash from your cows. The money could be made up in no time. It adds another element to your decision making.

One other rule that should be introduced, should a starting player go down in a game in the first 2 quarters and not return, the selected emergency should come in, in the event the score was higher. It is utter bull$hit that players go down with 10 points on the board. Additionally, their value should not be adjusted for the week they went down. Their value should be performance based.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Post by 54Dogs
The bench as it currently exists holds only 2 functions:-

1) Generating cash through cash cows and
2) Short term cover for injuries

Clearly the biggest use is the cash generation however this year the decimation of the backs and injuries / suspensions to players such as Chapman / Burton in the forwards has seen more prominence in the injury focus of the bench. The main use however has still been (and will always be) cash generation.

Clearly we cannot go back to the old system which finished up with mids in every emergency position and deliberate zeros on the field. If VS are going to change the system it needs to swing the pendulum more towards the original purpose of the bench which is to cover injuries. The bench was not designed to generate cash, we simply use it that way.

If there are changes to be made to the bench structure I would like to see them be more focussed towards getting back to it's original purpose which is coverage for injuries. Probably not possible but if there was a way to have players value only change when they were on the field for you this would force people to play cash cows in their 22 to generate money rather than sit them on the bench. This may change the whole view of using the bench and bring in more mid-range players to sit there as they would only have 1 purpose which is injury coverage. This would bring in completely new strategies towards trades and greater risk / reward decisions towards cash cows than currently exist.

I really like Neb's idea of a choice of how many emergencies you want in each position as this encourages more creativity in thinking and strategy. I would think a minimum of 1 and maximum of 3 in each position would be reasonable with no change to salary cap or trades.

We don't need to make it easier, we need to get more a more diverse choice of players than we have now and more creative thinking. I agree that we need change but we also need the bench to get back to it's original purpose which is injury coverage.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Post by Dave1986
What a clever idea! That would totally revolutionise the game. Almost makes us as the coach responsible for the development of our own players. I love it.


Perhaps to make it a little more easier we could simplify it to your players build double as much is price if they are played. At the moment from what i can see a player gets about $350 dollars average for every point they score over their b/e.

Maybe that could be like $100, but $400 if they actually play in your team.

The only problem obviously would be that every team would have different prices for their players. But that makes the game interesting. Each player would have a standard price which would be the price you would pick them up for if you dont have them in your team.

But then how they develop would be totally up to you and you coaching technique. It would force you to find picks who are actually capable of playing, and might mean you go for more depth and more mid-range picks in the 100-250 price range.

At the moment, there is really no point picking up someone worth about $175g...way better to get a $82g player as they build in price quicker. Every real AFL team needs a good mix of stars and even, consistent players on the improve. Would force DT'ers to start looking at this price range again. Players in the $150-275g price range are really forgotten. I think i only picked up about 3 this year. The majority of my team was superstars then duds.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Post by 54Dogs
Absolutely Dave, nailed it in one.

A player has a set price as per normal when you trade him in and his value increases more when on the field. Even if he gets full value for playing and 50% when on the bench. If VS could make this work it would actually make every team unique. One team has Palmer at 240K whilst another has him at 350K because they have played him more often. Would make people think more about their own team than asking others for advice. It would also mean you have to decide on week by week strategy based on you league match as to whether you played rookies to earn more cash or a stronger team to win the game.

The main issue I could see would be how you would work this if players were reducing in value. Do they only reduce 50% if on the bench? This might also bring in new strategies to protect players prices if they were dropping by sitting them on the bench.

A complete shift in thinking but food for thought.

 

[frantelle]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

i really really really like the idea of selecting how many emergencies and how many of each position (obviously with parameters)
that will add a hole heap of entirely different strategies
i also like all the talk about the having 2 different emergencies and a possible replacement if a player goes down with injury
and last but not least i also liek the idea of having price changes relevant to if htey have been on the field or not..and 100% price change if they have and 50% if they havent...i only have one concern for this..and its probably a concern that means it will never come into play. say if a player can get a 50% price rise or drop if they are on the bench and 100% rise or drop if they are on the field...this is going to mean by the end of round 21....if a player has played all 21 games there is 2 097 152 different combinations of possible prices they could be...and seeing how VS servers handled round 1 lockout i really dont think they are going to be able to handle all that additional data as well which is a bummer cause i do like that idea a lot.
in saying that i know next to nothing about programming and the automation system they use so it could possible be viable which i hope it is!

 

[thebaxters]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Was thinking about this last night...

In principle, I support any changes which make:
a). the game harder
b). it more difficult to field 22 "guns"
c). teams more unique

The idea Dogs & Dave were chucking around has a good base to do this. Decreasing the ability to use rookies as cows (and let's be honest, it isn't all that hard to make a motza off the rookies this or most other years - you run out of trades before you run out of cash), decreasing the availability of guns and increasing the importance of mid tier players is the way to go. Nearly everyone is in the same boat - they select a bunch of keepers, a couple of bargain midpriced players (eg coming back from injury), and then just fill the rest of the spots with rookies.

In a perfect world, I'd see us having an extended bench, 3 each for the backs, mids, forwards, and two for the rucks - with no relative increase in salary cap. You could name an emergency in each position. Players who play have their price adjusted as per the current 3 game rolling average. Named bench players improve at 50% of their current 3 game rolling average. Bench players not named do not change in value.

Controlling your players abilities to rise up in price by sitting them on the bench when they were coming up against Sydney for example would be true list management; you can choose when to play them to let them really peak in price, and when to sit them out to avoid them bottoming out.

These changes would also make the importance of the bench players more about injury than cash generation. And if this is the case, why not make the game more reflective of a real squad and allow each team two trades per week (trades do not accrue - use them or lose them). Not having any ability to change a team's squad late in the season is not a real world scenario.

Another option might be to allow us to choose a 40 man squad (5 on the banch for backs, mids, forwards, 3 for the rucks), with no trades allowed, or trades only for 6 week+ injuries. Force everyone to use the depth they selected.

I see that the difficulty would arise not so much in tracking the improvement of a player with in a team relative to other teams, but in trading a player in. How would their price be set given that a player is worth different amounts for each team? Maybe this could be determined by VS as an average of the players value across all selected teams.

There would certainly be some effort for VS around managing the increased data set, but would make for a hugely variable,and IMO more enjoyable game. As Dogs said - would make people more accountable for their decisions and more inclined to make them for themselves.

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

Was thinking about this last night...


I see that the difficulty would arise not so much in tracking the improvement of a player with in a team relative to other teams, but in trading a player in. How would their price be set given that a player is worth different amounts for each team? Maybe this could be determined by VS as an average of the players value across all selected teams.

There would certainly be some effort for VS around managing the increased data set, but would make for a hugely variable,and IMO more enjoyable game. As Dogs said - would make people more accountable for their decisions and more inclined to make them for themselves.

I would see this as being unchanged from now. A player who was not in your squad would rise and fall based on their scoring as if they were actually on the field. Take Palmer as an example this year:

Starts at 99K. Could either be in your squad at this price or traded in later at his 3 week rolling average price, similar to now. The change only occurs after he enters your team which is when you receive either his full increase / decrease or 50% dependent on whether he plays in the 22 or sits on the bench.

I would envisage this scenario meaning less cash cows sit in each squad as the reward is lower when they are on the bench and the risk is too high in playing them all to get maximum benefit. Take say Gamble early in the year. Would you play him in the 7 spot to get the cash or sit him on the bench and not have him increase quickly enough to be a good cow. Strategy and creative thinking come back into the game instead of simply trading cows in and waiting for them to max out.

By definition if there are less cows there are more mid-range players on the bench as coverage for injuries. More mid-range players on the bench mean less money to spend on premiums so more mid-range players on the park. All this adds up to more unique teams and creative thinking.

The most frustrating part of DT is the back end of the season when almost all teams have 16-18 players the same and you are playing catchup with only 4 unique players. Becomes a very boring game and this would change all that.

Obviously this is "perfect world" stuff and will probably never happen but you never know, the world was once flat and man could never fly to the moon.

 

[thebaxters]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

I would see this as being unchanged from now. A player who was not in your squad would rise and fall based on their scoring as if they were actually on the field. Take Palmer as an example this year:

Starts at 99K. Could either be in your squad at this price or traded in later at his 3 week rolling average price, similar to now. The change only occurs after he enters your team which is when you receive either his full increase / decrease or 50% dependent on whether he plays in the 22 or sits on the bench.

Yep, that would work. Upside of this method would be being able to trade a player in knowing they have a predictable breakeven, the variability would come from what cash you can get in a tradeout for the player. this variability could be huge if you selected half a dozen players purely to mkae money, and only played them in games you expected them to do well. Would put more focus on naming a squad as per actual fixtures, which would be cool. Still like the idea of only named emergencies having their prices changed though.

Wonder how hard this would be to setup independent of VS if they choose not to go this route?

 

[iamthestig]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

As much as l like the variable price changes I think it creates too much overhead and uncertainty (and margin for error) for VS. As frantelle said, they can't build a system to cope with the first lockout of the year, how will they track the myriad of potential price fluctuations? One point that seems to have been missed which I think it open to exploitation is what if your player drops in value given the 50% 'loading' for blokes that play? You could actually save someone from a massive decrease by putting them on the bench for a week or 2, thus giving you a relative unfair advantage if in a few weeks he has to be traded because of injury/form (eg Cornes).

It's also a good point to remember that they are not in the business of making the game harder. They (+ AFL) want more people to play, not less. People like to play easy games that they can feel like winners playing. There will be people on this site who end up with a team full of guns, yet finish outside the top 5000. If you ask them, they would probably say they did well.

If VS do make the game harder it will be in a similar vein to what they did this year; prices go up by more than salary cap. It's a softly-softly approach but I think it will appeal to a wider audience.

The most radical change I can see on the horizon is when the Gold Coast Metermaids come in, and something like the extra bench player will probably happen then but I can't see it in the short term.

I would like to see 4 bench players, who can replace anyone who scores < 30. To stop exploitation like the good ol' days there should be a points penalty rather than a cash one. If a mid replaces a ruck you only get 50% points etc. There is no point loading up on midfielders when you get 50 points per week out of Bartel...

 

[54Dogs]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

It's also a good point to remember that they are not in the business of making the game harder. They (+ AFL) want more people to play, not less. People like to play easy games that they can feel like winners playing. There will be people on this site who end up with a team full of guns, yet finish outside the top 5000. If you ask them, they would probably say they did well.

If VS do make the game harder it will be in a similar vein to what they did this year; prices go up by more than salary cap. It's a softly-softly approach but I think it will appeal to a wider audience.

Nice point here Stig. The perfect world for some is not the perfect world for VS. There are probably 2000 serious DTrs but VS want 250,000 players so they need to keep it as simple as possible. Most people have never heard of a 3 week rolling average.

I still believe choosing how many emergencies you want in each position (say minimum 1 and maximum 3) is something that everyone could handle and would open up a lot of new strategies for those who are more serious.

 

[Walesy]

Re: Future DT Structure - Emergencies

You gotta take it to it's logical conclusion though.

Price movements occur when they play for *your* team.

Hill.

Round 1 - 86
1 game played overall, 0 games played for me

Round 2 - 92
2 games played overall, 0 games played for me
Trade into him

Round 3 - 99
3 games played overall (Based on a rolling average of 92.3), so his total price goes up 72k
However, for me, he's only played 1 game. so no salary movements.

Round 4 - 55
Overall, 4 games, his salary goes up another 40k
For me, he's only played 2 games, so no salary changes.

Round 5 - 47
Overall, 5 games, his salary goes up another 14k and he peaks.
For me, he's played 3 games (based on a rolling average of 67), so his total price goes up roughly 48k

Basically, you'll find that you are rewarded moreso for not only picking the stars up and comers at the start, but for also having the guts to field them. Bench a player to avoid a salary drop wouldn't work and *he didn't play the game*. Salaries don't move when you don't play. Alternatively, benching someone playing Sydney would work a treat!

Now, one thing I would want everyone to realise.
The server problems found out at the start of every season is because of a sheer number of hits on the webservers. Calculating extra figures on the end-of-round update won't have *any* effect on these servers.
Have you ever logged in during the end-of-round upload? I'm sure we all have, where you might see some totals getting updated, but your team isn't yet, because the upload is half way through.
You'll find that *this* once a week upload might take slightly longer, but for the rest of the time, the game will run exactly the same.
The database already knows who played for you in every round, all it will be doing is adding an extra field to that - Salary, and using that field for when you sell a player. I mean, I don't want to over-simplify the effort that would be required to do it, I'm sure a lot of testing and stuff would need to go into it, however, if they want to keep the game fresh, and dynamic, and interesting - then they need to keep things fresh and lively.

As for dumbing it down to the common denominator. As dogs said, most people haven't heard of the 3 week rolling average, and those that have, will generally pull out a decent enough score.
Those that haven't (and you would assume that there is a good percentage of these), wouldn't care what goes on under the hood. So long as they can pick their teams, keep on trading, and quit by the split round cause they've used up their trades and moved on to something else. Then they will be as happy as they are now.
It's the mid-strength folk who could go either way. The guy that knows that a bad game means that you watch them for 3 weeks, then maybe pick them up. It's these folk that might get a little confused..
But hey, the underlying system of DT has changed a couple of times along the way (so I hear), and each time, it's been both to improve the game, and to improve the spread of squads that are being selected.
The analysis on the current system has been refined for a couple of years now. The game needs a rejig to prevent it from getting stale.
Plus, imagine the buzz that would surround such a revolutionary change! It would be great!

 

[thebaxters]

Your Hill example illustrates beautifully what I was trying to say Walesy. A players value would only be as significant as the number of games YOU play them. This is even more important with rookies/cows; if you don't play them, they don't appreciate, and you don't capitalise on their biggest benefit.

Using this system I can see that allowing two trades per week would actually increase the diversity in team structure... which would in turn make the competition much more interesting.

Nice clarification on the server issue too. Anyone at VS listening?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I've been speaking about this with a friend recently. Extending the bench and keeping the cap the same would be good for the game, but I think we should wait until we have a 17th side to do that (to avoid even more zeros).

My idea is to classify more players in multiple positions and allow substitutions from within a team. Really, there are a lot of young KPP players that end up playing at the opposite end to what they were classified as (from their junior days). Allow substitutions within the team. This way you could have two back/forwards in your team, and swap them as required.

 

[SkankDanker]

Are we allowed to post to this if we are not NPs?...sorry if not.

I think the game needs minimal changes - the only changes should be to ensure it replicates the real game as much as possible, and to try to avoid having all teams up the top looking the same. However purely on the situation with emergencies I woud suggest:

1) A slightly larger squad to choose from (34?) - though that could lead to more cash cow manipulation - science and maths versus form and selection (not saying there's anything wrong with that)
2) I really like the idea suggested early in the thread to nominate the order of emergency rather than the position, much like the real scenario. You could rank 3 players from any position and they would be entered in that order in case of a zero. this would remove some unnecessary frustration and guesswork (I doubt many nominate emgs. in the ruck due to only 2 players in the starting position - unless there is an injury cloud - which may be a good part of the game as it requires you to stay on top of injuries and possibilities of late withdrawals)

 

[sharpie]

I know there were issues with people stacking their midfield and then using them as the emergencies for the backs etc.

But in the real world of footy - if you have run out of quality defenders, you often throw a midifielder or forward into defence. However of course as they don't play their that often - so they wouldn't be as effective.

So why not give half points to an emergency "filling in" in another position.

You have Cyril on the forward line as an emergency - you have a midfield who misses and no cover on the bench. Cyril scores 83 - Add 41 points to your total!

It is somewhat true to label and avoids 0's, but also avoids position stacking

 

[Mr Gor]

i can't say i agree with all these ideas about changing the way the game is. i'm a big fan of the saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

i think adding another bench player to the forwards and backs without increasing the salary cap is a decent idea, because you have more players in those positions so it makes sense to have more bench players. however this business of a player on the field increasing his value more than that of a player on the bench is ludicrous. players' prices need to be consistent if every team is able to get that player. can you imagine the system trying to handle 180,000 teams where every player has a different price??? don't you think that's making things a little too complicated?? having cash cows on the bench isn't an exploitation of the game and it should not be changed

the only problem i had with the game this year was the way it started (ie opening the game a week away from rd 1 and then having the servers overloaded when the teams came out). other than that the game is as good as it's ever been. nobody NEEDS to change it.

 

[matt73]

Yeah, i have to agree with "Mr Gor" about the changing values of players if you use them in the starting 22 versus leaving them on the bench. DT is a simple game and this will overcomplicate it for

(1) a great majority of DT entrants and
(2) the programmers. I imagine LOCKOUT would probably be extended by a significant amount of hours.

The current version of DT is almost perfect with the one basic problem (which happens in every similar competition) in that by this time of the competition a great percentage of players are the same for every team. I really like the idea of one extra emergency for backs and forwards and keeping the salary cap the same. This will help teams cope with a terrible run with injuries (with good management) and will also tend to make teams more unique with a "battling" team required to start Round 1 due to 2 extra players with no extra cash.

Apart from that, the game is fine.

 

[Walesy]

"if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I guess that's the thing. 'Broke' is subjective.

teams starting the year and ending the year with very similar teams.

I feel that that is broke.

I can easily imagine the system holding 180,000 teams where every player has a different price.

I mean, as it stands now, you have 180,000 teams.

Each of those teams have 30 players.

That's 5,400,000 records.

Each of those 5,400,000 records contain a link to the player and to the team.

It would simply be a matter of adding the salary on this record.

So technically, there wouldn't be any extra rows of data in the database, just an extra column.

Now, that said, the talk I keep hearing about extra bench positions.

With extra bench positions comes extra cash cows for *everybody*. you picked a couple of bad ones? *who cares* you've got 9 more of them!! - You want to use a trade to pick up one of the big ones you missed, meh, go for it. It's not like you could have missed many of them. Not with extra bench positions.

I would love to see this game become more *diverse*. And by changing players prices, based on how an *individual* coach has been *managing* them (and isn't that what we're trying to simulate here?), then I can see a hugely diverse range of teams and strategies coming to the forefront.

A world where 80% of the players have 80% of the decent cashcows, that's going to lead to a single strategy leading to initial gun selection being the key distingushing feature between teams.

And really, do you really want to bank your years success (even more than it is), on whether you pick the Gun that steps up (Ablett), or the gun who gets injured (cornes).

Me I'd prefer to see diversity in strategies again.

 

[Walesy]

(2) the programmers. I imagine LOCKOUT would probably be extended by a significant amount of hours.

Hours? you're on the sauce right? TooSerious can work out salary movements for rougly 350,000 players per second...

I really like the idea of one extra emergency for backs and forwards and keeping the salary cap the same. This will help teams cope with a terrible run with injuries (with good management) and will also tend to make teams more unique with a "battling" team required to start Round 1 due to 2 extra players with no extra cash.

Apart from that, the game is fine.

Meh, you say "battling", I say "flush with cash cows", potato, potaato (man, that saying doesn't translate to the internet!)

 

[matt73]

Walesy - i here what you are saying but the competition you would like to be involved in is one which is not designed for the "average punter". Thousands of people would have no idea what is going on with a system that rewards playing a rookie over benching him. That's a fact.

The current DT allows everyone enough room to strategise at all levels and at the same time is able to be understood by everyone.

I personally like your idea (or whoever's idea it was) but it's not going to happen so it's probably best to focus on new structures that have at least a small chance of being considered.

 

[matt73]

Hours? you're on the sauce right? TooSerious can work out salary movements for rougly 350,000 players per second...

Nope, just battling away in the real world mate. I understand your a computer programmer and your site is fantastic (i have used it to great benefit this year in both SC and DT) but this salary movement idea is interesting but not workable so move on.


Meh, you say "battling", I say "flush with cash cows", potato, potaato (man, that saying doesn't translate to the internet!)

You have limited cash to start with so although you have a few extra picks the standard of player you select at the start will surely be of less calibre. Plus you have only 20 trades to use during the year so although you have extra cash cows a large percentage of them will just be cows!!

 

[Walesy]

You have limited cash to start with so although you have a few extra picks the standard of player you select at the start will surely be of less calibre. Plus you have only 20 trades to use during the year so although you have extra cash cows a large percentage of them will just be cows!!

yeah, but the end result is that your "speculative" mid-ranged player becomes a 1st yearer, and you get two more cashcows on your bench.

You'll have more of them approaching their peaks at the same time, which would make it easier to pick who to trade out.

All in all, it would make the game much easier.

 

[matt73]

yeah, but the end result is that your "speculative" mid-ranged player becomes a 1st yearer, and you get two more cashcows on your bench.

You'll have more of them approaching their peaks at the same time, which would make it easier to pick who to trade out.

All in all, it would make the game much easier.

Maybe - i still think that it should be considered as instead of starting say 2 or 3 rookies in the 1st game you could be forced to start 3-5 rookies in the first game and they would in essence be cash cows as well. The amount of "keepers" in your first team will no doubt be reduced and thus more upgrades will have to be made from the starting 22 than ever before.

Anyway, perhaps something that is somewhere between your system and one i would like implemented is making the price increase calculation tougher. Currently cash cows "mature" can mature after 7-8 rounds of solid football. If you changed the formula for the same scores to "mature" a cow after 10-12 rounds then some serious strategy would have to take place about how many rookies to start with etc.. or whether a more even spread of players with limited rookies is required.