2012 Dream Team season musings

[Thistle]

I would like trades to count once lockout begins. Therefore you can set the trades you want early, and change or cancel them midweek, which would reduce the stress of forgetting and can also help avoid last minute disasters (injury, H.Shaw like antics).

 

[Hank93]

I have always wondered why in previous season you get the same amount of reserves in the rucks as you do in the defence when you have 7 players to cover in defence and only 2 in the rucks.

6 Backs +2
8 Mids +3
6 Forwards +2
2 Rucks +1

Would reflect the current team set up and would provide more cover in the areas that are most needed.

Anyone know if this is more of a BF idea or is VS seriously considering this idea.

 

[Hank93]

I would like trades to count once lockout begins. Therefore you can set the trades you want early, and change or cancel them midweek, which would reduce the stress of forgetting and can also help avoid last minute disasters (injury, H.Shaw like antics).

Molly was talking about this on the Coaches Box podcast. Would certainly make it less stressful. I had this problem on the weekend after doing my trades on Thursday. Was pretty happy with them. None of my players were going to miss until the Heath Shaw suspension announcement. This meant I had 1 zero in Heath Shaw because I had Suckling, Puopolo and L Thompson on the bench and then B Smith was the sub.
I scored 2104 with effectivly 2 zero in the backline.

 

[AJP123]

Molly was talking about this on the Coaches Box podcast. Would certainly make it less stressful. I had this problem on the weekend after doing my trades on Thursday. Was pretty happy with them. None of my players were going to miss until the Heath Shaw suspension announcement. This meant I had 1 zero in Heath Shaw because I had Suckling, Puopolo and L Thompson on the bench and then B Smith was the sub.
I scored 2104 with effectivly 2 zero in the backline.

Means we can actually have a life

 

[texan_dogs]

My thoughts are a slight variance on the ruck situation and mid setup.

7 Backs +2
7 Mids +3
7 Forwards +2
1 Ruck +1 (With ALL Rucks having Dual Position allocations)

 

[Forward Press]

I would like trades to count once lockout begins. Therefore you can set the trades you want early, and change or cancel them midweek, which would reduce the stress of forgetting and can also help avoid last minute disasters (injury, H.Shaw like antics).

This is a great idea.

I scored crap in one round because I was away overseas and thought I could access the internet at the very least after Thursday teams. Having that kind of system you suggested would mean that after Sunday lockout ends, I can at least set my planned trades and not have it ruin my overseas holiday

 

[Wheedus]

My two cents - I'd like to see something to reflect (and combat) the sub rule. EG - before lockout, you get to nominate one emergency player as a "starting sub" whose score you can elect to take over the course of the weekend if one of your other starting players (in the relevant part of the field) is either a starting sub or subbed off. Effectively you get to activate your own sub.

However, to make it interesting, the requirement could be that you have to activate the sub during the course of the game during which the starting player is either subbed on or off. It would introduce a nice little tactical element and, similar to the partial lockout shenanigans, add another element of agonising choice to team selection. DPP bench players would be even more golden.

Obviously, it would also provide further motivation for hits on the site over the course of the weekend.

 

[Robbo88]

Effectively you get to activate your own sub.

On the whole sub dilemma, the idea i had thought of (which is in a similar vain to above) is that the team has 1 less ruckman (aligning mroe with how the game is being played) and 1 dedicated spot for our 'sub'. The rules;

ANY player can go into the 'sub' position
The 'sub' can be activated and replace a player with the same positional characteristics as them (mid/fwd etc)
BUT the sub must be activated BEFORE they start their respective game (so there is still an element of risk involved, not just swapping a 40 score for a 60 score etc.)

The idea above where you act based on if your player is sub/got subbed etc is too complicated and would involve too much work for VS over the course of the weekend (so is impractical)

This would bring total scoring down a bit as you'd have only 21 scorers not 22, but i think it more accurately reflects the state of the game and would be a fun optional extra to the game IMO. Would be an extra point of difference which some players seem to think is needed due to the increase of information available to the average joe player.

 

[antfrax]

Sorry if this has been suggested already;

I would like the option to use my excess cash to buy extra trades.

Say I hold on to Heppell and then downgrade him and make $220000. Why not an option to buy a trade at say $100000 each or something like that?

Am I missing why this would be a bad idea?

 

[Forward Press]

Sorry if this has been suggested already;

I would like the option to use my excess cash to buy extra trades.

Say I hold on to Heppell and then downgrade him and make $220000. Why not an option to buy a trade at say $100000 each or something like that?

Am I missing why this would be a bad idea?

*downgrade gun with a sky high breakeven to a rookie performing well*
*lose perhaps up to 50 points for one week*
*makes 200-300k*
*gains two/three trades for a net gain of one/two trades*
*rinse and repeat*

Way too easy to rort the system.

 

[antfrax]

You say it's easy to rort the system but don't give any examples...

 

[Forward Press]

You say it's easy to rort the system but don't give any examples...

I just did.

Say a gun downgrade to a rookie nets you 200k.

You gain two trades (if you suggest that 100k entitles you to buy a trade, hypothetically). You spent one trade to downgrade.

You can use both of those trades for further downgrades to gain more trades. etc etc

One way to solve this is to price a trade at a far higher amount.

 

[antfrax]

The price I suggested was just a vague idea.

How would you value a trade?

It could be priced properly and add the choice of an extra trade as an added variable to differentiate teams' outcomes.

 

[Ball Hog]

Re: Has anyone heard any whispers on what Dreamteam is going to be like next year?

3 emergencies is because that's the way the actual afl teams are named.

True, plus I personally like the fact that you can't put an emergency in each position - it does add slightly more luck to the game which some people would certainly dislike. I don't like the fact that if you select 2 emergencies in 1 pposition you get the lower score though, completely discourages me from using 2 emergencies in 1 position. Then again the chances 2 emergencies are needed in 1 position is very very low anyway.

 

[Forward Press]

The price I suggested was just a vague idea.

How would you value a trade?

It could be priced properly and add the choice of an extra trade as an added variable to differentiate teams' outcomes.

Yeah it could be viable if you price it a lot higher. I think that the thing that separates crap DTers from good ones is smart use of trading. Giving people more trades makes it easier to people to have similar teams and less thought being used when making a trade. That's my 2 cents anyway.

As it is, I still think one of the better ways to differentiate is to put in two more mids and take away one each from the back and forwards. Just a minor tweak really - I think the current system is fine.

 

[Jolldo87]

Re: Has anyone heard any whispers on what Dreamteam is going to be like next year?

True, plus I personally like the fact that you can't put an emergency in each position - it does add slightly more luck to the game which some people would certainly dislike. I don't like the fact that if you select 2 emergencies in 1 pposition you get the lower score though, completely discourages me from using 2 emergencies in 1 position. Then again the chances 2 emergencies are needed in 1 position is very very low anyway.

If you got the highest score it would be easy to take advantage of.

eg. I've got Lower and Heppell and need to play one this week.

Start Jacobs (Port have the bye), make Lower and Heppell emergency and take the higher score.

Obviously you risk not having an emergency in another position but if you have a poor bench/lots out in a week you could do this.

 

[Ball Hog]

Re: Has anyone heard any whispers on what Dreamteam is going to be like next year?

If you got the highest score it would be easy to take advantage of.

eg. I've got Lower and Heppell and need to play one this week.

Start Jacobs (Port have the bye), make Lower and Heppell emergency and take the higher score.

Obviously you risk not having an emergency in another position but if you have a poor bench/lots out in a week you could do this.

Good point.

I wrote that previous post thinking that scoring the average of the 2 emergencies would be the fairest outcome. In my opinion scoring the average of 2 emergencies provides slightly more incentive for having the bench depth to use 2 emergencies in one position. The current rule isn't bad IMO but personally I'd prefer a change so that my 3 emergencies are 'used' every week.

As it is, if I know that 2 of my 4 positions will have no bench scorers I only nominate 2 emergencies for that week. If a late withdrawal occurs in a position with 2 emergencies I definitely get the lower of the 2. If I only nominate 1 emergency then I have a 50/50 chance of choosing the higher scorer. Obviously the benefits of 2 emgs kick in if there are multiple late withdrawals but thats obviously very rare.

Would help those out that are terrible at picking rookies on the field as (By fielding a 0) you could elect to score the average of the 2 rookies instead of the 50/50 chance of rookie v rookie but at the cost of an emergency to another position.

Its a very insignificant part of the game and I'm sure the rule won't be changed but I think if it was it would provide slightly more incentive to use all emergencies every week and potentially better capitalise on the bench depth in 1 position.

 

[borrat]

defitnetly going to be year of the underpriced guns and rookies next year

hopefully the magic number doesnt go higher

 

[BiTeGumsux]

defitnetly going to be year of the underpriced guns and rookies next year

hopefully the magic number doesnt go higher

Why is that?

Surely increasing the magic number makes the game harder and doesnt allow for people to reach perfect teams and the same teams at the halfway mark of the year.

By increasing the magic number you need to do more research to find hidden gems that are underpriced. Keep salary same and increase MN. I would like to see rookie prices further increased aswell. Rookies continue to score more and more each year and more and more seem to play. (I dont have evidence to back this up that more are playing but it just feels like it).

@ Dogs or Warnie is there any chance of a change in numbers for each position eg: 8mids + 3 emg.

 

[huggy_b]

I just did.

Say a gun downgrade to a rookie nets you 200k.

You gain two trades (if you suggest that 100k entitles you to buy a trade, hypothetically). You spent one trade to downgrade.

You can use both of those trades for further downgrades to gain more trades. etc etc

One way to solve this is to price a trade at a far higher amount.

I personally dont like the idea of buying trades.

But if everyone did what you just suggested, they would have a shedload of trades, a team of rookies and no money to upgrade. Or am I missing something.....

 

[Spider Klein]

On the whole sub dilemma, the idea i had thought of (which is in a similar vain to above) is that the team has 1 less ruckman (aligning mroe with how the game is being played) and 1 dedicated spot for our 'sub'. The rules;

ANY player can go into the 'sub' position
The 'sub' can be activated and replace a player with the same positional characteristics as them (mid/fwd etc)
BUT the sub must be activated BEFORE they start their respective game (so there is still an element of risk involved, not just swapping a 40 score for a 60 score etc.)

The idea above where you act based on if your player is sub/got subbed etc is too complicated and would involve too much work for VS over the course of the weekend (so is impractical)

This would bring total scoring down a bit as you'd have only 21 scorers not 22, but i think it more accurately reflects the state of the game and would be a fun optional extra to the game IMO. Would be an extra point of difference which some players seem to think is needed due to the increase of information available to the average joe player.

I am very passionate about Dream Team but sitting and watching every game just in case I need to activate my sub is very impractical.

Sorry, my opinion

 

[Forward Press]

I personally dont like the idea of buying trades.

But if everyone did what you just suggested, they would have a shedload of trades, a team of rookies and no money to upgrade. Or am I missing something.....

You select your standard guns/rookies team to ensure you score adequately at the start.

You then have a team full of rookies after a few rounds into the season as you bring in every rookie on the bubble, using the cash generated to buy trades. Scores will dip during this time.

However, you then use your crapload of trades to downgrade rookies that have played a few games and underperforming premiums that get dropped/injured/suspended/have a high breakeven, and use the cash freed up to trade in premiums at the optimum time (eg about to drop an injury-affected score) and/or buy even more trades. Rinse and repeat. With a bit of luck and a trigger-happy finger on the trade button, you can have a team full of guns before too long.

Unless I suppose there is still a limit on how many trades you can do per week. In which case I think buying trades may be a viable change because you obviously cannot go bananas each week to grab rookies and buy trades.

Basically, if a trade is not priced very high, you can have a system where you trade in every rookie on the bubble so that you can bank trades for future use. It works because not all AFL teams play their rookie priced players continuously from Round 1. Who needs bench cover when you can just trade a player out when they miss a game?

At least, that's how I reason it would work with a trade-buying system. Actually, come to think of it, relaxing the trade limit with a maximum of 20 per season would approach the kind of system I described above as well.

 

[borrat]

will be interesting to see how the gws 17 year olds will be priced in 2013

hopefully the same as the gold coasts original players where

 

[borrat]

Why is that?

Surely increasing the magic number makes the game harder and doesnt allow for people to reach perfect teams and the same teams at the halfway mark of the year.

By increasing the magic number you need to do more research to find hidden gems that are underpriced. Keep salary same and increase MN. I would like to see rookie prices further increased aswell. Rookies continue to score more and more each year and more and more seem to play. (I dont have evidence to back this up that more are playing but it just feels like it).

@ Dogs or Warnie is there any chance of a change in numbers for each position eg: 8mids + 3 emg.

making the game harder would be shit and then not as many people would play and then v/s would miss out on more money which is all they are concerned about thankfully

 

[deledio_gun]

making the game harder would be shit and then not as many people would play and then v/s would miss out on more money which is all they are concerned about thankfully

Yeah if the game became any harder I dunno how we'd cope. The harder the game got the better, as it requires more skill and each team would have a larger number of variances from the next.

Have a look at the top 1000 sides this year. Due to the game becoming increasingly easier, every decent side can trade in the best of the best. A core group of 25 players makes up most top 1000 side. Really doesn't make it enjoyable when you know every other side has your player as well.