With the 2012 euro experience almost over I wanted to get peoples opinions on how the comp is being run.
What rules need to be looked?
What needs to be done better?
As long as it constructive criticism you can be as harsh as you want especially in how I'm running the comp. The only way to improve is too identify the weaknesses.
So let me have it :)
Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time... :-X
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time... :-X
Knew this was coming but think it is pretty harsh.
What rule was made up/changed on the fly that had a serious impact on anyone's team ?
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time... :-X
Good call I think this was my real weakness this year. I will be writing a whole set of rules that will be set in stone unless more than half the people in the comp want it changed.
Will include trading periods and trade caps etc...
I feel this will solve a lot of problems.
Its OK scrads I want it to be as harsh as possible
I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements
Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team
Quote from: Holzman on December 31, 2012, 12:46:45 AM
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 12:42:21 AM
Well what I want is rules made and not for them to be changed all the time... :-X
Good call I think this was my real weakness this year. I will be writing a whole set of rules that will be set in stone unless more than half the people in the comp want it changed.
Will include trading periods and trade caps etc...
I feel this will solve a lot of problems.
Its OK scrads I want it to be as harsh as possible
I don't want to seem like I am brown-nosing or anything but I genuinely think the rules side of things was done really well. Some things needed experimenting/tinkering with and you had the balls to put your foot down and change things that you thought needed to be changed to suit the comp regardless of whether it was new or not and honestly sometimes there isn't much else of an option.
People can complain about 'rules not being said at the start' or 'things changing halfway through' but lets face it, the way to get this comp to the best it can be is through trial-and-error and eventually through some deliberation about certain things, rules were made or changed to suit what the majority wanted or thought was fair. Were teams really hurt/affected by any of the changed rules ? I would say not.
If you don't fix things to the best way possible when you can then it will continue not being as good as it could be IMO.
Quote from: The F.A.R.K. on December 31, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements
Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team
Agree with this.
Was our trading movements this year 10-6-4 ? Next year I think 6-5-3 or something similar will be plenty enough.
yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements.
I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie).
Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition.
I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful.
I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have.
Quote from: Scrads on December 31, 2012, 12:55:28 AM
Quote from: The F.A.R.K. on December 31, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements
Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team
Agree with this.
Was our trading movements this year 10-6-4 ? Next year I think 6-5-3 or something similar will be plenty enough.
There will be likely only two. If there is a 3rd it will purely be for DPP changes like it is in the world's. The most important thing I will be scrapping is the on traded picks not counting and picks not counting in the cap.
I think I have less than 5 starters the same from last year. The trading cap will be much stricter and you will be able to recognise your 2014 team to your 2013.
Quote from: Ziplock on December 31, 2012, 12:58:05 AM
yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements. Yes, but picks shouldn't count as list movements (but players picked with those picks i.e. post draft should)
I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie). Yes, a no-brainer really
Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition. Big yes to the points for, it annoys me how this still hasn't changed in real DT
I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful. Tentative yes, honestly don't like the idea of expansion teams but can put up with it if it happens. My biggest thing is there will need to be a big debate over compensation if teams lose players to these teams.
I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have. Disagree. Don't think it needs to be rigorous (i.e. every trade being voted on). I like the system where someone nominates a trade and once it has been officially nominated everyone has a vote to decide.
Quote from: Ziplock on December 31, 2012, 12:58:05 AM
yeah. I think we need 2-3 trading periods, but we should have a limited list movement of lets say, 10 players over those 3 period combined. And nat/ rookie drafted players should also count as movements.
I've mentioned before about having the higher score win, regardless of whether or not it rounds down to a tie (just make it like a golden goal rule), ties should only be for equal points, or at the very least, established point differences (like, less than 5 points difference is a tie).
Also, to separate teams on the ladder who have eqal home and away points should be done by total points scored, not %... if we want to keep % and score it by that, then make the % like total Points scored/ average points scored in the competition.
I'd love to see expansion teams as well- but the introduction needs to be very, very, very, careful.
I'd like a better system for trade vetoing as well... there were a couple of trades that went through this year that reaaaallly shouldnt have.
OK here are some controversial rule changes. I like having draws in the comp perhaps we could compromise for the under 5 points thing as I agree rounding was abit unfair.
Will have to put that to a vote.
The ladder thing is interesting the way it is noe stays true to the afl and being unlucky and having opponents scoring big on you is all part of the game.
I will be sending out PMs though later for voting on the rules that I feel are needed yo be discussed like the ones above.
For the trade veto thing I'm probably going to have the same system but with a more formal voting method and rules. I might also turn down the requirements for a trade to get rejected
I like the way it is as well with draws, hence the point difference.
like, because atm you can have someone have a score of like 100.5 and their opponent 101.4, after the scores has been modified, and it counts as a draw... however, you can also have someone on 100.4 and 100.5, and that's not a draw :/
Quote from: Ziplock on December 31, 2012, 01:12:08 AM
I like the way it is as well with draws, hence the point difference.
like, because atm you can have someone have a score of like 100.5 and their opponent 101.4, after the scores has been modified, and it counts as a draw... however, you can also have someone on 100.4 and 100.5, and that's not a draw :/
That's a very good point didn't think about that solution. Thanks for the idea, agreed rounding was a bad idea it will probably be under 5 points is a draw next year.
One rule that will be changed is if a player gets a negative score and your home you get 0 points from that player not double the negative. Considering not allowing vests to be counted as lowest player but that will go to vote.
wait, shouldnt you only get the negative score? unless all negative scores are discounted? definitely 2x the negative isn't fair though.
for vesting we could introduce a substitute rule? like if you have a green/ red vested player, you can sub them off for an emergency who hasn't played yet.... but if the E is played OOP, you only get like 75% of their points. ?
and you can only have one substitute per match, and it has to be a vested player.
Off topic but if any of youse get the chance, google jake lloyd
Averaged 28 touches in Tac cup, broke into seniors for 2 games, won the coaches award for the tac comp
Yeah he is a bit skinny but 2-3 years time it will be lloyd mitchell jack hannebry running the swans mids
We have just stolen him with one of the last picks in draft
BOOM
Reckon Whatlez raises a valid point, however being the inaugural season, I think it was reasonable for Holz to make changes as necessary.
I like the rules as they are, and would just make one comment re: expansion teams. I know this is on the agenda for all XV comps, however I really like that the EXV has less teams and thus has better quality teams. I think it is ideal to maintain that, as it is a key point of difference between the comps. Also makes it more exclusive - I had to wait a while to get in which made me appreciate it more when I got the chance.
Good on you for opening the comp up to feedback Holz. Done a stellar job during my time on here!
Quote from: Spinking on December 31, 2012, 09:21:08 AM
Reckon Whatlez raises a valid point, however being the inaugural season, I think it was reasonable for Holz to make changes as necessary.
I like the rules as they are, and would just make one comment re: expansion teams. I know this is on the agenda for all XV comps, however I really like that the EXV has less teams and thus has better quality teams. I think it is ideal to maintain that, as it is a key point of difference between the comps. Also makes it more exclusive - I had to wait a while to get in which made me appreciate it more when I got the chance.
Good on you for opening the comp up to feedback Holz. Done a stellar job during my time on here!
Thanks spinking.
Definitely a good point to think about there, I do like that the euro teams feel soo strong compared say to the worlds. The expansion teams certainly would be interesting but I need to weigh it up against a weaker 16 team comp
Quote from: Spinking on December 31, 2012, 09:21:08 AM
Reckon Whatlez raises a valid point, however being the inaugural season, I think it was reasonable for Holz to make changes as necessary.
I like the rules as they are, and would just make one comment re: expansion teams. I know this is on the agenda for all XV comps, however I really like that the EXV has less teams and thus has better quality teams. I think it is ideal to maintain that, as it is a key point of difference between the comps. Also makes it more exclusive - I had to wait a while to get in which made me appreciate it more when I got the chance.
Good on you for opening the comp up to feedback Holz. Done a stellar job during my time on here!
there is a list of people waiting to be Euro coaches so just because they get given an expansion team does not mean they have not been waiting a while
my name is on it, would be awesome to get an expansion team coming up with the right strategy and getting the right players would be lots of fun for the coach whoever gets it
Quote from: The F.A.R.K. on December 31, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements
Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team
In my 2 months off i noticed how much trading was going on and was disgusted by it. I was told about ossies rant on the Worlds thread, i read it and agreed with him when he said we were picking players that could potentially play with the same club for 10+ seasons, this is why I'm proposing this idea:
Quote
At the end of the season each team nominates their 10 best players, and it gets checked off by the organisers. (To limit people picking incorrect players on purpose)
Of these 10 players, only 1 can be traded. So this means that the bulk of your strongest squad sticks together. Also makes it slightly like the AFL, who never trade off alot of their big guns.
All other players on the lists can be traded, but once again to keep the trading down, there is no on-trading. So everyone will have to be sure that they want a player when they trade for him. And if a 3rd party wants him then the trade has to done in full at the same time. (3 way trade)
Obviously a few minor things can be changed but the general idea will limit trading. (The idea is pretty much a trading cap, there's only so much trading that can be done, so no numerical cap needs to be put in) :)
keeping lists looking somewhat similar is something that i really want to do. This year I could see it happening but with the rules in place I couldnt do much to stop it. My team is looking very different too.
I think we have gone over the rebalancing period and i expect teams will remain more constant anyway but yeah the rules will be getting a shakeup.
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on December 31, 2012, 09:34:05 AM
Quote from: Spinking on December 31, 2012, 09:21:08 AM
Reckon Whatlez raises a valid point, however being the inaugural season, I think it was reasonable for Holz to make changes as necessary.
I like the rules as they are, and would just make one comment re: expansion teams. I know this is on the agenda for all XV comps, however I really like that the EXV has less teams and thus has better quality teams. I think it is ideal to maintain that, as it is a key point of difference between the comps. Also makes it more exclusive - I had to wait a while to get in which made me appreciate it more when I got the chance.
Good on you for opening the comp up to feedback Holz. Done a stellar job during my time on here!
there is a list of people waiting to be Euro coaches so just because they get given an expansion team does not mean they have not been waiting a while
my name is on it, would be awesome to get an expansion team coming up with the right strategy and getting the right players would be lots of fun for the coach whoever gets it
I was meant to be getting the first expansion team... :X lol
Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?
That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.
Also on the draw shower. I beat the Bashers, but drew with them... this I think affecting my finals hopes... -_- so fix up that rule.
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?
That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.
unfortunately i cant make the rule for this year as its too late.
It will be like the worlds you get 4 trades but the trades have to be done on a legitiamte unexpected dpp change. E.g. you can say you didnt expect to get so many defense changes so I will allow you to trade a back for say a mid.
If you go on to try and trade a forward for a ruck I wont allow the trade.
For those like me who basically had no unexpected trades I will not be able to do a trade unless the other person im trading with is doing it for legit DPP reasaons.
So i could trade you a mid for a back even though im not affected by DPP at all (as you are) but i couldnt trade a mid for a bakc with say zip
What if you strengthen your midfield, but you give up other midfielders?
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 02:42:38 PM
What if you strengthen your midfield, but you give up other midfielders?
that might be abit of a stretch im assuming you mean your midfield is say
Gibbs Lids Pendles Boyd Barlow Swallow and than you have lots of rookies.
If gibbs got unexpected DPP you lose a gun mid. Are you saying you want to trade say a few of your mid rookies for a mid gun to replace him?
That could work but i would have to see its for DPP reasons and not just a trade you want to make, you give your case on the trade and if its good enough it will pass.
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?
That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.
ummmmm, what?
Dual Positional Changes:
Trent McKenzie (MID -> DEF)
Jared Brennan (MID -> DEF)
Sam Mayes (MID -> MID/FWD)
Josh Simpson (MID-> MID/FWD)
Sharrod Wellingham (MID -> MID/FWD)
Jared Petrenko (MID -> FWD)
Paul Poupolo (DEF -> FWD)
Craig Bird (MID -> MID/FWD)
Brent Reilly (MID -> DEF)
Dylan Addison (DEF -> DEF/FWD)
Reece Conca (DEF -> MID)
Dennis Armfield (MID -> MID/FWD)
those were your position changes yeah?
So, mayes, simpson, wellinghand, bird, armfield.... you didn't lose any of their mid capabilities- you gained DPP... they can still be played as mids.
Reilly, Petrenko, McKenzie and Brennan all lost mid eligibility... I was going to bring up that petrenko was originally drafted in euros on the assumption he would be a forward, but since you didn't do the initial draft, fair enough.... but that's 4 mid changes, and then you had
conca who lost DEF eligility and become a midfielder.... so really you've only lost 3 mids? :S So the 4 limit works fine.... it's not as though any of those were major changes anyway... if anything it helps your team- brennan, mckenzie, petrenko, reilly shouldn't have been fielded in your mids anyway, but as defenders and forwards, they actually hold some value :S
more to the point, this is the risk you take by having young players in your team without certified positions. I took the same risks, and got burnt a little as well by dpp this year :P
Yeah whatever.
I'm just saying, your dpp changes worked out quite well.
Quote from: Holzman on December 31, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?
That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.
unfortunately i cant make the rule for this year as its too late.
It will be like the worlds you get 4 trades but the trades have to be done on a legitiamte unexpected dpp change. E.g. you can say you didnt expect to get so many defense changes so I will allow you to trade a back for say a mid.
If you go on to try and trade a forward for a ruck I wont allow the trade.
For those like me who basically had no unexpected trades I will not be able to do a trade unless the other person im trading with is doing it for legit DPP reasaons.
So i could trade you a mid for a back even though im not affected by DPP at all (as you are) but i couldnt trade a mid for a bakc with say zip
Holz can you please just clarify that the top line means the rest of your post doesn't stand for this year but only next year onwards ? Cheers.
Quote from: Scrads on December 31, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
Quote from: Holzman on December 31, 2012, 01:49:55 PM
Quote from: whatlez on December 31, 2012, 01:35:19 PM
Well I don't like this new period 'fix up DPP changes' and that means everyone gets 4. I get 4 too, but I lost let's SIX midfielders and most were unannounced. So cause I need SIX new midfielders, wouldn't that mean I get at least 6 new movements?
That's how I interpret it. Or everyone getting 4 even say one team doesn't have one DPP change. I want some clarification to this.
unfortunately i cant make the rule for this year as its too late.
It will be like the worlds you get 4 trades but the trades have to be done on a legitiamte unexpected dpp change. E.g. you can say you didnt expect to get so many defense changes so I will allow you to trade a back for say a mid.
If you go on to try and trade a forward for a ruck I wont allow the trade.
For those like me who basically had no unexpected trades I will not be able to do a trade unless the other person im trading with is doing it for legit DPP reasaons.
So i could trade you a mid for a back even though im not affected by DPP at all (as you are) but i couldnt trade a mid for a bakc with say zip
Holz can you please just clarify that the top line means the rest of your post doesn't stand for this year but only next year onwards ? Cheers.
Yeah can't change the rule for this year this is all 2013
Rivals. Can we get new ones? Like the ones we wanted initially? With coaches and all..
Had an idea about a way to maybe restrict some of the trading guys, I ran it by Holz already but the main thing is getting a positive response from everybody. This is from the pm I sent him:
'OK so everyone seems to think that there has been over-trading so far and along with lowering the trade caps I think I might have an interesting solution which might help. It was triggered by PB when he said about you giving Cotchin the 10 year contract and then trading him a few months later.
What if we enforced contracts on our players ?
My initial thinking was we all give out 5 contracts to the players of our choice. One for 5 years, one for 4 years, then 3 years, 2 years, 1 year.
So each coach selects which players will get these contracts, then as I am sure you can guess, these players CANNOT be traded under any circumstance until these contracts are filled out. Then every year, seeing as the initial 5 year contract would have 4 years left, the 4 would have 3 left etc and the 1 year contract would expire. So it means you have to give a different player a 5 year contract.
For example, I nominate:
Ebert (5 years)
Ryder (4 years)
Hartlett (3 years)
Stanton (2 years)
Broughton (1 year)
so then I cannot trade any of these 5 players as they are contracted. At the end of the season though, a year would have passed and so it would look like:
Ebert (4 years)
Ryder (3 years)
Hartlett (2 years)
Stanton (1 year)
Broughton (Contract expired)
So now Broughton is available for trade, and I have to nominate someone for a 5 year contract. Say Savage has a break-out year I might pick him and so next year my contracts would look like:
Savage (5 years)
Ebert (4 years)
Ryder (3 years)
Hartlett (2 years)
Stanton (1 year)
The main thing which I am not really sure would be best is if the new 5 year contract gets nominated BEFORE the trading period in between seasons or AFTER. I would gather before simply because it will mean it is an extra player that team has to keep.
This method I think will promote 1 club players as the best players will be under contract most of the time. The only downside is that since the new contracts are 5 years only, it really means that only players 24 or under will recieve new contracts most of the time so maybe that part could be worked on. The number of players (5 in my example) could also be worked on I jsut used it to show my point but 4 or 6 or whatever could also work.
What are your thoughts ? :)'
i dont mind this, it adds another element to consider. Teams could really be hurt by it (like giving Liam Shiels a 5 year contract and then he turns into a tagger) but its all part of the game.
What's to stop people just locking a spud into a 5 year contract?
I like the idea Scrads :)
As JB's post points out could be a few small probelms that would still need to be worked on but overall I think it could work.
well, what if those 5 players couldn't be targeted by expansion teams?
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 04:49:01 PM
well, what if those 5 players couldn't be targeted by expansion teams?
yes thats what im looking at
but, then again, that's overly complex.
just make a smaller trade limit, like we can only have 7 list movements over the entire 3 trading periods combined or w.e
Quote from: The F.A.R.K. on December 31, 2012, 12:51:25 AM
I shouldnt be complaining but we were allowed too many list movements
Our starting team from 2012 is nothing compared to 2013. Almost a completely new team
That is partly the coach's fault as well as they didn't have to trade out the players, they chose to trade out the players on their own free will. I like trading as well, but I don't do as much as most others which frustrates some who want my players. Before the first season I ontraded a bit, but this past trade period I didn't ontrade anybody besides a pick or two. Most should actually want to keep the same players, but as others have said it will cool down now as everybody has found a strategy they want to follow.
Quote from: Scrads on January 10, 2013, 04:03:39 PM
What if we enforced contracts on our players ?
My initial thinking was we all give out 5 contracts to the players of our choice. One for 5 years, one for 4 years, then 3 years, 2 years, 1 year.
So each coach selects which players will get these contracts, then as I am sure you can guess, these players CANNOT be traded under any circumstance until these contracts are filled out. Then every year, seeing as the initial 5 year contract would have 4 years left, the 4 would have 3 left etc and the 1 year contract would expire. So it means you have to give a different player a 5 year contract.
This method I think will promote 1 club players as the best players will be under contract most of the time. The only downside is that since the new contracts are 5 years only, it really means that only players 24 or under will recieve new contracts most of the time so maybe that part could be worked on. The number of players (5 in my example) could also be worked on I jsut used it to show my point but 4 or 6 or whatever could also work.
What are your thoughts ? :)'
I don't mind the contract ideas. Although just say you have an old player, if you give him the 5 year contract and he retires the next year, does that force you the following season to give out a 5 and 4 year contract out? Could be a loop hole if nobody on the list is there that you want to give a 5 year contract as of yet, but may be in the next season or two. Is risky, but could be done!
Quote from: picker_man on January 10, 2013, 04:33:56 PM
I like the idea Scrads :)
As JB's post points out could be a few small probelms that would still need to be worked on but overall I think it could work.
Thinking a bit harder about it and keeping players away from Expansion teams would be a good incentive but would only really work on initial contracts. I was thinking maybe to win a contract they must have played at least 5 games for your team the season before/or were coming back from LTI and would be in your best 15.
I am like Jb said. Pick someone shower with the 5 year contract and then you can keep your good players up for trade...
Say I'll pick a player who plays lots, but scores shower. For example, Zac Dawson. Lol.
I don't mind the idea, but yeah, Lez and I would just give our spuds 5 year contracts.
Yeah I like the idea, but Scott McMahon will probably get my 5 year contract. He's earnt it haha.
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 06:45:50 PM
Yeah I like the idea, but Scott McMahon will probably get my 5 year contract. He's earnt it haha.
good than the expansion team can snipe selwood. ;)
looking at the feasibility of it, might make things too complicated but if an expansion team does come up contracts may be the way to go.
the issue is that that's a very short term solution- like, we might introduce what, 2 expansion teams?
that means this process would only prevent *some* trading for a couple of years.
Just make the cap smaller. And players drafted in the national/ rookie drafts should count as movements (the actual picks shouldn't though).
How do the expansion teams actually work?? can they just take any player they want from your team :o
if so i want contracts on my good players
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
the issue is that that's a very short term solution- like, we might introduce what, 2 expansion teams?
that means this process would only prevent *some* trading for a couple of years.
Just make the cap smaller. And players drafted in the national/ rookie drafts should count as movements (the actual picks shouldn't though).
I was worried about that. Im thinking 10 or less trades in total over all trade periods.
Quote from: picker_man on January 10, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
How do the expansion teams actually work?? can they just take any player they want from your team :o
if so i want contracts on my good players
still thinking if i want expansion teams and if i do how to run them. I have all year to work that out though.
Yeah contracts would solve expansion teams. Or I get rid of all my good players so I have no problem :P
Quote from: Holzman on January 10, 2013, 07:26:47 PM
Quote from: picker_man on January 10, 2013, 07:25:47 PM
How do the expansion teams actually work?? can they just take any player they want from your team :o
if so i want contracts on my good players
still thinking if i want expansion teams and if i do how to run them. I have all year to work that out though.
ok cool, guess we worry about all this stuff when you've worked out if its actually happening then 8) i like the contract idea but dont think it will do anything to stop trading but should be introduced if expansion teams do come in.
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 07:29:31 PM
Yeah contracts would solve expansion teams. Or I get rid of all my good players so I have no problem :P
isn't that what you've spent these trade periods doing? :S
Quote from: Holzman on January 10, 2013, 07:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
the issue is that that's a very short term solution- like, we might introduce what, 2 expansion teams?
that means this process would only prevent *some* trading for a couple of years.
Just make the cap smaller. And players drafted in the national/ rookie drafts should count as movements (the actual picks shouldn't though).
I was worried about that. Im thinking 10 or less trades in total over all trade periods.
I would say less than 7- if you think about it, 10 trades is 2/3 of your team.
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 07:29:31 PM
Yeah contracts would solve expansion teams. Or I get rid of all my good players so I have no problem :P
isn't that what you've spent these trade periods doing? :S
Quote from: Holzman on January 10, 2013, 07:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
the issue is that that's a very short term solution- like, we might introduce what, 2 expansion teams?
that means this process would only prevent *some* trading for a couple of years.
Just make the cap smaller. And players drafted in the national/ rookie drafts should count as movements (the actual picks shouldn't though).
I was worried about that. Im thinking 10 or less trades in total over all trade periods.
I would say less than 7- if you think about it, 10 trades is 2/3 of your team.
2/3 of your team if you trade only starters. We have squads of 40.
but yeah might go lower or look at something like 5 max starters or something like that.
I'm confused... Trades or list movements??
Quote from: Holzman on January 10, 2013, 08:07:10 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 07:29:31 PM
Yeah contracts would solve expansion teams. Or I get rid of all my good players so I have no problem :P
isn't that what you've spent these trade periods doing? :S
Quote from: Holzman on January 10, 2013, 07:26:14 PM
Quote from: Ziplock on January 10, 2013, 07:18:11 PM
the issue is that that's a very short term solution- like, we might introduce what, 2 expansion teams?
that means this process would only prevent *some* trading for a couple of years.
Just make the cap smaller. And players drafted in the national/ rookie drafts should count as movements (the actual picks shouldn't though).
I was worried about that. Im thinking 10 or less trades in total over all trade periods.
I would say less than 7- if you think about it, 10 trades is 2/3 of your team.
2/3 of your team if you trade only starters. We have squads of 40.
but yeah might go lower or look at something like 5 max starters or something like that.
Could have like categories for players.
Cat A. 10 games or more for your team.
Cat b 5-10
Cat c under 5
Then have 3 movements for cat a 5 for cat b and 10 for cat c or something similar
Why would somebody tie a souf or retiring player to their team for 5 years ? Haha. The point of the contract is you wpuldnt be able to delist them either, which means they will constantly take up a list spot if yours. Could also make a rule that the fontracted players cannot be on your rookie list which means you will have 5 players in your top 35 stuck in your list and if you want there to be permanent spufs in your team, go for it.
Or as others have said, players with new contracts must have played x amount of games the season before.
Keep brainstorming guys we could find a solution :)
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 08:12:31 PM
I'm confused... Trades or list movements??
This is directed at Zip ._.
just put a lower limit on trading and ontrading not that hard :o
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 09:31:05 PM
Quote from: whatlez on January 10, 2013, 08:12:31 PM
I'm confused... Trades or list movements??
This is directed at Zip ._.
list movements.
I suppose a limit on trades in general would, to a degree, fix the issue with ontrading?
Quote from: kilbluff1985 on January 10, 2013, 09:59:51 PM
just put a lower limit on trading and ontrading not that hard :o
^ :)
About trying to avoid explioting the contract idea. How about the 5 contracts have to come from players in your top 15. The top 15 can be determined by games played in 2012/2013 (whenever it's implented) or everyone just puts forward their 15 best, and everyone takes a sqiz at who everyones picked to make sure that no big name has been purposely left out. :-\
^That best 15 rule i also suggested for my original trading slowdown idea, where only 1 or 2 of your best players can leave the club during the offseason, which'll keep the bulk of the onfield side together. :)
Just had another idea guys.
Going on my idea before about having for example 5 players with contracts (i.e. a player with a 5 year contract, a 4 year contract......... player with 1 year contract) where every year you replenish by giving someone a 5 year contract, and the term of your other contracts decrease by 1 and so these contracted players could not be traded/delisted until their contracts have been carried out.
The point of it was to try and limit trading i.e. it would be expected your above-good players would get contracts and thus you wouldn't be able to vastly alter the core of your team via trading (it would also promote 1-team players and the like).
Now, the main worry was that coaches might give their contracts to spuds to enable them to still trade their gun players. However, I think I have a solution which will fix this.
The rule of a contracted player also means that every game they are fit (i.e. playing in the AFL) they MUST be named in your EXV side. So that means if Broughton is contracted for me, he must play in my side EVERY week unless he is injured/suspended/dropped from GC. This will surely prevent people from contracting anyone close to spuds.
Thoughts ?
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Quote from: CrowsFan on January 14, 2013, 04:35:30 PM
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.
Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.
Quote from: Scrads on January 14, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on January 14, 2013, 04:35:30 PM
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.
Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.
yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.
Quote from: Holzman on January 14, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Scrads on January 14, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on January 14, 2013, 04:35:30 PM
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.
Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.
yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.
Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.
Holz, how is the rivals being worked out? Same rivals as last year?
Quote from: whatlez on January 14, 2013, 04:51:21 PM
Holz, how is the rivals being worked out? Same rivals as last year?
I will review it when im making the fixture.
I did intend on it staying the same but with the new coaches I may look at changing it, who did you want as your rival?
Well I did want scrads, not sure if he wants me lol.
Quote from: Ricochet on January 14, 2013, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: Holzman on January 14, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Scrads on January 14, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on January 14, 2013, 04:35:30 PM
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.
Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.
yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.
Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.
Yeah for the club
A player might play 20 games in a year and get traded in real afl but how often does a player who has played 150 games get traded
It makes it more like the afl
We can split lists into tiers like 40+ games 30-40 games 10-20 games 1-10 games and 0 games
You can trade 1 x 40+ gamer 2x 30-40 gamer 3x 10-20 gamer 4x 1-10 gamer and unlimted no gamers
Your 40 gamers will be players like pendles selwood
30-40 gamers will be injured premiums like mitch robbo
-20-30 gamers will be mid pricers like cyril rioli ect
10-20 and 1-10 will be developmebt prospects or potential break out players like dan nicholson
Having lots of these potential break out players being up for trade can allow lower teams to build for 2-3 years time and hopefully find a few gems.
Sorry this is all a bit messy im on my phone so cant put it all together right but hope you get the general idea
Quote from: The F.A.R.K. on January 14, 2013, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Ricochet on January 14, 2013, 04:44:26 PM
Quote from: Holzman on January 14, 2013, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Scrads on January 14, 2013, 04:38:18 PM
Quote from: CrowsFan on January 14, 2013, 04:35:30 PM
Not a fan of that to be honest scrads and here is why. Say you give your 5 year contract to Jonathon Patton because you expect him to become a beast of a forward in 3 or 4 years time. That would mean that at the moment you would have to play him in the games when he is named this season ahead of much better forwards, and then you will be stuck with his low scores (he didn't score above 50 once this season).
I really like the idea of contracts on some players, so good effort trying to fix up the rules on contracted players, but think you need to try again :)
Yeah but what you would do is wait until Patton is say 23 or something before giving him the 5 year contract.
Or maybe the rule is you have to play 4 out of 5 contracted players (giving you room to leave one out ?) idk, still might need some tweaking but just trying to get some discussion happening. Limiting trading to like 5 list movements won't stop people from trading their guns/the core of their team haha.
yes but im thinking of just doing it to limit say the number of players you can trade who have played say 7+ games for your team the year before.
Maybe a total of games for the club instead of the year. Like say A.Swallow is injured and out for the year, we would still have restrictions on him because he's played 150 games for the Bashers.
Yeah for the club
A player might play 20 games in a year and get traded in real afl but how often does a player who has played 150 games get traded
It makes it more like the afl
We can split lists into tiers like 40+ games 30-40 games 10-20 games 1-10 games and 0 games
You can trade 1 x 40+ gamer 2x 30-40 gamer 3x 10-20 gamer 4x 1-10 gamer and unlimted no gamers
Your 40 gamers will be players like pendles selwood
30-40 gamers will be injured premiums like mitch robbo
-20-30 gamers will be mid pricers like cyril rioli ect
10-20 and 1-10 will be developmebt prospects or potential break out players like dan nicholson
Having lots of these potential break out players being up for trade can allow lower teams to build for 2-3 years time and hopefully find a few gems.
Sorry this is all a bit messy im on my phone so cant put it all together right but hope you get the general idea
or a point system with a cap like the WAFL.
AFL listed player/ Rookie or allocated player â€" 0 points
Local District (Non League) top up players â€" 0 points
Local District Player â€" 1 point
AFL delisted Local returnee â€" 1 point
International player non zoned â€" 1 point
Non District â€" no WAFL League games â€" 2 points
Non District â€" 1 to 25 WAFL League games â€" 3 points
Non District â€" 26 to 50 WAFL League games â€" 5 points
Non District â€" 51 to 100 WAFL League games â€" 7 points
Non District â€" 101+ WAFL League games â€" 10 points (see adjustments for
service below)
Interstate Non Category 1 comp â€" 5 points
Interstate Category 1 comp â€" 5 points (played Reserves, TAC Cup or SANFL
U/18s only)
Interstate Category 1 comp â€" 10 points (played League at VFL/SANFL)
Non District AFL delisted â€" no AFL games â€" 8 points
Interstate AFL delisted â€" 1 to 50 AFL games â€" 10 points
Non District AFL delisted â€" 1 to 50 AFL games â€" 12 points
Interstate AFL delisted â€" 51 to 100 AFL games â€" 10 points
Non District AFL delisted â€" 51 to 100 AFL games â€" 13 points
Interstate AFL delisted â€" 100+ AFL games â€" 12 points
Non District AFL delisted â€" 100+ AFL games â€" 14 points
Obviously we can't use this exactly, but maybe something similar.
Ill add
It probs means you can trade 3-5 players from your starting tean
Like this year we only have 4 original starters onfield from 2012
Couldnt give a flower about bench players people can trade bench players as much as they like but starters is what concerns me thats what we have to cap we wanna reduce the amount of best 15 players being exchanged
I think from starting I had... Umm... Kieran Jack, Ivan Maric and Nathan Grima lol.
Actually Maric was a bench player.
Finally some sense. What needs to happen, both suggestions above are on the right tracks, is limit the amount of starters moving clubs. The depth, they can be traded, that is where the trading should be, but the main 15 needs to be limited to stay as similar as possible. So great work FARK (Must be the first time i've said and meant that) and Scrads, thinking on the right track. :)
I think we should consider some form of substitute rule- like, you name your sub, and then if any of your players are green vested, you can sub them off. Only 1 sub per team per round though, I dont think it should count for red vests, and I dont think it should matter if your sub has played or not already.
but you can only sub off green vested players before they play.
Quote from: Ziplock on January 17, 2013, 11:14:41 PM
I think we should consider some form of substitute rule- like, you name your sub, and then if any of your players are green vested, you can sub them off. Only 1 sub per team per round though, I dont think it should count for red vests, and I dont think it should matter if your sub has played or not already.
but you can only sub off green vested players before they play.
We tried to make something like this in Asians, but we failed as it was too complicated. Think about the person doing the figures.
what? it's really simple, all you need to do is announce that player x is green vested so you'll be subbing them out for player y, then change your team post.
It would make it a disadvantage if you're not on all weekend. So people like you and me who never get off are benefitted lol.
if you think you're not going to be on, just make it an automatic sub :/