Some of the thoughts and discussions recently have revolved around what we would like SuperCoach to look like if we could have a say in its structure based on our experiences thus far.
Hinsch starts the thread by asking what, if any, rules you would like changed or tweaked, Wighty talks about equalising kick in rules, Natopotato introduces the concept of removing or limiting rolling lockouts, GKMC is not keen on the game becoming to easy with most teams looking the same and too many trades that don’t recognise some individuality and remove an element of skill that used to exist when “trades were gold”. There are even suggestions of shutting the emergency loophole down to remove the ease of a second chance.
Not that my opinion will make a difference, but I think I agree the game has become too “cooky cutter” with too many sides looking similar from early on, and coaches trading at will to equalise that trend in players.
Not to put too fine a point on my history, but my best results (top 20 and top 600) and worst results (24k) came back in the day with no rolling lockouts and only thirty trades to be used like gold. We used to have to make hard decisions back then and you lived and died by them. Seriously, this year I have traded out the same players and back in multiple times. That would never have happened in “the old days”.
The past few years I have finished 2k (current), 4.5k and 4.1 thanks to all the help available that does not necessarily separate the wheat from the chaff. This season I started round one at 96k and highly doubt I would be at 2k without already using 36 trades. Those who see that greater challenge is a good thing, may well be in the minority, but let’s have a crack at the poll to get an idea, and then all the good stuff should come out in the comments. Please use this to generation great discussion.
First up, do we want to see a rolling lockout, a limited rolling lockout or a complete lockout at the start of game one.
Loading ... Loading ...Secondly, do we like the challenge of managing trades, or are we happy having plenty and similar teams with fewer worries for the season.
Loading ... Loading ... Loading ... Loading ...Who would like to see loopholes closed? Probably not easily possible, but flying with emergencies just for that purpose tightens up the strategy, especially if your captain’s choice has to stand unless he does not actually play. Or do you like the idea of the “catch your breath” second chance repercharge to save a potentially disastrous start.
Loading ... Loading ...Now for a couple of general questions on DPP rules and players. I’ve often thought that it would great if the DPP emergency could cover both positions. For example I have Lawson Humphries sitting on the midfield bench with “E” and for some reason, lose a defender that week. Would it be nice that Humphries DPP score could automatically transfer to defence if he is not used in the midfield, or not. Just throwing this out there.
Loading ... Loading ...Do you think there’s a case for kick in rules to be equalised in a Champion Data sense. Should you get an extra point for playing on and kicking to a contest as opposed to kicking from the square and hitting your target. Should an opposition team’s inaccuracy provide a bonus to those who play on? I think there’s heaps of discussion to be had here but let us know your basic thoughts via the poll.
Loading ...Simple poll on your sub rule views. I think we all hate not knowing who is going to be the sub in a SuperCoach sense.
Loading ... Loading ...This one is somewhat out of left field but is there a SuperCoach world whereby we can buy trades with our cash reserves?
Loading ...Leave a comment / Scroll to bottom
Great write-up JD. And thanks for the shout out.
Less trades is a no brainer. Understand that the 40 this year were because of opening round and the multiple byes, but in a normal season, it should be 30-32. There needs to be reward for managing your trades correctly and punishment for making bad decisions. Get the skill back into the game.
As for the VC/C, I don’t think there’s a single decision that would make things more interesting than just going straight C, with VC only being used if your C doesn’t play.
I’m all for making the game more challenging. Reward the skill.
I agree but unfortunately those running the game want participants to stay interested for longer, hence the increase in the number of trades.
At the end of the day it is about marketing and selling papers.
Another option could be to have 2 versions of SC
Say
– SC ‘Pure’ for the hardcore players that want it challenging: 30 trades, fixed lockouts etc etc
– Then SC ‘Normal’: for the more casual player who doesnt want to take it too seriously, but still enjoys playing SC, or they dont have the time to do as much research.
The functionality would be pretty much the same, and allows the 2 different streams
I have a totally left field suggestion for SC.
I would like to see the 6-6-6 structure for SC. You still pick 30 players. You must nominate 6 defenders, 6 midfielders (including 1 ruck) , 6 forwards 4 interchange. The interchange can be from any line. The remaining 8 players can come from any line. You name 1 sub and 3 emergencies from the remaining 8 players.
The sub score can only be used if a player is subbed out. You can take the highest of the sub in or sub out score.
You name 3 emergencies. The emergency score can count as one of your 6-6-6 if a player is not named. So must be same line. If an interchange player is out, the lowest emergency score counts.
Might be too complicated and therefore not really accessible to the novice players. So, it might be possible to run two parallel SC comps – one in current format and the other in a different harder format, such as the one I put out there.
Well organised!
Best way we can reduce trades.
AFL removes bye rounds and make it just a full week off for all teams.
Subs are removed, therefore no stunted can gen on rookies
I detest taggers as less talented nuffies that quell the stars of the game….very controversial but would love to see the tagged star get his average score when scragged for more than half a game…don’t expect this to be popular but this is a open forum..
Trouble would be adjudicating
What is tagging, what is run with ???
I would like to see some adjustments to the scoring system such that it’s more feasible to pick key position players. There are some awesome players that simply don’t score well because they don’t rack up the touches. Too often our defenders are picked based off midfield time or kick-outs. How about picking them based off their ability to defend?
The scoring system does reward defenders for defending Jason, that’s what intercept marks are that’s what spoils are etc… defenders get punished more for bad disposal especially leading to d50 turnovers etc… CD don’t do a score system for SuperCoach, they contract to the league/clubs for performance evaluation… SuperCoach is a side gig! The same thing in the midfield zone this year when they decided to go after the way inside mids disposed of the ball and increased the emphasis on Bont / Treloar types who carry and take ground but get goals too.
I guess my point was that they didn’t reward defenders enough!
As good as Andrews, May, Taylor, Weitering etc. have been in the past, they have rarely been top 6 defenders.
I would like to see more flexibility with DPP’s.
For example if I have two emergencies in one position both playing but a donut on another line being able to move a Def/Mid from defence to mids, a Mid/Fwd to forwards and a Fwd/Def to defence.
At the moment you can only swap like for like.
You can still do that. It just requires an available trade to trade a player out and then the same back in to new position by moving everyone else.
It doesn’t actually cost a trade but I want to see it simplified
I’d like them to change how subs are scored and associated price drops. Nothing more annoying than a potential cow coming on in the last 10 mins, getting a few touches and scoring 10, plummeting in price and basically ruining their cash growth. They should implement a rule that a player has to play 50% game time or something for their score to actually impact their price. Likewise with players getting injured mid-match.
As others in the poll noted, removing the sub rule would solve all this but the AFL is weirdly stubborn on this even though it’s Australia-universally hated.
I have a left field suggestion, if your player gets subbed off, then you should be able to add the subs score to your player, for example if Gawn gets subbed off for 50, and the sub player oliver comes on and scores 40, then you should score 90, Gawn score of 50 still counts towards his yearly score, but your supercoach is boosted by the extra 40.
That’s a bit hard that one. What if your sub player is already on the field.