Warnie’s take on how DT should be played in 2013


Off the back of the article on the Herald Sun website today and a whole heap of discussion on here thanks to Tbetta, Griff and co, I’m going to put forward how I think AFL Dream Team should/could be played next year. These are realistic things and not pie in the sky type stuff that gets floated around.

Firstly, I write here with a bit of a business brain… I want AFL Dream Team to be more popular and I want it to be played for longer so it will obviously bring more clicks to the actual game itself and our website. I don’t want it to be easier on a whole, but easier to manage. I want it to appeal to the masses and not get stuck in the world of making the game too hard… so the key is to keep the engagement up and let people celebrate some success.

Some of the changes mooted are as follows:

Rolling lockout – I am massively against this. As a keen player of the game, I love the idea… but to be honest, there are 198 games over the season and you would have to know what’s happening in all of those (with subs, late changes, etc) and have access to technology to make required changes. I would hate it that if I was like any other normal person enjoying a Saturday night on the piss or playing a game of footy and miss a crucial ‘out’ that someone who is sitting on the computer is able to get an advantage over me. This would take my enjoyment out of the game. A couple of missed things here could end your season. I vote no here despite over 70% of coaches on the Herald Sun site liking it. Personally I think these stats are skewed as those voting now are the people who love it a lot (not the 90% casual users who play for a bit of fun).

Trades – This is one area that is dividing a lot of coaches. 24 trades was about right for this year. I managed, but it took a lot of effort not to use them all up. People don’t want donuts, people don’t want their guns out. I like the proposed 30 trades as hopefully that would keep people playing longer. Yes people will use them up, but it would head in the right direction. At least you SHOULD have a few left after the multi-bye rounds. The stat drop off for our site is pretty big after trades are used up – obviously it would be for the game itself too. The two trades per week, use them or lose them idea is awesome. I would love for the game to go down that path but a lot of other tweaks would need to happen relating to the magic number and also the price changes. This would keep people keener for longer but there is a fine line there. Make the magic number too high, casuals can’t get enough players they know or can follow… or leave it the same and teams are finished early and the overall battle (and even leagues) will be more of a luck thing. Hmm… this needs some more thinking. But I think we should increase trades to increase engagement, so 30 would work for me.

Emergencies – Making 4 emergencies is a no brainer for me. Especially if we stay away from a rolling lockout. Normally ruck emergencies aren’t put on and I know I was caught out once this year. I like this change for hardcore and casual users.

Multi Bye Rounds – Here I think we should just leave the squad of 30 (not go to 33 like some would suggest as I think it ruins the game for the other 20 rounds) but only take 18 players. Whether that is as simple as a best 18 scorers or 18 scorers by position (6-5-1-6). Either of those are fine with me… but I would prefer the positional 18 as that adds an element of skill. While this would guarantee you a full scoring team it would go pretty close to it and with the proposed 30 trades, you could still use 3 per week over these weeks too. One of these MUST happen. We can’t have the same system as this year. Before people bang on about not having league matches over these weeks, unfortunately they have to happen… so don’t argue otherwise.

So my realistic take on how AFL Dream Team should be played in 2013 is to increase to 30 trades, retain squads of 30 and limit to 18 players on your ground in MBRs with 3 trades allowed each week. These should be pretty simple changes. I’m sure we’ll see a bit more over the next few weeks and we’ll keep you up to date here at DT Talk!

Follow and discuss #DT2013 with me on Twitter: @WarnieDT.


  • Agree Warnie on most of those, hate the idea of the roling lockout, using your words “don’t want the biggest nerd to win”.Really hope they have 4 emergencies. I would like 2 more trades, so it is 26. And for the multibye rounds i would like to keep it all the same. Don’t change anything as this could ruin the part timer (i guess the byes do it anyway)

    • Yeah – the byes were a HUGE issue though for the hardcore and part timers alike. Something needs to change there and personally, I think the 18 scoring players will make that happen.

    • 30 trades? I cannot believe my ears. The reason that people stop playing is not because they run out of trades but because they fall out of contention. Extra trades will not remedy this.

  • It’s like seeing my thoughts articulated right in front of me. Completely agree, although that could be a school-of-fish effect…

    • I’m here to brainwash people. Haha. But seriously, this isn’t my perfect world scenario… more of what is a win I think for all stakeholders – hardcores, casuals and the sponsors.

  • I would also like the structure to be 6-8-2-6 next year too… bring on the mid-priced midfielders! ;)

    • I don’t have all day, so I just counted the amount of players listed in each position on the list for Carlton and Hawthorn. I counted DDP’s as 0.5 in each position, though maybe I shouldn’t have done this. Anyway, in order of most players availbale in each position, both clubs were the same:
      1. Def
      2. Mid
      3. Fwd
      4. Ruc
      This isn’t an exact practise, as no two clubs are the same. A league-wide count would be much better. But for a more realistic measure of how many players in which position actually get games, I looked at the DT positions for the line-ups on Grand Final day and found that for both teams the order was:
      1. Mid
      2. Def
      3. Fwd
      4. Ruc
      I totally agree that the midfield should have the most, or at the very least equal most, positions in the DT squad.

      • Plus it’s more realistic to how real AFL is played (I suppose that is what DPPs are for, but more MIDs are listed overall in DT/SC).

  • I’m a big fan of the use-it-or-lose-it trades, but two a week means 46 for the year, which seems a little excessive. I really like somebody’s suggestion in a previous article that we have 1 of these per round, plus a set number of trades (eg 10). This keeps the struggling coaches onboard, plus retains the tactics of when and how to use the set trades. Seems like win win to me.

  • To be honest while I don’t want to make the game too demanding, the rolling lockout won’t be as big a deal as everyone makes it out to be. Now DT is on your phone it doesn’t take much more than 30 seconds to check the final teams for a saturday night match, I’d probably do it anyway. It certainly doesn’t mean that the “biggest nerd wins”, you don’t need to be at your computer 24/7. Surely the ‘casual’ DTers will not be affected as they are not playing for keeps anyway, just versing mates… We sit here on this site during the off-season and talk DT anyway :P we probably count in the nerds category already… Just my two cents

    • I am a hardcore DTer and while I am always checking scores, subs, etc… I don’t do it for every game. This is the issue. You miss one or two big ones, then it is game over… your enjoyment is gone and therefore there will be a drop off. 30 seconds while you’re playing a game of footy? 30 seconds while you’re at a party trying to be social? Already Friday nights are bad enough having to be available to check on all of that… let’s not make it another 8 times over the weekend.

      • Yeah see your point don’t know what it’s like in Tassie but teams are out latest at 5 in WA haha, even by 7 you must go pretty hard :P It will only affect us 2 or 3 times a year, I probs check my phone once every 30 minutes anyway for whatever reason, can’t see there being an issue. Can probably spend 5 minutes each weekend checking EVERY game, not that big a deal. Just my opinion :)

  • Love your thoughts Warnie.

    -100% agree with the NO Rolling Lockout Idea.

    -Trades is interesting, all the “hardcore” players will whine about making it too easy if we increase trades, but as you stated a good 90% of people aren’t like that. From a realistic point of view, keeping these 90% entertained is more important.
    As the guy above me stated, I wouldn’t mind seeing 1 use-it-or-lose-it every round with an extra set of trades. Keeps the strategy, but also the 90% casual players will have trades all year….. Win Win?

    -Not too fussed on Emergencies, 4 would be nice but the other issues are more pressing.

    -Once again, 100% agree on your idea of reducing players “on field” during the MBR’s. Easiest solution to implement and for the 90% casual players to understand.

    The point made of being wary of the stats/polls/comments in favour of making the game harder as these stats/polls/comments are all made by the “hardcore” players as the 90% casual players aren’t on sites like this at this time of year.

    • Exactly! Well said.

      Only thing with 1 per week (and a bank of let’s say 10 ‘other’ trades) is how that would look and would it be easy to understand for everyone? This is more of a visual thing and making people understand. I do like that though… knowing you would have trades for finals. Would definitely help make things better for casual users!

      • True, it would have to be worded very prudently and there isn’t exactly room for a whole paragraph up where all the ‘trades remaining’ stuff is. Would have to be something like:
        Free weekly trade used?

        • What about setting a maxium/ceiling of 10 ‘bankable’ trades, above which you don’t accrue any more

      • I like 1 use it or loose it trade per week (conditions apply), bankable up to a maximum of ten.
        Dont llike the thought of having use it ro loose it trades in the frist couple of weeks.

    • Combining all the ideas above I like;

      – No rolling lock outs.

      – 18 players in bye rounds.

      – 1 ‘use it or loose it’ trade each week.

      – 10 ‘banked’ trades.

      – 3 trades aloud in bye rounds.

      and I’m not sure if anyone has said this, but I will add


  • I think that we should be allocated 10 trades for rounds 1-10, 3 a week for MBR’s and another 10 for rounds 14-23. I think that would stop the situation we experienced this year when a lot of people had no trades by round 18. Having played Dream Team Pro, I don’t think a rolling lockout should be implemented. Think we should stick to squads of 30, and have 4 emergencies.

    • Respectable thoughts about the trades, though this decreases the tactical game of when in the season to use your trades. The guys who like to trade early or late will be forced to change and everyone will be pretty similar. Suppose it at least stops the coaches who burn their trades then abandon ship.

  • First time post – Keep the three interchange ‘smart’ coaches are always looking at injuries and opponents injuries. I love this variable you may not have the stronger side but with a late out and you have the emergency and he doesnt… This just bids well for the game. The game needs points of difference because its these variables that give you a chance. Love your work fellas.

  • Like the above poster, I like having the 3 emergencies also, as if there’s a rumour about a ruckman being a late withdrawal, it can be one of the rare areas you can gain/lose an advantage on an opponent by taking a risk with where you select your emergency. Now that captains are always so similar, there’s not many points of differences in team, particularly towards the end of the season.

    I also dislike the rolling lockout, as you shouldn’t punish people for having a life/playing sport etc. over a weekend. It also brings in the VC loophole more often, and allows opponents to make/reverse trades after seeing their league opponent’s team.

    Trades going to 30 seems about right for me too. Not too many, not too few, and allows for the increased injuries/resting that occurs these days.

    I’m pretty sure I read the VirtualSports bloke say somewhere they would never do it, but I think the best way to avoid the mess of the MBR’s is to rever the leagues to 16 teams each, start round one, and don’t have league matches over those 3 weeks. That way also, there won’t be 2 teams left out of any finals action (even if they are ghost teams by then). I believe they say they want it kept at 18 to match the AFL? Well, why have bottom 8 finals in that case? (Not saying they should drop that, but obviously that’s to keep people interested.. so would avoiding the MBR’s with a league of 16).

  • This isn’t relevant to the mechanics of the game, but more chances to win a weekly prize would be good at keeping the casual DT’er involved. Loved the themed round prizes this year, even though they seemed very far out of my reach. Possibly something more achievable for everyone, rather than just the pro’s would be alright (I have no idea of that, just putting the thought out there for the great minds of DT to work with)

  • Rolling Lockout – I’m for it, and I’m saying this as someone living in a different time zone where day games start at 6am. I may not be able to use the information all the time, but why should 2 late withdrawals at one position over a weekend screw up my team and leave me no chance to do anything about it? You could still allow one emergency per position as additional cover so people don’t have to keep checking over the weekend. Yes – those people more active have a better chance of winning, but why shouldn’t they?

    Trades – I would keep them at 24 for the season, but then introduce a charge of say $75k per additional trade once they’re all used up if you want to keep trading.

    Emergencies – If it’s a rolling lock-out, then they I reckon have 1 per position (4 overall). If not, then why not be able to use all bench players as emergencies? Everyone would then rank their bench players as Emergency 1 and Emergency 2 to determine which one is used first.

    MBR – I’ve mentioned before that I would play 2 DT rounds over the 3 weeks. Trades limited to between players sharing the same bye round. The first game played by each player counts towards the first DT game and the 2nd one to the 2nd DT game. You’d need a rolling lock-out for it to work – even if it’s just introduced for those 3 rounds. The other way to do this would be to disallow all trading prior to week 2 of the MBR, and lock all players for the remainder of the MBR once they completed their 2 games. Sounds a bit complicated, but it would work. If you wanted to keep it simple, then just lock all players in for the entire MBR from lockout week 1. With ranked emergencies (as above), it wouldn’t be perfect, but there’d certainly be less donuts than what we had this year.

    • Actually….for the simple solution, you wouldn’t lock all players from week 1 of the MBR – only the ones playing in that first week. The remaining players would be subject to a split-lockout with their lockout starting in week 2.

    • Agree with your emergency option (no rolling lock out, Dt already takes up too much of my time). The main problem for me is players being named and then being pulled before the game.

      It is often said that VS try to design the game as close to the real thing as possible, well I do not see many AFL teams starting games without the full compliment of 22 players.

      What if there was a super sub that could fill in for any position. Price capped at say 300-350K and unlimited trades in that position (eg. If value goes above 350K you would need to trade them or their score would not count and you could change your super sub every week if you wanted to), the super sub only comes into play if your E1 and E2 for each position do not score.

  • im sorry,

    but DT is slowly dying…

    (even though it is probably increasing in popularity each year which totally contradicts that)

    it is getting more and more boring. dont get me wrong, im not saying it is getting easier, because everyone is on the same playing field and have the same variety of options availiable.


    every year you spend less time making your initial team. you sign up, make a team logo and then go hmmmmmm

    -lock, lock, lock, lock, he’s a definite lock, lock, ooo he’s a lock if there every was one, lock, lock, lock, oooo he’s cheap call a locksmith…hmmm im almost done here.

    thats to do with the inital team (magic number and the amount of dual position players available).

    now theres probably going to be more trades. Outrageous.

    i speak the truth, the hardcore dt’ers are losing interest- quite sad really.

    the casual dt’er is merely regurgitating what they have been spoon fed.

    i know its a business. that i am now sure of.

    • The problem is the magic number really. Hardcore DTers like yourself and I want a bigger challenge, but unfortunately that accounts for less than 10% of the players. VS/AFL don’t do this for love and have to think about what will keep people interested. Increasing the magic number and making price fluctuations slower would make the game better in my opinion but or the casual DTer, they’re not getting enough guns to start (or in reality, players they know). This is an issue as the more people playing and more often is better for the game overall.

    • A lot of hardcore DTers are probably wanting to move to a draft style game too. They’ve outgrown DT at this stage.

      Do you have any thoughts for changes?

  • For what its worth…

    1. Trades to 30

    2. Def/Mid/Fwd benches to 3

    3. 4 Emergencies

    4. No rolling lockout

    5. On field starting positions in Def and Fwd lines go down to 6 from 7, and the midfield on field starting positions increased from 6 to 8.

    • Love it all except for point 2 as those extra 3 players change the game for the other 20 rounds and become redundant after MBRs. That’s why I’m for an 18 scoring players model.

  • My two cents (and I’m not disagreeing with Warnie for once):

    -Rolling lockout should be limited to rounds with a Thursday night game only (where Sunday teams come out after the Thursday game)
    -Emergencies should probably go to 4, although I understand the sentiments of some on having 3 and gaining an advantage.
    -MBR’s – biggest bone of contention from last season, it made luck a much bigger factor than it already was/is. The expanded bench from 2011 seemed like overkill (I had 3 emergencies for every round of that year), but at least selecting the right emergencies to play brought in a new dimension. The solution of less scoring players for the MBR’s is probably the best solution though.

    On the number of trades, it depends on the bench system and how MBR’s are handled. If MBR’s were changed as above, the number of trades this year seemed to work well in terms of getting a final team. I got about as close as I usually do to getting a full team (maybe not quite as good, but that was due to a few poorly picked starting players). It shouldn’t be easy to get a team full of premiums, and it seemed like that task was as equally difficult this year.

    I do like the difference in strategy of using trades early or late, but understand the commercial desire to keep players interested until the end of the season. Maybe locking a cerrtain number of trades up until later in the year could address this, not sure if I’d like it or not though.

    The BIGGEST thing for me to improve the game, which I think people like but don’t realise the importance of, is to get the structure changed to 6-8-2-6. At the moment, we’re always looking for mid-priced players in the forwards/backs, 2-3 some years depending on the previous year’s circumstances, but rarely look to mid-priced mids. When I first started DT I tried mid-pricers or sub-premiums in the mids and it just made no sense. With only 6 spots, you had to select absolute stars or rookies. With the currect structure, the only mid-priced player in the mids worth selecting has to go up by 40 points, and that’s only going to be one or two players in the entire league! Easily the best change to spice up the game a bit, and vary midfields between players.

  • I agree with “Strife” (17/10/12 11.29pm). Play the two complete rounds of the MBR’s over three weeks.

    Four emergencies per round. It pisses me off when my opposition wins a round by the smallest of margins because a Ruck, or whatever of mine, is a late withdrawal leaving me just short of a winning round.

    I don’t like this “use ’em or lose ’em”. 27 trades should be the number for the year.

    By this I mean none of this “use ’em or lose ’em” stuff.

    Many of us can’t help ourselves during the 18 rounds and we end up with no trades for the last few weeks.

    What I would like to see is an initial 18 trades and then, make available one trade per week for the last 9 weeks of the season.

    It is only three more trades per year compared to last year and will encourage us casual DTers to hang in for the whole season.

    Smarties, like Warnie, will have up to two trades left per round towards the end of the season.


  • Here is my 8 cents worth (4 @2c each)

    Recommendation #1:
    35 trades per season: Max 2 per week in normal rounds; Max 5 per week in Multi-Bye Rounds.

    35 might seem a high number on the surface but it wouldn’t be hard to use/need 15 during MBRs (9 last year was nowhere near enough) which still limits trading to an AVERAGE of 1 per round for the rest of the year.

    Recommendation #2:
    4 Emergencies (allowing 1 for each line, if desired)

    Recommendation #3:
    Partial lockout should apply for all rounds UNTIL the extended benches are reduced in the named teams for the last game of that round. i.e. If the last game is on Sunday, then full lockout occurs Friday evening (Normal). But if the last game of the round is Monday Night then full lockout should occur only after the 22 are named for that game – whether it be Saturday Arvo or Saturday Night.
    NOT in favor of rolling lockouts for each game in each round – far too anti-social and will reduce overall competitiveness.

    Recommendation #4:
    Sub-affected players (i.e. anyone who wears a RED or GREEN vest during a game) should get DOUBLE points irrespective of game time. That would mean QUADRUPLE points if you happened to have a captain that got subbed – how interesting would THAT make things?

    • Don’t like reccommendation #4 it would be too easy to manipulate. For instance, I could have Simon Black, he starts well and clocks up 85 before copping a red vest in the last quarter, so that a younger player can come on. That 85 would then be doubled, giving me 170. If he was my Captain, that 170 would be doubled to 340. I know we have Swan and Ablett smashing out scores like that now, but they don’t do it often. In this scenario I would essentially have been rewarded for choosing a player that I otherwise should not have selected. If this rule was brought in it would be too easy to manipulate.

      • Agree… no rules whatsoever are needed to cater for subs. That’s part of the game in my opinion… same as no rolling lockout.

      • It’s a reasonable concern….but what if you made Simon Black Captain and he DIDN’T get subbed ?
        You would lose out which means the idea of trying to gain an advantage by selecting such a player is STILL high risk. Maybe the factor of x2 is too high (maybe 1.5?).

        Warnie’s alternate view of not making any rules to cater for subs is also fair enough….in the same way there is no compensation for a player who gets injured in the first minute and scores zero…..but I just threw that idea in there as an alternative to what others have been suggesting for subs (e.g. add the scores of the sub AND the subbed – THAT would be more difficult to incorporate into the program)

        • It makes a difference though, because subs are announced before lockout. If people wanted to manipulate the rule, they could. Particularly with a partial or rolling lockout. No, leave the subs as they are. The AFL is not thinking of changing the rules anytime soon, so subs are just something we will have to live with.

  • Agree with most of Warnie’s ideas. Bit torn on whether 30 trades would make it too easy. I was hit with about every major LTI this year (including 3 rucks) but still had trades left for the finals.

    I still like 3 emergencies only. Makes you think and pay attention to the news rather than automatically selecting 1 def/mid/fwd. Once again 4 emgs may make it too easy – and this is coming from somebody who finished in the 16,000s this year.

  • Great article Warnie / general discussion gentlemen

    I’m also a long-time DT addict and don’t like the idea of a rolling lockout each round. They do it in DT Pro and the Footytips.com fantasy comp and you need to be glued to the computer each weekend, lest lose games / ranking. Will reward uber-nerds.

    The Footytips.com comp runs with 2 trades per week and it gets ridiculously easy. The main danger of moving to this system (or increasing to 30 trades) will be everyone will have the same teams come finals. In my cash league GF this year there were only 6 different players as is (and thanks again Tom Rockliff) – if we had 30+ trades there would be even less uniqueness.

    Agree 4 emergencies is a no brainer (imagine the uproar if Cox / Jacobs etc. withdrew late in the GF). Like the idea of a reduced field during MBR’s (was an absolute chook raffle this year) and moving from 7/6/2/7 to maybe 6/8/2/6.

    Wouldn’t want to tinker with it too much. The season did lose momentum after the MBRs so could look to have a bonus round straight after the MBRs (maybe 2 bonus, use-it-or-lose-it trades)? Might give your average punter something to look forward to + a reason to re-engage after the MBRs.

    The AFL could also look to loosen its cheeks and award some additional prizes. The Sportsbet fantasy comp has weekly, monthly and season top 3 prizes – kept me interested.

  • Its only DT but I like it

  • Forgive my ignorance. Can someone explain “the magic number”?

  • bit off topic of the ideas Warnie put forward, but I’d love to see players receive some points for spoils/1percenters…

    The other thing I’ve always really wished the game had was somehow being able to “tag” players. Perhaps like some players have “DPP”, they could have a tagging status which can be applied to an opponents player in the opposite half.

    I’m not sure how this would work exactly, perhaps you could leave your player to score points naturally, or instead you tag a player and reduce their score by a % based on how well the tagger plays. Perhaps some sort of double point scheme like the captain rule.

    Sounds complicated and maybe not feasible but it would really add a bit more to strategy and make the game more realistic in my opinion!

    • I love that idea, VS should definitely think about it. Sounds like a really good idea to spice things up a bit. People will have to put more thought into picking their captain as to not knowing their opponent might choose to ‘tag’,

    • interesting idea…. but this would only be used in league matchups?

  • Last year was my second year of DT and without a doubt, it was amazing.

    Who cares if we had the bye rounds, or a donut in the ruc spot or we ran out of trades in rd 17. That’s what it’s all about.

    I would always love a few extra trades but so would everyone else. I would hate DT if it went into 2 trades per week use it or lose it. Wouldn’t like the rolling lockout either.

    But Warnie, I totally understand u have to consider this as a business perspective and as a DTer.

    Keep everything the same except 4 emergencies. That’s dreamteam at its best!

  • Hey everyone, Do you know if a player has a double game weekend, would it count as 2 games? like Ervin has played 1 game, so needs 2 more to have a price rise, would his double count as 2 games and therefore go up in price?

  • I’ve been DT’ing the past 6 years and always finish in the top 1%, top 2,500. Its basic DT 101.

    Certain players are locks and then the rest of DT is luck, pre and simple, luck with captains, luck with LTI’s and a certain amount of luck with rookies. The game is too easy, and its to boring. The last few years to make it at least a bit bearable I kept 100k, then 150 and then leading t o last year keeping at ALL times from round 1 to end a minimum of 250k in the bank, at round 1 it was 354k or something, just to make the game a bit more bearable and a bit of a challenge.

    I guess like most players the DT game has become too boring.

    SO to make it a bit more interesting, i agree with the change to structure, 6, 8, 2,6. It has to change to suit how the game is played.

    I would like to see the starting salary cap reduced by 500k, even up to 1000k, its all still an even playing field, but now with the onus on actually playing to build a side, rather than what it is now, guns and rookies, trade rookies for more rookies upgrade all rookies to guns, too easy.

    Another idea i would like to see is forget emergencies, have the starting squad, 6,8,2,6 and 8 bench places, then the best (highest) points scored count to your weekly score, regardless if a ‘premium’ on field gets a tagged 67, whilst a Relton rookie on the bench gets a 95, the highest scores of the 6 BAC, 8 MID, 2 RUC and 6 FWD would count. This would also promote teams to create the BEST possible team, so they’d trade for premium bench players knowing there won’t be 500k wasted on the pine, as that 500k player could on any given week, out score the on field premium and that score would be counted. I always hated seeing a part time meeper luck their way to a win, this would fix that.

    Trades, 24 is enough lets be real. The only solution that could be acceptable would be to lower the trades to 20 during the leagues games, then have maybe 5-6 given for finals. Anymore than 24 is overkill and doesn’t promote skill, more trades would just mean by round 18, everyone would have the top premiums because we’d all trades our rookies to more rookies to upgrade to final keeper premiums.

    1. Change structure to 6,8,2,6
    2. Reduce starting salary cap
    3. Best 6 BAC, 8 MID, 2 RUC and 6 FWD counts to weekly score, no emergencies
    4. 20 trades regular season, 5 extra trades granted for finals

    • so you want to make the game harder by getting rid of emg’s? hmmmmmmmm………………….

      • No, just the need to actually pick them.

        If a bench player outscores an on field player, that score replaces the on field score and counts to the weekly score for the round. If both bench players outscore their on field players, then both scores would count.

        So for example in defense, of the 7 on field and 2 bench players, the top 7 defenders score would count to the weekly round. Same for Mids, Rucs and Fwds.

        • You lost me with that idea after banging on about making the game harded because it is too easy.

          • how about no emergencies and you get half the points of your bench, like nbl dreamteam.

          • It is to easy as it currently is, we all know it.

            By making is ‘harder’ to get a good full team (this includes on field and bench players), this makes it more of a challenge and strategy would really comes into play, IF and only IF those bench players scores can be used to replace lower on field scores.

            This would mean rather than having a dud bench, or a bench of continual rookies, you could trade hard early in the season to be able to afford (bench D8, F8, M6 R3) a premium ‘sitting’ on the bench, who score would count if that score was greater than an on field players score.

            So for example last year, Dustin Martin became an out of favor premium but alot held onto him incase he became good, he became the perfect candidate for the proposal above. Without looking back over any of the games, but say for example Dustin as a D8 scores a 110, your D9 got a sub affected 29 and you had a Cloke on field who scored a 67, the lowest of all the other FWD’s, then Dustins score would count to your weekly score over Clokes.

            I know its a hard concept, but probably easier to implement then it sounds. There would be no need for emergencies as ALL players score would count towards your weekly score, with the exception of the 2 lowest scoring players in each of the BAC, MID, RUC, FWD, so effectively 8 players, the 2 lowest from each group does not count. This does away with the Friday rush and setting of emergencies, and does away with the green/ red vest scenario to some degree, as you’d hope you had decent coverage to replace the sub affected score anyways.

            Anyways, just my thoughts. Some might say it make sit easier in some respects, some might say it makes it harder.

          • do AFL teams get to magically put their emergencies on the field after there match because their on field player had a shocker?

        • so do you want to make the game harder or not?

          • My preference would be to make it harder, by making it more strategic, but also more easier so peeps don’t show up for the first few weeks, then lose interest as a late withdrawal costs them, or a LTI happens in the first minute of the game, or they can’t get home earlier enough on a Friday before lockout to trade, set/replace emergencies then end up resigning their team and not looking at it again.

            Proposal 3 does exactly that.

          • well if you want it harder but easier we can leave it as it is and get the same result…..

          • Sure we can leave it as it is, for me it means i probably won’t be DT’ing next year then. It was hard enough generating enough interest at work for last years leagues, if its stays the same, i’ll see no point as i know there will not be any interest.

    • bye then.

  • im all for making the game harder too, but it aint gonna happen.

    btw, they will keep the salary cap the same to what the afl teams have in real life. think thats how they have always done it. VS need to increase the Magic number to have the same effect as decreasing the salary cap.

    -24 trades sounds bout right. any more and i probably wont play.

    -get rid of DPP. Originally when they brought it in a few years ago, i thought it was a good idea. but they have gone way overboard with it now. i think almost every one of my fwds in 2012 was a Mid/Fwd

    – im starting to think a different thing for captaincy should apply. perhaps you cant have the same captain 2 weeks in a row? perhaps you can only have a player captain your team only 5 times during the year? nothing groundbreaking here, but it adds a new dimension and will make pre lockout research more important and calvins captains crucial. open for ideas here on what to do with captain.

    -saw one guy make a suggestion about the tagger. obviously that would only apply to your head to heads, but it could make matchups more interesting. doubt this would ever happen though but credit to the guy for thinking outside of the box.

    -i actually think the structures of the team should stay the same. deciding between premiums is still one of the most exciting things about DT these days, especially when selecting your initial squad. if we increase the amount of midfield spots ( lets be honest, most gun dt’ers are mids) it makes inital squad selection boring and tradining in premiums for that matter too.


  • Warnie,
    agree with most of your points.
    The rolling lockout is a ridiculous idea. As you stated, there are occasions when we are not privy to late changes etc and as much as we hate this happening it is the very reason why we have emergencies.
    I would still prefer trades left at 24 but with three emergencies for Def, Mids and Fwds (2 for rucks).
    I say this for two reasons. 1 – Having limited trades (24 rather than 30) makes you think very carefully about making a trade. Is it really worthwhile? You need a strong discipline to not make trades when things are not going to plan. 2 – The original squad of 33 (in this case) takes on more importance with fewer trades. You must ensure your emergencies are going to be regular players and utilizing dual positional players again takes on more importance.
    Multi bye rounds are a pain in the arse but which we simply have to accept. The thought of having 18 scoring players in lieu of the usual 22 holds a lot of merit.
    I also totally agree with the concept of a normal starting 22 being 6, 8, 2 and 6 rather than the current 7, 6, 2, 7.

    • One further point is that I feel we should only have one emergency ruckman.

      • na bandi cause there will be too little backup otherwise…. rucks are known to not be overly durable.

  • If the number of trades are increased, I’d like to see a lower starting cap at the outset. Seems a better way to increase engagement without compromising difficulty too much.

    This could help give the mid-pricers more currency early on, and increase the diversity of teams for the first half of the season (although you’d expect them to converge by year’s end with even more trades available).

    Another approach might be to limit when trades can be used – in particular making sure that teams can’t have blown all of their trades by mid-season.

  • Whilst not covered in the HS survey, I would like to see something put in place to cover the effect of subs. Perhaps a 4th “floating” emergency who you nominate before lockout. If one of your starting players is then the sub (green) or subbed off (red) you then get your floating emergency score instead.

    This won’t necessarily make the game easier. It actually adds a bit of a gambling element – ie there is no guarantee your 4th emergency will outscore the sub-affected player, particularly one who is subbed off in the 4th quarter with say a 90+ score.

    • this would be a stupid rule… pick players that won’t start as sub and if your player gets subbed off bad luck if there injured…. but if its form related there probs doing shit for your team anyway.

    • So which player would this floating emergency replace if more than one player is subbed?

  • My only thoughts are K.I.S.S.
    Keep it simple stupid.
    Half of my work league lost interest once their trades were gone.
    They don’t follow it closely enough to make decent trades or changes.
    Most crashed in multi bye rounds.
    It was won by a nerd with constant access and too much time on his hands and no other life.
    It needs to give all a fighting chance & with some luck some wins.

  • I’m from the South of Adelaide so it goes without saying that I don’t want too much change.

    I think a structure of 6-8-2-6 is excellent and will encourage more unique midfields. Mid-priced mids will be super important as we will be unable to rely on rookies from an expansion club this year for instant cash generation.

    Like Warne Dawg I think 4 emergencies is a given particularly as it allows us to cover rucks (Mummy anyone?) without sacrificing a DEF-MID-FWD emergency.

    I’m not too sure how to combat the MBR’s – we’ll leave that to VS. As for trades, a couple extra would be nice but I’m not a fan of the ‘use it or lose it’ theory. 24/26 I think is ideal.

    Agree with the comment above from Noodles – K.I.S.S – DT needs to adapt but it definitely ain’t broke.

    The fact I’ve been playing cricket all day and logged on to DT Talk in October is sad.

  • I would love the guys at VS to really look into a proper Pro competition, with more players & less trades. I think at the moment, their is too much emphasis on “cash cows” and picking a “guns & rookies” structure, which leads to a lot of very similar teams.

    Proper AFL club has roughly 40 listed players and 6 or so rookies. Plus you don’t see players jumping ship, mid-year. I understand that is the fun of it and the challenge – increasing player values and trading up to another jet or 2, but it doesn’t happen in reality. Plus a larger squad would sort out the bye problem and to me, be a lot more fun to manage.

    May not be everyones cup of tea, but I’m sure the enthusiasts would love it!

  • What about retaining the 24 trades (or dropping to 20 trades) but then giving 2 free trades each week of the MBR’s. That way you can get through the MBR and not limit yourself for the rest of the season and hopefully retaining the casual player

  • One of the big complaints from all the more serious players is that teams are too similar at the get go (only becoming more similar as the rooks are traded for other guns)

    At the same time casual players want to have players they “know” in their team from day one, not caring to follow the rumours on every rookie in the land.

    My proposal would look at helping both those scenarios: Players get “Tiered” during pre-season and right up to the first lockout

    Essentially each player gets tier 1, 2 or 3 ranking during preseason. This would be straight off starting price $0 – $200= Tier 1, $201 – $350 = Tier 2 & $351+ = Tier 3

    You would still have DEF MID RUCK FWD posiitons to fill but at the same time in your squad of 30 startes you must have 10 players in each Tier. As soon as Lockout Round #1 occurs the tiers beomce irrelevant and you can trade how you please.

    I think this would mean everyone would have to look at some really different players and with a total of 10 guns for your whole team you’d have to think pretty carefully about who you really want at the start.

    The only thing I haven’t looked into here is how that would fit in starting salary cap but at an avg

    10 x $125k (tier 1) = $1.25M
    10 x $275k (teir 2) = $2.75M
    10 x $400k (tier 3) = $4.00M
    Total = $8.00Million. Anyone know what our starting salary cap was last season?

  • Rolling Lock out – At first I agreed with Warnie here, then I thought of all the times where I had the choice of two players (eg Saad and Smedts), one named on the team the other on the extended bench, only to find that come Sunday they have done a complete 180. A rolling lock out also helps with the subs or if a team like Carlton, who had an amazing ability to heal players named as an emergency when another player ‘fell sick’ just before a GWS game.
    Unfortunately there is to much leeway for teams to adjust their sides up until the first bounce that can greatly affect a Dreamteam.

    I think a rolling lock out would help be in line with what the AFL clubs are already doing.

    I can still enjoy my beer down the pub on a Saturday now that I have Fan footy and Dreamteam and other social media at the ready on my iphone to keep track of scores and player changes.

    Bring on 2013 my life is empty without Dreamteam!!!!