Complete the AFL Fantasy survey to help improve the game

fantasysurveysmallPlease help improve AFL Fantasy for 2015 and beyond by taking part in the survey. Click here to have your say.

Feel free to discuss what went right, what went wrong and anything else you thought about 2014 and what you would like to see going forward.

58 Comments

  • A thank you at the end of the survey would have been nice

    • Page 8 was headed “thank you”.
      “We really appreciate your feedback”

  • Just for interest…..
    Would it be possible or advisable to revamp the vest scoring
    It is frustrating and disappointing to get an unexpected red or green vest
    Given that nearly 10% of player scores are effected each game – it’s significant
    I examined the concept of joining the red & green vest scores
    eg You have X Ellis (59, red) to D Sheed (12, green) – X Ellis = 71 points
    From rounds 7 – 19 this averaged 65 with 70% of scores at 50-80pts
    It could reduce the pain and increase the “lotto” element
    Just a thought…..

    • Yes Pure Grunt would be great to see that element taken out but what happens if you own Sheed (& not X Ellis) in this case? What would you score then? & to throw a spanner in the works, what would you score if you owned both of them?

      • I think you may start to gamble on vest players
        Cheaper emergencies with vest risk would then be common
        There is still risks – Average of 65 but a range of 20 to 120
        15% of scores still below 40 and 8% over 90
        To your dilemma – both score 71
        but their 59 or 12 is what determines their price
        Looks attractive but to get them on this basis is risky
        Sheed may play whole game and get 34!??
        It’s also good for the injury scenario
        eg Cox (36) when Vickery KO’d him – gets Tunbridge score (38) = 74
        It’s only an idea – some would hate it!

  • This is my first year doing afl fantasy and by far the biggest problem is that in the second half of the season everyone’s team starts to look identical which makes it pretty boring. It also means match ups are often decided by a late out like Mitchell this week.

    I would prefer to see a cap of two or three players per team in your squad. This would mean more diverse teams as we wouldn’t just be able to trade in the same in form players or cash cows.

    • Not sure what u meant
      “a cap of two or three players per team in your squad”
      Are u talking with in your league?

      I agree that the teams start looking very similar/boring
      The trade frenzy of 2 every week contributes to this
      46 trades should be say 30
      That would reduce cow trading and force people to choose select premos early then gain 2 or 3 later not 7 or 8

      It will never be perfect… I still like it as an extra interest in the games
      Elite looks like a good option – more time and coordination though….

      • would seem like a nice feature, I personally stick to this rule anyway for diversification purposes – don’t want my score to bomb if one side does poorly
        and it helps me in my league that I have LOADS of PODs, when all other sides look very similar

        so for Brisbane, you’re stuck with Hanley, Smartin and Rocky (and no options like Zorko/Crisp)
        or a team that can’t have the likes of Sidey/Beams/Pendles/Swan in (or Parker/McGlynn/Buddy/JPK/McVeigh, you’ve got to choose an alternative)

  • I filled out the survey and one point I put across was limiting the number of players available for selection from any one club. Many coaches pick their teams using only players from the team they support. This really sucks, obviously have no chance of winning anything, except maybe a match or two. It also creates a very unfair advantage to some teams in league match-ups, especially when that team has the bye.

    Also suggested squads of 33 with 36 trades and the ability to use a maximum of 3 trades in any given week, if you use your 36 trades in the first 12 rounds, so be it.

  • Dulcify! I like your thoughts :)

    I think Fantasy will keep 2 trades a week as it keeps casuals involved all the way through to the end of the season. It also differentiates the game from RDT etc.

    Simplest way to stop teams becoming identical later on is to make it harder to make money and/or start with a smaller salary cap. This works against the more casual player though so it is a balance.

    Personally I think a major goal would be to fix up all the hundreds of minor bugs in it, then try and improve the draft (Elite) format (as to be honest, ultimate footy kicks it’s bum, it’s not even close). Get to that point & I think that’ll impact numbers for next season much more than anything else. Save any ‘cool’ ideas for 2016, it’s just not a priority :)

  • whats peoples thoughts on teams that played last year automatically being placed in a league decided by what rank you finished last year. eg teams ranked 1 to 18 overall placed in league 1, teams ranked 19 to 36 overall placed in league 2 and so on. i think this would be a good way for people to be competing with teams of their equal and this way you will at least have one league that’s super even. i personally would like to compete with the guys i finished alongside overall and see how my skills stack up.

    THOUGHTS APPRECIATED…….

    • I like the concept but this would be a bit difficult to manage unless all players registers using the same email/info as they did the previous year. I suppose with selection of upto 5 leagues, one league can be dedicated to this. A lot of players come and go as well – or maybe changed their team info like I did this year.

      • you will still have a massive amount of teams using last years details like email and team name and those who change will miss out and there spot goes to the next person in order, and this year we could enter as many leagues as we wanted too there is no limit.

  • Remove unlimited trades after the first round. Would fix a lot.

    Then the only people completing their teams by round 10 will be the ones who actually did their research before the season started and picked the right rooks. Instead of everyone completing their team at around the same which happened this year, regardless of any research put in. All the casual players just jumped on everyone they missed at the start right after round 1 giving absolutely no advantage to anyone that actually put in hours of research well before.

    • +1 agree on this one. I do some research pre-season and figure out the drafts and also players playing in the NAB cup. I had listed of several rook options per position but managed to bring this down to two or three after Round 1. It could have been a totally different game had I chosen a player that did not get a game at all early in the season.

  • I agree with gambler that any effort possible should be made to reward people who do their research. I think the breakeven formula is a bit off when it comes to price rises.

    Say for example, you follow VFL games and spot a youngster who you think will go well that most people won’t know about. You see him get named so you pick him up and he scores 75. You would get maybe a 10k price increase if you’re lucky. And now his BE would now be negative, everyone picks him up having seen his 75 and they make 40k the next week, 30k the week after etc. So you’re only benefit from researching a junior is that you get 10k more than everyone else in value and this is offset against the risk that he spuds it anyway. So essentially everyone is just painting by numbers and the guys who do their homework and take risks on players get virtually no reward for it.

    • Still better than the other system where rooks don’t go up in price until their 3rd game. In Real DT you’re actually disadvantage by jumping on a rook early instead of waiting till they are on the bubble with a BE of -50+. This system ensures even those in a coma still hear about any good rook before their price rises 3 weeks later.

      • 100% agree with that… and it frustrates me how people want it back to that system. That must purely come out of them understanding it and not willing to adapt to a different system.

        • Fact that a lot of people want that system back comes down to most people not being hardcore players like ourselves. The casual player wants the comfort of knowing they don’t have to do much research to be competitive…. which stinks as far as i’m concerned as immediate price rises in Fantasy is basically the one thing that advantages those that put in the research (well it was designed to anyway but it’s been a bit buggy).

          2 trades a week is good, fun and needs to stay (coming from a guy who’s played for years with limited trades) The criticism you hear about the 2 trades per week is from people who think that it has *removed* the strategy they had with limited trades, rather than the reality which is it has *changed* strategies and opened up new ones.

          Removing the round 1 free hit and tweaking the pricing forumla (as you said below) will do enough to please the hardcore player, with fair but not too harsh implications for the casual player. Thing is we know Fantasy is geared toward being friendly for the casual player so it’s those voices that will inevitably be heard above all. What i’m advocating for is: Please the hardcore players while still keeping it fun for the casuals.

          I think you’re pretty much on the same page as me Warnie so it’s good you have the power to whisper in the ear of FanHub!

          • Yeah, but it’s some of the most hardcore (and loudest voices) that want it ‘back to how it was’. Well, they have RDT if that’s what they really want.

            They need to find the right balance with everything. Hopefully they can. As said though, it’s all about having a stable product.

            No bugs is all we ask for AND at least the features we have been used to over the years (eg. as simple as it is, let me sort my leagues by total points, let me search for mates teams, click on other teams to see their stats/rankings, stats centre full of good information, Fantasy Coach having at least what is available on Virtual Sports’ product, bringing back the Tit-ed Cup! etc).

          • I am a supporter of bringing back the price rise after the third game but only if it was released in conjunction with limiting trades. I think trading off on rewarding people with dollars quicker for getting their teams right from the start is better.

            I found it strange this year that price rises at the start of the season happened after 3 games for some players, but then one week for others. Was inconsistent – should be one rule for all.

          • If you’ve noticed though a player who hasnt played before has a breakeven of 40 (or something very close).. And a lot of the time a first gamer doesnt get much of a higher score than that (or much lower if the sub) meaning that if you jump on the first week he plays you are really at a disadvantage:
            1) Because the price may well go down
            2) You dont know how good of a dream team scorer he is and if he’ll keep his spot

            Meaning that you can essentially pick a bloke in the second week without really being at a disadvantage

  • There will be no ’round one free hit’ next year as round one will occur over one weekend, as announced today – it starts on April 2, the beginning of the Easter weekend.

    2 trades per round will stay, no question about that.

    As will the DPP additions. That was a great new change for the game. I suggest we get changes prior to round 6, 12 and 18 next year.

    The only thing is that they might need to tighten up how their price change formula works. As Fat Knife said above, initial price rises were sporadic. I still don’t understand how Tex Walker went down in value after his first game. We’re all playing by the same rules, but I would like some more understanding on some of that.

    As 3rdMonkey said, get the bugs fixed – that should be priority #1. Elite needs a lot of work to make it anywhere near as good as Ultimate Footy.

    No rules will change. Rightfully so, Fantasy is now a different game to SC and DT. Personally I think that is probably an issue with salary cap games in Australia. They are all the same. People wanting the 3rd price changes back (among other things) need to understand that having a different product is what the AFL’s goal is. We can’t have people getting bored.

    For so long, DT and SC were the same game with different scoring (SC scoring still sucks). With RDT adapting their rules back to what they ‘were’, but keeping them the same as SC isn’t a good thing for fantasy in general. They are the same game, people will get bored.

    Those who complain about rules being different need to learn to adapt. This is a good thing. Yes, have your whinge about stuff not working properly, but the actual game play is pretty good – just a few tweaks need to come in to make it a bit smoother.

    I’m really looking forward to 2015.

    • I’d like to see a “wildcard” where you can make as many changes as you want to your team before a particular round (like before rd2 this year, but whenever you choose)
      would make it a little easier when all the rooks fatten up at once (so rd7)
      if you’re decimated by injuries in another round (Goddard, SJ, Rocky, Treloar all notable midfield outs in rd16 for instance)
      or trying to copy a minor premier team when you sneak into 8th spot in league
      then you could play your wildcard and change them all out (without taking into a yearly trade count)

      as well as a team-cap, so you can’t load up on players from one team, and actually encourages you to be a little diverse (maybe 3 or 4 per side) – so the likes of Rocky/Hanley/Martin, or Sidey/Beams/Swan/Pendles but can’t have Jack/JPK/McGlynn/Parker/McVeigh in your side
      would probably make the sides a bit different come the end of the season (do you really want to bring in McGlynn now (and be forced into trading out another Swan?), or do you look at different options like Gray/Nroo/Danger) – still encourages the purer players to look for those pods, as well as reducing the filler teams where you’ve got all players from one side

      prices changing after 1 game is a little difficult to code (I basically saw it as LastRound*0.48 + BE*.52) – price/MagicNumber
      which is difficult when one of those values is 0

      a debuting 350k (priced at 70 average) player for example
      under that formula is 0 + SCORE*.52 – 350000/5250 = BE
      so 0 + .52 BE – 350000/5250 -> .52 BE = 66.66 -> BE = 128
      and a 350k player isn’t likely to get 128, so those “punters” are severly short changed here
      maybe a 2-round incremental, but it still goes the way of SuperCoach/RDT where we get a look at the player first (or unless you “dummy” value his last year’s average as his first score) – which would bring his BE down to 68 (in this case)

      • so to justify this:

        Taylor Adams (because he’s out for the season, so current average is the one he finishes with)

        Assumptions: MN = 5250, and price = Average*MN = 71.33*5250 = 375k

        Current formula: 0 + BE*.52 – 375000/5250 = BE of 137
        My adjustments: 71.33*.48 + BE*.52 – 375000/5250 = BE of 71

        makes it a lot easier to pick someone because of their draw (or being underpriced) rather than copping a big loss because their BE is sky-high
        and then you’re asking yourself if Adams can beat 71 in rd1 (and a worthy investment?), rather than 137

      • I think a wildcard round would firstly be confusing for the average casual player, but secondly, takes away from having ‘your team’. Has merit, but personally I don’t like it.

        Limiting players to select per team also makes it more confusing for casuals. Just another one I personally don’t like.

        I think they need to look at their price calculation formula. That seems about right what you’ve outlined there, I just think they need to have a dummy value. It just doesn’t make sense that when a player gets what they are priced at (not necessarily their true breakeven given this ‘odd’ formula that includes a zero), that drop in value. If they need to, give their first game score a different weighting. As simple as it is, if someone is priced at $200K (approx 40 points from starting prices this year), they should gain price if they score above that.

        • What is so confusing about telling a person they can only select 3 or 4 players from any one team? Perhaps only casuals who can count to 3 or 4 should be allowed to play.

          • Haha. Good point, but it does add ‘another thing’ that people need to know about. What about old mate who loves Collingwood and wants to pick all of those guys.

            Limiting how many players you can pick from one side just isn’t something I think would (or should) be considered.

          • The reality is the best Fantasy players know that more than 3 players from one club is not the most productive team building technique.
            3 is the tipping point and 4 and beyond means the players are inevitably stealing each other’s points.
            Diversity a key ingredient in all successful teams.
            Sydney a possible exception this year with Malceski sweeping across the back, Jack/McVeigh rotating between mid/wing and Buddy in front of the big sticks.

            The point being a cap of 3 players per club will be redundant and no limitation for the better teams in the AFL Fantasy comp.

    • Warnie…. your thoughts on vest score idea above.
      A bit out of left field I know.
      A positive move so people don’t disengaged as quickly.
      eg I copped 2 vests this week but at least one was 78 but the other was 52″.
      Reduces disappointments – Increases the “kissed on it” factor
      Still have risks (you wouldn’t plan for it) – Differentiate from other games

      • I don’t like it. Mainly because you should only score points for what your player scores. Vests are just part of the game now unfortunately.

        The only solution I ‘like’ for the vests is doing away with benches, and just taking our best 22 scores – as in, the best 6 scores of our 8 defenders, 8 from our 10 mids, etc. I say ‘like’ because it would work without changing the game up too much, but I don’t love it and wouldn’t fully support it being implemented.

        Put simply, I don’t like your vest score idea as it would get very confusing for all.

        • I consider myself duly reprimanded.
          I’ll go back outside and line up in two straight lines
          or sit in the naughty corner with Calvin!

        • Sup Warnie whats your thoughts on my league idea i posted above would give us a chance to vs people of equal ability instead of the same people you play every year.

  • K.I.S.S

  • To add a new strategy dimension to the game, I suggested that a players salary cap balance in the bank attracts interest. Say 5% per week.

    What do you think?

    • :000000000 That’s revolutionary!

      Awesome idea mate.

    • Very interesting… I wouldn’t mind that, however… again (going with many of my other points, broken record I know), it may complicate things. We want to keep it simple! Easy to understand for all players!

  • Apologies if this is the same “red vest” theory as above, but my thoughts on substitutes and vest for next year are –

    If your player (on the field) is subbed off, then you should get a portion of your emergencies score, after all, this is how the real game works! One player gets subbed off, another gets subbed on.
    For example, on the weekend Luke Hodge gets subbed off after playing 75% of the game, sitting on 89 points. The remaining 25% game time should be added from your emergencies score. In this case we will say Jaensch was the selected emergency. He scored 118, so you should get 118/4 = 29.5 (round up to 30 let’s say) added to Hodge’s 89, to give you a D6 score of 119. The score can be highlighted red or green or whatever to make it clear that the sub has kicked in, but this is more fair, and its more accurate for how the game works.

    The numbers won’t always be so juicy, you might have had X.Ellis for his 56 the other week after about 50% game time, and Mav Weller for 54 on your bench. Again, you should be able to take 50% of Weller’s score to be added to get a D6 score of 83.

    I don’t think that would be too confusing, and I don’t think it would be hard to find TOG stats for each player to work out the sums.

    • I just can’t warm to this sort of thing at all… the game needs to be kept simple. Vests can be unlucky, but there is some skill around avoiding them.

      In short, I don’t want to score points from players that I haven’t really selected to play that week. KISS.

  • Apologies if this was raised earlier, but I run a cash AFL Fantasy league as many do, but I also award prize money to the team that wins the Minor League (teams ranked 9 to 16).
    This is crucial to keep players focused when they can no longer make the final 8.
    Not only does the AFL Fantasy site not facilitate a Minor League Finals series, I have no visibility to the scores of any teams not competing in the Finals beyond Round 19.
    I’ve had to run a minor league Finals series manually this year and rely on the teams submitting their scores to me via a “print screen”.

    Can the AFL Fantasy site consider reintroducing a Minor League finals series or at the very least provide search functionality to track teams down via their Team name.

    Thanks

  • I would like to see the following added:
    Able to see other teams overall ranking.
    Searching for other teams by name.
    Bottom 8 finals series.
    Automatically save team changes (Not that important)
    Add a “notes” section of the website to make your own notes.
    Add a “watchlist” for players you aim to get into your team.
    Have a public league against randoms if you chose.
    The ability to try “AFL Fantasy Coach” without giving my credit card details. If I chose to buy it, then I’ll give my details.
    Better prizes. What good is a Silver membership if you’re from anywhere except Vic? Its only for MCG and Etihad. Also, AFL Live voucher? I would be surprised if anyone who won this would even use it.

    What I did like:
    2 trades per week
    The ladder including percentage. Options to sort by overall points for bragging rights though.
    Keep vest scoring the way it is.
    Keep bench scoring the way it is. eg Someone said above to have your best 22 score including bench players. Shouldn’t the person who benched Stevie J against Crowley be rewarded for that move?
    Player price movement after 1 game is good. Maybe make the increase a little higher after the first game.
    Matchday comp was good through out the year.
    DPP Additions were good
    The player “dots” to see who has been selected to play.

    • Yep, bench/field scoring should stay the way is otherwise there’s no point in having a distinction.

    • Great points, Gorillas. I agree with most there!

      The rules of the game are fine. I’d tweak the price changes… the first movement should be a bit higher as you said. I think they can work on that. DPP additions are great (sparked increased interest – I’d make it happen 3 times next year), two trades is absolutely fine… makes the game much for fun to play.

      Whilst I sort of agree with the Membership prize thing, the AFL Live Pass is a winner. I’d love to win it. I’d be happy to buy it for $90 for my iphone/ipad but can’t really justify it when I already pay for Foxtel. Handy though for when I go to my tightarse parents house who don’t have Fox Footy and it doesn’t use my cellular data. Winner! Good prize, but yeah… there may be some who wouldn’t use it.

  • Please get rid of the “save” button

    • That is something that is being worked on, I believe. Although we weren’t used to having it, it was good at times to play around with your team without having to save and it would just revert back to how it was… that is something I don’t mind about UF. In saying that, I would prefer not to have to hit SAVE to make it stick.

  • For partial lookout games (eg. Thursday night games), you should still be still be able to reverse trades for all remaining games after first lockout.

    Never understood why they whacked that limitation in there.

    • Incorrect…. you can reverse trades after the first lockout, right up until full lockout, provided those trades didn’t involve any players from the first game (which gets locked out… creating the “partial lock out).

      I think you may have tried reversing trades after you had already traded in/out players from the game that had already been player.

    • As Gambler pointed out, AFL Fantasy lets you reverse changes. RDT and SC have never been able to do that for partial or rolling lockouts. Fanhub get a tick for that!

  • I would like them to get rid of R4 and give us M11, also DPP’s can cover both positions, but only if the late out (which hurts with no rolling lockout) is DPP in the same positions.

  • I hate the bye rounds with a vengeance. I’d like to see any player who has a bye that week scores the average of their scores for the season to date.
    Keeps the team selection simple for casuals and means you can pick the team you actually want, not just one that conforms to your bye strategy.

    I’d also like to see the league ladder sorted on points scored instead of percentage. If you miss out on finals purely based on the luck of what was scored against you, I don’t think this reflects the realistic ranking for the season.

    Maybe even give leagues an option to have a regular season based entirely on points for ranking, then finals match ups as normal. Not suggesting this as the default setting but could provide an interesting variation if some commissioners wanted to take this approach.

  • The late out, or the green vest really screws up a dedicated players weekend – nothing worse than your up against a long time rival, you think you’ve got a better team on the park, projections look solid and all of a sudden Sammy Mitchell’s an LWD with a virus!

    At that point you don’t want to watch the footy, you can’t be bothered checking your fantasy scores, you won’t talk the missus, even more than normal, etc.

    The whole idea behind “fantasy” is to put yourself in the role of a “real” AFL coach.

    So what happens to a real AFL coach, when Sammy Mitchell can’t play? He rolls in an emergency – no problem. Same in fantasy – exactly.

    But do we ever see an AFL side run out with 20 players, instead of 22?

    Nope – they have a 40 man squad and they get to do “whatever it takes” to get 22 players, playing! Which is the way it should be!!!

    Solution – reckon we need to have more than 30 player squads and we should have some ability to replace an LWD, by promoting an emergency player and then replacing that emergency from a pool of reserves.

    To allow for bigger squads, the magic number could be reduced.

    Again, how does a real AFL club afford 42-45 players under their salary cap? I’m not suggesting brown paper bags under the table, Mr. Tippett, or 10 year contracts Buddy. Obviously their is a realistic salary paid to rooks and mid tiers and then premiums get their cut. Surely we could get something similar and perhaps select some more squad players.

    Just a thought – should / could help minimize the bye round fizzers as well.

  • If it wasn’t for the byes, the set-up of the game would be great. The best 18 works… obviously needs thinking (and clever bench selection), but I like that as a solution over taking players’ averages or extending squads – think about what this looks like after the byes and what we do with those ‘irrelevant’ players. Extended squads works for draft games, but in salary cap with two trades each week, I don’t think it’s needed.

    • Very valid point, about the irrelevant players down the stretch.

      Having said that, with all the “resting” of stars as a team approaches the finals – eg. the Dockers versus St. Kilda last year – the depth may be fairly important.

    • Wow – bet some coaches who were all ready stretched with Stevie J being out and then losing Roughy, would be really shagged now with Pendles pulling the pin!

      Wouldn’t it be great if you had that extra depth and could at least salvage something from the round, by perhaps swinging somebody on to the field and grabbing 60, maybe 70 points?

      I traded in Josh Kennedy for Stevie J – great move!

  • Overall, I don’t mind the set-up of the game, especially the transparency of the scoring.

    One thing I have observed is that the game (this year at least) has become a question of squeezing as many MIDS into your team as possible. 7 of the top 10 DEF and 8 of the top 10 FWD have MID eligibility. One way around this would be to make some adjustments to the scoring. The easiest would be to increase the value of a goal, to say 12 points to help adjust the FWD rankings. Other options would be to offer points for spoils or running bounces, although I recognize the need to keep scoring to stats collected live and I’m not sure those are. I would pay 3 points for a free kick won and I would not pay points for a kick which goes out of bounds on the full (correct me if I’m wrong but that seems to receive 3 points at the moment).

    Re the Byes, one option to improve peoples’ experience might be to increase maximum trades to 3 per week for those 3 weeks (per RDT rules). If you used 9 during byes, you’d have to forgo 3 trades in the second half of the season). Overall, I really like the challenge of the Byes and setting the team up accordingly.

    I would make an amendment to price changes from the current situation where changes occur after one game to two. I understand the rationale for reducing from 3 but I think, wrt rookies in particular, a change after just one game introduces a strong element of luck. Changing a price after the second game would provide an opportunity to appraise a player’s role in a team and assess whether they have Fantasy potential or are just going to run around negating the opposition. It would also leave something of the element of luck in there as only one data point would be available compared to two last season.

    Overall, however, the thing that will decide whether I play this game next year is the usability of the AFL Fantasy site. This year’s has been nothing short of an amateurish disgrace. I can’t think of a single aspect of the site which is an improvement over Virtual Sports’ version from last year.

    Current bug bears include the extremely sluggish updating of live scores; the fact that EMG scores are only added after the start of the final game (Warnie’s Tweets over the weekend demonstrated the problem here); the unnecessary doubling of the VC score during games (is that figure included in the running total?); the resetting of the projected score when a player’s match starts, leaving me with absolutely no clue where I am in a head-to-head when multiple games are going on with different start times; the fact that the Projected Scores in Fantasy Coach can’t be sorted (although they can in Value Predictor for some reason). I’m sure there are more bubbling under the surface.

    I feel like have struggled a bit with 30 trades in RDT but have made it to a Prelim next week, so there’s a solid chance I’ll move to that format full time next year given the massively better user experience on offer.