Rolling lockout BS... Time for a better system

[GoLions]

i wouldnt mind scrapping rolling lockout

scrap emergencies make it you just auto get the highest scoring player on the bench

it's bad you cant have 2 emergencies selected to be safe in fear of getting the lowest score

Isn't that the whole point?

If the AFL scraps the sub rule, then I'd expect rolling lockout to be scrapped in SC as well. That's one of the main reasons it's there tbh. Late outs can be replaced by emergencies, subs are an absolute dog.

Isn't the rolling lockout there so that more people visit the site? More clicks = more ad revenue

That's one of the reasons, but if they're losing a lot of participants due to the rule, then they might revert back to full lockout if the sub rule gets scrapped I reckon. Not a guarantee by any means though.
I'd imagine they'd have another survey, and so it'll depend on the results from that.

[kilbluff1985]

so your saying if you get 2 late outs and can only cover one due to emergencies tough luck kiss any chance at overall goodbye

i think that's silly

[GoLions]

so your saying if you get 2 late outs and can only cover one due to emergencies tough luck kiss any chance at overall goodbye

i think that's silly

You can cover 2 though...by having 2 emergencies. And that's the risk you take.

[kilbluff1985]

so your saying if you get 2 late outs and can only cover one due to emergencies tough luck kiss any chance at overall goodbye

i think that's silly

You can cover 2 though...by having 2 emergencies. And that's the risk you take.

you cant cover 2 on each line though

my suggestion takes out and the risk of having 2 outs

[GoLions]

so your saying if you get 2 late outs and can only cover one due to emergencies tough luck kiss any chance at overall goodbye

i think that's silly

You can cover 2 though...by having 2 emergencies. And that's the risk you take.

you cant cover 2 on each line though

my suggestion takes out and the risk of having 2 outs

I'd argue that'd make the game more boring if you effectively had 2 emergencies on every line. What if you have 3 outs? Or 4?

[Grazz]

i wouldnt mind scrapping rolling lockout

scrap emergencies make it you just auto get the highest scoring player on the bench

it's bad you cant have 2 emergencies selected to be safe in fear of getting the lowest score

Isn't that the whole point?

If the AFL scraps the sub rule, then I'd expect rolling lockout to be scrapped in SC as well. That's one of the main reasons it's there tbh. Late outs can be replaced by emergencies, subs are an absolute dog.

Isn't the rolling lockout there so that more people visit the site? More clicks = more ad revenue

Thats it in a nutshell mate, ossie posted similar earlier in the thread. It's about boosting traffic over the entire weekend and therefore the ability to increase revenue. As much as id like to see the rolling lockout gone i doubt they'll pull it even if the sub rule gets tossed out.  SC has become a good money earner for them and it's not often anymore that a business will concede the ability to generate a larger income. Customer relations matter little against the mighty dollar these days, it's all about the money.
Id like to be wrong wrong wrong though i really would. I think the only real chance is if numbers drop off dramatically that it affects their ability to create the revenue they'd like then and only then will they think about changing the model.
Only 218k playing this year so since 2010 (390,367 played) there's been a drop off of 172k , nearly half of those that played in 2010 have walked away from SuperCoach, this is a considerable amount we can only hope.

Tried to find the amount of people that played in 2012 2013(Rolling Lockout Intro) 2014 to get a better gauge of any decline but couldn't find any stats to help me.

[redfield]

i wouldnt mind scrapping rolling lockout

scrap emergencies make it you just auto get the highest scoring player on the bench

it's bad you cant have 2 emergencies selected to be safe in fear of getting the lowest score

Isn't that the whole point?

If the AFL scraps the sub rule, then I'd expect rolling lockout to be scrapped in SC as well. That's one of the main reasons it's there tbh. Late outs can be replaced by emergencies, subs are an absolute dog.

Isn't the rolling lockout there so that more people visit the site? More clicks = more ad revenue

Thats it in a nutshell mate, ossie posted similar earlier in the thread. It's about boosting traffic over the entire weekend and therefore the ability to increase revenue. As much as id like to see the rolling lockout gone i doubt they'll pull it even if the sub rule gets tossed out.  SC has become a good money earner for them and it's not often anymore that a business will concede the ability to generate a larger income. Customer relations matter little against the mighty dollar these days, it's all about the money.
Id like to be wrong wrong wrong though i really would. I think the only real chance is if numbers drop off dramatically that it affects their ability to create the revenue they'd like then and only then will they think about changing the model.
Only 218k playing this year so since 2010 (390,367 played) there's been a drop off of 172k , nearly half of those that played in 2010 have walked away from SuperCoach, this is a considerable amount we can only hope.

Tried to find the amount of people that played in 2012 2013(Rolling Lockout Intro) 2014 to get a better gauge of any decline but couldn't find any stats to help me.

Yep, the almighty dollar is the key factor here. I also think that, with the introduction of the rolling lockout, it has become increasingly difficult for people to participate in multiple competitions. I has enough trouble keeping on top of Ultimate Footy, SC and DT before the days of the rolling lockout. But now to have to check for team updates over the weekend and then log in to multiple games and make adjustments. It sounds like a small thing but I just can't be bothered, to be honest.

In regards to participants numbers, I THINK it was about 320k in 2013 and 270k last year but I'm not all that confident. It's sad that the player base has dropped off so dramatically. I used to feel like more than half of the footy fans I knew played some form of fantasy AFL, usually SC but now people have been put right off. The main reason cited is the time investment but I think for people who used to play, and have since given it up, rule changes have been the major factor. I actually miss SC back when it started. I remember being so wet behind the ears and making such bad selections and trades but it felt like more fun to me.

[Grazz]

Thanks Red, so if your right or close on the numbers it's around 50k each tear that have dropped off since the rolling lockout came in, that's a considerable number and would be affecting their bottom line surely. It gives me hope that they'll maybe resort back to the old format.

[Ricochet]

so your saying if you get 2 late outs and can only cover one due to emergencies tough luck kiss any chance at overall goodbye

i think that's silly

You can cover 2 though...by having 2 emergencies. And that's the risk you take.

you cant cover 2 on each line though

my suggestion takes out and the risk of having 2 outs

How often do you have two late outs on a weekend in DT/AF that you weren't aware of before lockout on a Friday? I honestly don't think its ever happened to me

[Football Factory]

Only just noticed this thread  :D

I don't play Supercoach anymore because of the rolling lockout, people work remember, completely unfair system and also allows people to use the captain loophole every week. Most companies fix loopholes Supercoach promotes it, but they don't let everyone know about it (put it in the rules) only the really committed supercoachers actually know there is a loophole.

Meaning of "loophole"  .. an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

Yes people also use the loophole in AFL Fantasy,RDT but atleast it's only when there are Thursday night games.

Anyway I haven't posted this to create a shower fight on supercoach or the captain loophole its just my opinion.

[GCSkiwi]

I prefer rolling lockout to the game 1 deadline, though I agree it's not perfect. If there was a late out before you would lose the player, at least now you have the chance to change it - I lost league games on account of late changes more often with a start of a weekend lockout than I have with rolling, and I work weekends... Obviously it's never going to work for everybody but that's life really.

The only way to 'fix' it would be to abandon benches and emergencies, you pick 8 defenders, 11 mids, 3 rucks, 8 forwards and you get the best 6/8/2/6 scores. But that gives zero credit to being able to pick good options based of match ups etc so I don't like that idea.

The captain loophole could be closed by adopting the finals system of 2x points for VC and 3x for C, makes that a bit fairer...

[fanTCfool]

Personally, I only discovered how to use the Vice Captain loophole half way through the season, upon joining here in fact.
At the time, I recall thinking about how big of an advantage it was and still remains, it is quite unfair to those unaware of it.
The only reason I was satisfied with the Rolling Lockout was due to the dreaded subs, which are now extinct.
4 Emergencies is enough for one on each line, and should cover all bases for Sunday games, and a last minute out.
So now, I would be satisfied with either system, probably prefer the Full Lockout on Fridays, trying to create a fair playing field for both the fanatic and the less so.
But if the Rolling Lockout was kept, I would love to see the finals method of captaincy adapted, as GCSkiwi said before me to shut down the Captaincy loophole.

[Ringo]

As has been stated earlier can not see it changing especially with sub rule gone. The big dollar from advertising is the driving force behind it and the more traffic you can generate the better for the HS. Think of the exposure with logging on 4 times over the weekend.   It has come though with a drop in numbers playing the game and I think last years total of teams around 224k was the lowest I have seen for years.

The rolling lock out was one of the issues I flagged in my survey though.

[eaglesman]

When I finished 8th and won $5k from SuperCoach ... I can definitely confirm that the rolling lockout potentially cost me the chance of winning the big prize ... It was not the only reason but it definitely ended my hopes of winning at the round 16 or 17 mark ... Think I was third at the time and I believe Holzman Heroes was 2nd. I was furious haha

That being said ... I personally like the rolling lockout as it gives the better coaches an advantage over the average joe.

It makes it bloody difficult when you play footy on weekends that is for sure and it looks bad when I am in the change rooms at half time checking and updating my team .... Even a sneaky quarter time update when the coach isn't looking haha ....

Since I started playing footy again I have been unable to crack it with the best supercoaches and I do think the rolling lockout has had something to do with this.

[GCSkiwi]

As has been stated earlier can not see it changing especially with sub rule gone. The big dollar from advertising is the driving force behind it and the more traffic you can generate the better for the HS. Think of the exposure with logging on 4 times over the weekend.   It has come though with a drop in numbers playing the game and I think last years total of teams around 224k was the lowest I have seen for years.

The rolling lock out was one of the issues I flagged in my survey though.

As obvious as this is, I'd actually never thought of that aspect, and you're totally right... we're not paying anything to play (gold subscribers being the exception, though still at $20 or whatever it is it's not much), and HS are a business... $$$$$$$

Since I started playing footy again I have been unable to crack it with the best supercoaches and I do think the rolling lockout has had something to do with this.

Guess it depends what you call the best, but you're pretty consistently high up in the rankings aren't you? I like to think I know what I'm doing but the highest I've ever ranked is 500 something, my weakness is being a bit to safe on things but I genuinely think in the top 100 or so it takes skill to get there but luck determines where you finish within that... otherwise why aren't the same teams always in the top 10? I'd be pretty happy if I could consistently finish top 1000, I'd say that would put you comfortably in the top 1% of people actually playing.