WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[Holz]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45



1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value




But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

Im away from long weekend.

I might compeomise and go 90% 5% 5% for 18+ so guys like kelly are a little cheaper so 108 instead of 112. Still up from 90 under ossie.

What do people think?

Ill do both rating NDT

[Ringo]

Just to clarify the minimum cap as I was one who wanted it after having 2 trades rejected last year because of it.

This amendment allowing draft picks to be worth 100k and have list vacancies has alleviated the problem.  The issue will be on coaches to monitor to ensure that they are above minimum cap prior to season start.

[meow meow]

Trade confab thread deleted so we can all focus on watching Pacific get smashed.

[Nige]

Trade confab thread deleted so we can all focus on watching Pacific get smashed.

Oh wow, it was actually deleted. Nice.

[GoLions]

Has Purps not asked for at least 50 on multiple occasions?

Feel free to make a comment that add value in regards to comments of the given examples.

Your examples showed nothing new,  the random examples barely changed,  and you kept showing the extreme cases

Most players dont change thats the point only the extreme cases show changes its called a tinker.

I went athabetical and captured most of the As

Name some players you want.

Sounds like you just dont like the rule as it correctly takes away your advantage from the flawed system. If yiu were unbias the rule makes sense.

Here's 45



1) Marc Murphy
2) Steele Sidebottom
3) Stefan Martin
4) Robbie Gray
5) Jeremy Howe
6) Jake Lloyd
7) Matt Crouch
8 ) Jack Ziebell
9) Daniel Rich
10) Sebastian Ross
11) Jeremy Cameron
12) Bachar Houli
13) Hamish Hartlett
14) Jack Martin
15) Jack Darling
16) Aaron Mullett
17) Nick Vlastuin
18) Travis Cloke
19) Phil Davis
20) Nathan Krakouer
21) Adam Oxley
22) Nick Robertson
23) Darcy Tucker
24) Ed Langdon
25) Nakia Cockatoo
26) Riley Knight
27) Liam Sumner
28) Paddy McCartin
29) Harley Balic
30) Brayden Sier
31) Jake Barrett
32) Nick O'Kearney
33) Brandon Jack
34) Archie Smith
35) Simon White
36) Harry Morrison
37) Brady Grey
38) Blake Grewar
39) Mitchell Hinge
40) Sam Simpson
R1) Jordan Foote
R2) Dallas Willsmore
R3) Jordan Dawson
R4) Cameron Loersch
R5) Sam Murray

+ Brad

$1

don't need a special formula to work out his value




But seriously holz, do those 40odd. I think your idea has merit but needa see it.

Im away from long weekend.

I might compeomise and go 90% 5% 5% for 18+ so guys like kelly are a little cheaper so 108 instead of 112. Still up from 90 under ossie.

What do people think?

Ill do both rating NDT

Yeah that could be a bit better then

[Purple 77]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

[GoLions]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

[Purple 77]

With Berlin (waiting til last), London and PNL to vote

Votes 5, 6, 7, 8, 12 and 15 still in contention.

10. Home Ground Advantage
A) Keep - adds a fun element to the game
B) Scrap - decides too many games

The first 3 coaches voted B, and I was getting devo :P so I'm personally thankful that A wins with 10 votes to 5



13. Utilities
A) Continue being allowed to name whomever you like, regardless of their position
B) Limit the utilities to one midfielder, where the second spot has to be a player from another position (DPP mids are allowed), whilst also extending the bench to 4 players

With 10 votes to 5, A wins. Utilities will continue to be free range.



14. WXV Draw
If the rounded scores are the same e.g. 1297 --> 130, and 1302 --> 130, should the game be a draw?

A) Yes, adds more drama to the game
B) No, the team that scores the most points should win

With 11 votes to 4, B wins. No changes will be made.

[Ringo]

London will be voting soon - been ill the last few days.

[Nige]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

[Toga]

Phew, would've been devo if 10 or 13 had have changed :P

[GoLions]

Phew, would've been devo if 10 or 13 had have changed :P

I reckon the utilities rule is a cool concept. I dunno how well it would work, but maybe it's something we could try out in pre-season?

[Nige]

Disappointed that 13 didn't change tbh.

It would have added an appropriate amount of spice to this wonderful comp.

[RaisyDaisy]

Yeah to clarify just in case, there would only be penalties if your list lodgement (list vacanies included as 100k) was below the minimum cap, not during the trade period.

We can definitely discuss those penalties now

Loss of premiership points

4 Premiership points AND 1st NAT Pick

[JBs-Hawks]

Chuck 13 straight in the trash can,  no need to reward lack of mid depth.