World 15 Discussion

[Maca24]

nah to much trading will ruin the whole game. I for one would hate that.

Think one short period either now or mid season is plenty!
After all we didn't do all this drafting for no reason, you should be happy with your teams.

[Ziplock]

but there would need to be a stipulation rule like 'no trade backs'

If both parties are happy in a player going from one team to the other, then returning, why not?

ok, hypothetical situation

I'm sitting top of the ladder, and everyone hates me because I'm so awesome, and I'm playing HP this week. Nostra is playing PB's scrub team, and knows he can win it easily because, lets be frank, we're 4 through the season and PB isn't averaging 800ppg. So he trades Swan who's playing PA, to HP to bolster his relatively weak mids. Since port is shower, cwood is awesome, but its still early in the season so swan isn't rested, swanny pulls out a 160 as HP's captain, and I lose by 40 points, when HP's next highest scorer was cloke on 114. Then they trade back next week.

See the potential issue?

And I don't see the issue with constant trades happening... I watch a tv show called 'the league', which focus' around NFL fantasy football. I've never used a trade system before in AFL fantasy football, but going from the tv show (and who doesn't base their life around TV? :P ) it seems to really add another element to the game, and makes it even more funnerer :P

[Boomz]

Should really just put it to a vote once & for all...
I'd like to see a pre-season & mid season trading period with a cap of 3 trades each period & If more than half the coaches block a trade then it doesn't go through...

[Ziplock]

Separate votes for world/ euros or not?

[hawk_88]

Trading is what makes fantasy footy fun. Trading with others only improves that. Otherwise you essentially have a wait and see approach when it comes to actually playing matches. You essentially do very little apart from pick from a pool of players once a week.

ok, hypothetical situation

I'm sitting top of the ladder, and everyone hates me because I'm so awesome, and I'm playing HP this week. Nostra is playing PB's scrub team, and knows he can win it easily because, lets be frank, we're 4 through the season and PB isn't averaging 800ppg. So he trades Swan who's playing PA, to HP to bolster his relatively weak mids. Since port is shower, cwood is awesome, but its still early in the season so swan isn't rested, swanny pulls out a 160 as HP's captain, and I lose by 40 points, when HP's next highest scorer was cloke on 114. Then they trade back next week.

See the potential issue?

I don't see that as an issue personally. It is not uncommon in some sports to essentially have loans of players, generally they have minimum period of time the loan can take place (say 5 matches). The reason they have the minimum is not the scenario you mentioned, but rather to stop teams in the lead up to finals bolstering sides of opponents who are in competition to make the finals. So it is to stop engineering losses as opposed to wins.

[Maca24]

That hypothetical situation that zippy raises would suck!
Wouldnt be fair on the top teams.

[ossie85]

Trading is what makes fantasy footy fun. Trading with others only improves that. Otherwise you essentially have a wait and see approach when it comes to actually playing matches. You essentially do very little apart from pick from a pool of players once a week.

This is true hawk, and I like the fact that this team will require minimum maintenance. I'll be playing DT and SC and likely a few more fantasy games, so I'll be far from bored :) But this game - I hope - will be more about building a team over time, slowly.

[Ziplock]

I would agree with the loan trade idea. But I think it should be for a minimum of 5 matches, not a maximum :P

I mean, nostra would be far less likely to trade swanny to HP for a whole 5 matches, especially if he comes up against me the next week and I curbstomp him for it :P

[hawk_88]

This is true hawk, and I like the fact that this team will require minimum maintenance. I'll be playing DT and SC and likely a few more fantasy games, so I'll be far from bored :) But this game - I hope - will be more about building a team over time, slowly.

I think you'll find that always on trading, or at least a substantial period of trades (maybe 4 rounds prior to finals trades aren't allowed), won't allow team revolution.

Like with the AFL, trades will be hard to get done and will still lead to a steady evolution of lists.

Where as a season without trades essentially is pick the best available 15 on average once a week. A computer could do that.

I would agree with the loan trade idea. But I think it should be for a minimum of 5 matches, not a maximum :P

I mean, nostra would be far less likely to trade swanny to HP for a whole 5 matches, especially if he comes up against me the next week and I curbstomp him for it :P

I think I said minimum....

You are right in that when you construct a game, you have to put in rewards and penalties, pros and cons, for every decision. So it may be advantageous for you to lose, but he has to weigh up your potential loss with losing Swan for 4 further matches.


Also, I think a veto of any trade has to be a 2/3 majority. 1/2 just isn't enough for mine.

[Ziplock]

soz hawk, completely misread that. I agree that a 2/3 vote should also be in place, not 1/2.

1/2 is too easy too collude *eye twitches*

yeah, I think you guys who are anti-trade (and therefore anti-freedom,communist and repressive tyrants by association), think that trades are going to be firing all across the board. I really don't see this happening. Like, nobody is going to trade pendles for brogan, unless they're in serious desperation (all their rucks have gone down and all their mids are averaging 110+). Same as nobody is going to be trading like franklin for someone like chad cornes. Nobody is dumb enough to  get absolutely trade raped.

One of the biggest advantages to trading is that it means our useless players can be used. Like, you might have 6 forwards averaging over 80, but you can only play 4, and only see one as necessary for back up. At the same time though, your 4th mid is only averaging 50, while someone else has a 7th mid averaging 80, but their 4th forward is only averaging 50.

bam, swap that shower and you both end up with a better team for it.

trades will only revolve around mid pricers for the most part- I see it as unlikely people will get 'trade raped' to use the term from the league (great show- look it up :P )

[Maca24]

Trades will fire in from all angles.. just watch. There is always someone who finds a loophole in the system and benefits greatly, thus ruining the fairness of it all.

[Ziplock]

there's like a dozen people per league. Like sure, if this was a competition with 100 000, someone may find a flaw, if it was a computing system. This is a pen and paper (in spirit) league, there's no real bugs, or flaws you can exploit... only bad coaches

sounds to me like you kids are scared :P

[bomberboy0618]

soz hawk, completely misread that. I agree that a 2/3 vote should also be in place, not 1/2.

1/2 is too easy too collude *eye twitches*

yeah, I think you guys who are anti-trade (and therefore anti-freedom,communist and repressive tyrants by association), think that trades are going to be firing all across the board. I really don't see this happening. Like, nobody is going to trade pendles for brogan, unless they're in serious desperation (all their rucks have gone down and all their mids are averaging 110+). Same as nobody is going to be trading like franklin for someone like chad cornes. Nobody is dumb enough to  get absolutely trade raped.

One of the biggest advantages to trading is that it means our useless players can be used. Like, you might have 6 forwards averaging over 80, but you can only play 4, and only see one as necessary for back up. At the same time though, your 4th mid is only averaging 50, while someone else has a 7th mid averaging 80, but their 4th forward is only averaging 50.

bam, swap that shower and you both end up with a better team for it.

trades will only revolve around mid pricers for the most part- I see it as unlikely people will get 'trade raped' to use the term from the league (great show- look it up :P )

I disagree with this.

[Boomz]

soz hawk, completely misread that. I agree that a 2/3 vote should also be in place, not 1/2.

1/2 is too easy too collude *eye twitches*

yeah, I think you guys who are anti-trade (and therefore anti-freedom,communist and repressive tyrants by association), think that trades are going to be firing all across the board. I really don't see this happening. Like, nobody is going to trade pendles for brogan, unless they're in serious desperation (all their rucks have gone down and all their mids are averaging 110+). Same as nobody is going to be trading like franklin for someone like chad cornes. Nobody is dumb enough to  get absolutely trade raped.

One of the biggest advantages to trading is that it means our useless players can be used. Like, you might have 6 forwards averaging over 80, but you can only play 4, and only see one as necessary for back up. At the same time though, your 4th mid is only averaging 50, while someone else has a 7th mid averaging 80, but their 4th forward is only averaging 50.

bam, swap that shower and you both end up with a better team for it.

trades will only revolve around mid pricers for the most part- I see it as unlikely people will get 'trade raped' to use the term from the league (great show- look it up :P )

I disagree with this.

Yeah so do I but that's why there would need to be a block system...

[Ziplock]

nobody in euros* :P