The Rugby Magazine - Fantasy Rugby

[Scotty]

Is there any reason not to just stick wingers in the centres, fullback and the back subs? If not then they need to sort out the points system.

I had lovobalavu and marchant in the centres...my points would be so much higher if i put woodburn and roko...as a whole the games great and the rules work in as itoje and lawes can be flankers but they have had time their. And nowell is a cwntre when needed, as i think someone already said they need to deduct points for players playinh out of position to the actual starting position to the matchday 23, with exception to bench players as they can end up being brought on out of position through injuries. This means roko is only a winger unless he starts on the bench for bath. Then you can pick him at centre but risk him only getting 20 min.

maybe they should change it at mid season point or something.



Just think of sam burgess was still a thing...would be a flanker and a centre haha

 

[BPM]

Is there any reason not to just stick wingers in the centres, fullback and the back subs? If not then they need to sort out the points system.

Exactly - that's what I was getting at in my last post.

On the whole, the game is great, but that bit jars with me. I'd be a fool not to follow suit and play wingers in the centre etc. I just don't like doing it!

 

[RedruthRFC]

I agree with you re. the lower scoring potential of centres.

My bugbear is that too many players can be played out of position. I know the likes of Woodburn and Rokoduguni can play in the centres, but when was the last time they actually did? I feel like players should only be able to be selected in the position they are actually playing on the day. Or, a bit like the subs, if you deliberately pick players out of position, maybe you have to give up a proportion of the points for doing so.

The possibility of gaming the system this way was something that stood out like a sore thumb to me when I first signed up. I need to check old emails, I had quite a lengthy back and forth with the site owner and raised this possibility. From memory, his explanation left me with the impression that this wouldn't be possible. It looks like I should have gone with my gut rather than relying on his assurances. If we're all right in what we think is the case, a boring pattern is going to emerge of sides loaded with players listed in many positions but realistically playing in the higher scoring ones.

It's rather frustrating as this system has been through a beta and has years of previous data to test the scoring system against but seems to have fallen for what appeared obvious and avoidable problem.

Two more whinges - the injuries list doesn't seem to be spot on (unless LCD has been dropped for Yeandle and Taione for the past two games) and as I said last week, the player values make little sense - I haven't got a single player in my squad who is worth less than I paid for them and LCD has increased in value despite being yet to lace his boots up and slick back his mullet in anger!

 

[BPM]

Well AFAIK, the Beta was only run on a very small scale so I think this season is really the acid test.

From what I gather, the guy behind the game is doing this alongside a full time job so I think we should cut him some slack.

As a bit of a purist/perfectionist, I would prefer it wasn't this way, but I'm sure there is also a significant proportion of players who genuinely don't care about playing Care at 10, May and Rokoduguni in the centres and Woodburn captaining the side from the wing if it gets them a load of points.

I'd also suggest a tweak to the captain piece. I think there should be two separate pieces - a 'Star Player' who you can nominate as your double points player and some kind of benefit for picking a realistic captain rather than just whoever you think is going to score the most points.

As we go in to week 3, it's early for our gripes and I think we're all still learning about the game. There's lots I would do differently if I could start again with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Scotty]

The possibility of gaming the system this way was something that stood out like a sore thumb to me when I first signed up. I need to check old emails, I had quite a lengthy back and forth with the site owner and raised this possibility. From memory, his explanation left me with the impression that this wouldn't be possible. It looks like I should have gone with my gut rather than relying on his assurances. If we're all right in what we think is the case, a boring pattern is going to emerge of sides loaded with players listed in many positions but realistically playing in the higher scoring ones.

It's rather frustrating as this system has been through a beta and has years of previous data to test the scoring system against but seems to have fallen for what appeared obvious and avoidable problem.

Two more whinges - the injuries list doesn't seem to be spot on (unless LCD has been dropped for Yeandle and Taione for the past two games) and as I said last week, the player values make little sense - I haven't got a single player in my squad who is worth less than I paid for them and LCD has increased in value despite being yet to lace his boots up and slick back his mullet in anger!

On the player values i emailed them to ask an unrelated question about the salary cap but they did mention that in the first 8 weeks the values will increase

 

[Scotty]

I asked the question about wingers playing in the centres and got this response.


Hi Jake,

Thanks for getting in touch with your question.

This is something I had my eye on last season during the beta. I'd say at this stage however that we are only two rounds into the season and there is still a lot of rugby to be played. Last season, players like Gopperth, Socino, Marchant and Barritt returned scores comparable with the wingers that also played in the centre; they tend to pass and defend more than wingers.

Indeed wingers can get shut down in games, which we saw last season at times with Rokoduguni, and had he and Woodburn not scored lengthy interception tries this weekend, their points scores would have been below some of the performances of the centres.

I'm unlikely to alter anything at this stage, but if I were to change anything, I would probably tweak the positions of players, limiting for example Woodburn and Rokoduguni to playing on the wing. This is a big disruption for players who have crafted their squads based on the players playing in the centre too, so if I do make changes, they will probably be at the mid-point of the season and I will open up the free transfer limit to allow people to make the necessary replacements to their squads.

I'm always striving to improve the quality and balance of the game, and given this is the first real season that it has run, there are bound to be a few gremlins that need ironing out, and possibly some that appear as the season progresses, but the game will always move towards becoming a better version of itself.

Hope that helps, and please do let me know if you have any other questions.

Kind regards,
Edward Kerr
Founder
The Rugby Magazine

 

[RedruthRFC]

Well AFAIK, the Beta was only run on a very small scale so I think this season is really the acid test.

That's my understanding too. As per the email above (thanks for sharing @scotty507) it appears that the developer(s) did what I was suggesting and tested their points system against existing data sets. This being the case, it would appear to me that either:

- law / attitude changes have had a significant impact on different position's points scoring potential
- the first two weeks have represented a blip and will level out over the season
- someone is drawing unreasonable conclusions

Regarding point three, it could easily be us given how little data with have available to us. The mention of four particular centres does make me wonder whether the developer(s) are guilty of allowing their impression to be skewed by anomalies rather than looking at the bigger picture. It seems to me that the best measure of each position's scoring potential is the average amount of points scored per minute by players in that position (not tough to calculate if you've got the previous season's stats in a database). From there, you can tweak the scoring system until each position returns roughly the same number of points.

From what I gather, the guy behind the game is doing this alongside a full time job so I think we should cut him some slack.

Agreed, I've corresponded with him too and found him to be very friendly and generous with his time.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I'm unlikely to alter anything at this stage, but if I were to change anything, I would probably tweak the positions of players, limiting for example Woodburn and Rokoduguni to playing on the wing. This is a big disruption for players who have crafted their squads based on the players playing in the centre too, so if I do make changes, they will probably be at the mid-point of the season and I will open up the free transfer limit to allow people to make the necessary replacements to their squads.

If (and only if) I'm right about another one of my hunches, I wouldn't be too happy about this as it would allow other players a free chance to correct a mistake that I have avoided.

 

[Scotty]

The only change i want is that a player must play in the position chosen by the club in your squad or you incure a penalty. This rule should be implemented at the mid season point but announced at round 6 at the latest to give everyone time to change their team sufficiently by the mid point because it wont be that much of a change.

 

[BPM]

I took a long while analysing stats before selecting players and I think it will balance out over the course of season.

I think this week's scores are much more representative - i.e. the odd stand-out player, but mainly sub 20 points per player.

 

[BPM]

Team of the week proves players in their proper positions works after all ...

1. Harrison
2. Lawson
3. Koch
4. Green
5. Horwill
6. Hamilton
7. Armand
8. Simmonds
9. de Klerk
10. Mallinder
11. Collins
12. Burrell
13. Willison
14. Rokoduguni
15. Brown

 

[RedruthRFC]

Team of the week proves players in their proper positions works after all ...

It works, but does it work as well as playing players out of position? I don't think that the algorithm that picks that side is terribly sophisticated. Off the top of my head and without doing a lot of leg work, that side would be worth six points more if it had Woodburn in place of Burrell in the centre. I also suspect that putting Armand into the second row and picking the next best back rower in his place would have garnered more points.

 

[Sixways Cheryl]

If (and only if) I'm right about another one of my hunches, I wouldn't be too happy about this as it would allow other players a free chance to correct a mistake that I have avoided.

This is only a bit of fun so I wouldn't be too bothered either way, but you can't call it a mistake if they were the rules when the game started! When I picked my squad one of the main things I was looking for was an ability to cover different positions within the game. That's not a mistake, that's making the rules that were set work for you!

 

[RedruthRFC]

This is only a bit of fun so I wouldn't be too bothered either way, but you can't call it a mistake if they were the rules when the game started! When I picked my squad one of the main things I was looking for was an ability to cover different positions within the game. That's not a mistake, that's making the rules that were set work for you!

The mistake I was talking about was one that I suspect that many players have made in their selection that I have avoided, nothing to do with the rules. It has noting to do with players able to play in multiple positions, IIRC I said above that I identified this above as an area where it would be possible to work the system to my advantage, but ended up taking poor advantage of it, thanks in part to an assurance that it wouldn't be as much as a loophole as it is starting to look like. I did however favour versatile players in order to reduce pressure on squad size.

I'm agreeing that whatever the rules were, they were what we all signed up to, I'm just slightly disappointed in myself that I blindly accepted the assurances rather than thinking it through properly for myself, but that's what I get for forgetting about it for a month or more and hurriedly picking a side through a traffic hit interface a few hours before kickoff!

If however a free transfer window is opened, this would be a change to the rules and would mean that if I'm right about the pitfall I envisaged (not saying that I am, again time will tell), not only will players who failed to anticipate it get a free chance to correct their mistake, but I have stymied my scoring potential in order to prepare to an expected eventuality. If the rules are changed and (big) if what I expect to happen to some players' teams happens, I will have been penalised for trying to make the rules that were set work for me.

I wholeheartedly disagree that this is just a bit of fun, it's deadly serious! The fun lies in over analysing everything and wasting far too much time thinking about it!

 

[Scotty]

Messed up so badly. Sold nathan hughes because i didnt have a hooker that was starting...thought i had enough cover...i didnt. Had to sell a second player ( and sacrafice 20 points ffs) but i think it will work, yet shouldnt have been needed.

Still 3rd in in the TRF league haha hope i can maintain it

 

[RedruthRFC]

Messed up so badly. Sold nathan hughes because i didnt have a hooker that was starting...thought i had enough cover...i didnt. Had to sell a second player ( and sacrafice 20 points ffs) but i think it will work, yet shouldnt have been needed.

Still 3rd in in the TRF league haha hope i can maintain it

My squad is creaking too, I'm short on props, hookers and scrum halves. I sacrificed 20 points to sign starting hooker, then realised that I had enough cap room to have recruited one anyway! I did free up enough room to sign another scrum half though, meaning I have two starters rather than a bench player on the bench. Even then, I've got a hooker and a prop on the bench who are on the bench for their teams this weekend.

 

[Scotty]

My squad is creaking too, I'm short on props, hookers and scrum halves. I sacrificed 20 points to sign starting hooker, then realised that I had enough cap room to have recruited one anyway! I did free up enough room to sign another scrum half though, meaning I have two starters rather than a bench player on the bench. Even then, I've got a hooker and a prop on the bench who are on the bench for their teams this weekend.

I sold le roux second because i could get 388 for him but when i sold hughes first i bought marcus smith for 10 and yendle for 2 . Then hadnt got a full back row and if i use Beaumont at 8 then had no bench lock lol oh fantasy problems. I got backups at prob cos my main 3 potetially could all be with England in november.

Whats your team name mate in the TRF league? Mines Chiefs

Whats everyone's team names so we can put team names to names on here good luck.

 

[RedruthRFC]

My team is Redruth Ragamuffin RFC, a little bit behind yours at the moment.

 

[Raggs]

Neanderthals here. Made a few errors in terms of team composition early on, but not too bad. Very pleased that I completely revamped my team the day before it was all locked in though, having a deep enough squad is seemingly more important than i first thought.

 

[BPM]

My team is Scrum of the Earth. Mid table mediocrity after last week.

I've got 36 in my squad but I still had a problem this week with two of my hookers out, and my regular 9/10s/kickers injured/not selected.

I had a plan on who to sign but I had to change it completely ...