Talk Fantasy Football
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/

A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=39875
Page 4 of 6

Author:  Virral [ Sun May 25, 2014 9:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Whats the deal with the capes you keep talking about?

Author:  Podfrey [ Sun May 25, 2014 9:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

I thought the event ran smoothly, on time, with the right amount of time between games. Food wasn't great, but I've not had many bulk offerings that were great to be honest. Depending on price, I would be tempted to go for a 'no Sat evening meal' option (if one were available) and eat in the hotel restaurant.

The only negative comment I have is on the end of round announcements. In the first day the announcements were very clear that the end of the round was approaching (eg 10 mins left). This meant both me and my opponent played the last 3 turns very quickly, at a time when the game was poised on a knife edge. We were annoyed then to then find out that the end of the round wasn't actually the end of the round, but that you could play through lunch (one of the playing refs did this as they knew the rule even though it wasn't communicated to the rest of us). Day 2 was better, but Day 1 needed clearer communication.

My other feedback is regarding the tie breaker. I can understand the intention of Strength of Schedule, but on its own it is too punitive to players as they cannot control who they play. If organisers are worried that a plum draw is it's own reward, then why not combine with Net TD + Net CAS? So if you get a plum draw then you have to put the opponent away handsomely to "keep up" with the rest of your peers.

Author:  Geggster [ Sun May 25, 2014 10:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

The announcements are tricky, Geoff.

We need to get people to hurry along, but we also don't want to call games when there is an hour of lunch available. But thanks for the feedback and will have a think about how we can do that better.

As for strength of schedule, I am a big fan of that as a tie-breaker. From the six chaps that were on 410, Sizzler's SOS was by far the highest (i.e. the people he had played had scored significantly more points than any of the other 5 chaps on 410).

No-one has control over who they play, agreed.

But if one of the chaps on 410 had beaten noob ogres in the first round and then perhaps had an easy 2nd round too against more stunty, then surely he's had enough reward for playing against two stunty teams. Whereas someone like Sizzler (who started with Cracol then MissSweden - both of whom went on to win plenty of games, he also played League Winner, Ceetee, Garrick and Pippy) has won his games against much sterner oppo. That for me, is why SOS is the best tie-breaker.

(if SOS had been in operation in previous years, Geoff, i'm sure you would have made at least one more GT final - given your low TD+CAS record but large amount of wins - and you would be an advocate of it too)

Author:  Stig [ Sun May 25, 2014 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re:

Virral wrote:
Whats the deal with the capes you keep talking about?


From round 2 onwards, just as the games were starting, several capes were awarded with an announcement and a round of applause. There were for 1) the current tournament leader 2) most tds 3) most cas 4) the current stunty leader. Those players had to wear the cape during their next game.

Author:  sann0638 [ Sun May 25, 2014 11:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

From the (rather marvellous) OfficialNAF Twitter feed:
Image

Author:  Purplegoo [ Sun May 25, 2014 12:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Was this really only a week ago?!

Just as a Bloodbowling punter - I would like to echo two thumbs up for the team regarding their organisation of a great weekend. All of the gifts, the high quality room and three meals for that ticket price is pretty impressive value in my book. I can't wait to see that Lycos miniature painted up by someone good! On a couple of specific points raised in the thread:

Announcements - I'm sure you can appreciate, it's a tricky job to communicate effectively with 160 people (especially Blood Bowlers, Al is right, we're worse than cats), and we did our best. Volume wise, we needed to try to be audible outside of the immediate playing area to catch stragglers, but not so loud as to be annoying in it. Difficult line to tread, but for the most part it looks as if it worked out OK. We did tap the mic religiously before speaking into it, but apparently that wasn't loud enough not to make a few people jump when we started talking. Perhaps if the tap were loud enough such that you knew an announcement was coming, that in itself would produce the same issue. ;)

The best time to ensure people are listening or are in the room for things like capes, spot prizes, thanking donators, etc. (I don't see any of that as trivial, myself, it all adds to the celebratory atmosphere) Is at the start of a round when people have completed milling about and are ready to play. That might break concentration in an early turn, but the alternative is people missing out or repeat announcements (we did try to consolidate where possible). I'm pretty sure I did mention something about playing into lunch on day one, but perhaps not more than once. As Paul says, all feedback announcement wise, I'm sure, will be looked at and considered before next year.

Food - I was among the last in the queue for food every time, and I have to say I didn't have a problem getting a meat curry or my sandwich of choice (although - perhaps egg is not the most popular filling). As others have said, catering for 160 people to a tight budget and pleasing all of them is likely an impossible task, but the convenience is pretty useful. To be honest, at most BB events we nip into a supermarket at lunch and buy stuff not unlike that found in the sandwich bags, and I've had some none too memorable BB curries! Whilst that one was not the finest cuisine I've ever encountered, I don't think I'd place it below the Pot Noodle, myself. :) There was always free water available, so the bottle missing on Sunday didn't concern me.

Temperature - For every person asking for the AC to be turned down, we had one asking for it to be turned up. Issues with opening the doors apart, we tried to keep the majority happy. We're never going to get the temperature correct for everyone all at the same time.

Rules - My only regret about reffing this year was not playing when the Blood Bowl / NAFC finally got the ruleset it deserves. 2/1/0, random pairings (so we don't see only agility team v agility team on table one every round as they rack up TDs), SOS tie breaker (along with an improved skill package / TV), perfect. Tie breakers are never going to be an exact science or dispense justice perfectly every time. The thing about SOS, however, is at least it rewards those that get tough draws rather than those that get an easier life. There is nothing worse in this sort of massive event than someone getting (for instance) two Stunty teams and winning 5-0 (5-0) twice whilst you're squeaking past a great coach 1-0 (in some other events, the guy who drew the Stunties is even rewarded with bonus points on-top of the lovely draw and the won game!). Knowing early on that the other guy is out of sight if we're relying on tie breakers to decide a finalist because he got lucky in the draw is just rubbish. Of course, you can't control who you play, and of course, the other guy might play better Blood Bowl and be more deserving in his 5-0 victories, but we're never going to know that. If I had my magic wand, I'd enforce this across the piece. I note SOS is creeping in on the scene bit by bit, and I couldn't wish it a speedier spread.

Thanks all, and roll on 2015!

Author:  Podfrey [ Sun May 25, 2014 4:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Gegg/Goo, I'm not arguing against SOS, just that by itself it's too punitive.

For the other 4 guys on 4-1-0, knowing that it didn't matter what they did in their matches, or how well they played, they would never be getting into the final. That's pretty harsh IMO. If you want to give all players an equal chance then combining it with Net TD + Net CAS in some way will at least mean the others have a fighting chance of getting to the final/league trophy too.

Author:  Garrick [ Sun May 25, 2014 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Ohh. I got mentioned in the same sentence as Ceetee and Pippy as much sterner oppo. I can die happy now :smoking:

I am in favour of SOS for the reasons already outlined above. Could it be used at the end of round 4 to seed the players with better SOS against each other in round 5?

And just to reiterate, fantastic tournament, can't think why it is the first time I have attended. I will be back in 2015!

Author:  Geggster [ Sun May 25, 2014 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Podfrey wrote:
For the other 4 guys on 4-1-0, knowing that it didn't matter what they did in their matches, or how well they played, they would never be getting into the final. That's pretty harsh IMO. If you want to give all players an equal chance then combining it with Net TD + Net CAS in some way will at least mean the others have a fighting chance of getting to the final/league trophy too.


I'd argue very much against the argument that guys felt that they couldn't qualify with the right result in R5!

Those 5 other guys that ended up on 410 were from a pool of about 12 players that were 310 or better going into R5. It mattered very much what result people had in R5.

I agree in principle it could be worked out at the start of R5 who might have the tiebreaker, but every result on those top few tables changes who one is tie-broken with - and unless you know exactly who your possible tie-break oppo have played - and how those 4 vanquished oppo are doing in R5, then you just aren't going to know.

Many dwarf coach has been eliminated (including you and me) from contention on previous years with a draw and not being able to contend with agile teams tie-brake chances (a reason why woodies and skavs have so often made it through the tie-breaker).

SOS is extremely difficult to work out at the time, rewards those that beaten tougher oppo and makes no effort to reward the 6-0, 6-0 you occasionally get in R1

Author:  Purplegoo [ Sun May 25, 2014 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

It's certainly not up to me, but I'd be saddened to see SOS watered down and any sort of move back to the bad old days of TD / CAS draw based lotteries. I'm not a massive fan of encouraging bad play in round five (or at all) either; 'ooh, I'm one TD back, but I need to play poorly and gamble to make a final because that guy got a plum draw all the way back in round one and ran up the score'. For all of the influence you can have in a TD / CAS system, much more depends on luck of the draw and armour rolls. I doubt anyone knew who was in the best position to make the final this year going into game five, I spent all weekend on the laptop, and I had no idea until I asked Score!

No tiebreaker is ever going to be perfect, but I think SOS is the best system by a significant chunk.

Author:  Joemanji [ Sun May 25, 2014 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

For the reasons Phil and Paul have mentioned (and probably some others too) I think strength of schedule is the best available tiebreaker. As such, the NAFC will use it again next year.

Author:  sann0638 [ Sun May 25, 2014 5:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Garrick wrote:
Could it be used at the end of round 4 to seed the players with better SOS against each other in round 5?


Is this worth some thought?

Author:  Geggster [ Sun May 25, 2014 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Why after R4?

Imagine we have coaches 1&2 on SOS playing, 3&4 & 5&6.

You could argue player 2 has been given a much harder draw than a random encounter against one of the 6 under current rules.

SOS is used to advantage those that have played tougher oppo than their equal-record equivalents, not disadvantage them.

Sure if you had 20 chaps on a similar record, the top coaches might want the toughest opponents so that a win is worth more than a win against a random, but that's not going to be the case in the 150-180 man event. In that sized numbers, you are likely going to be looking at only a handful of players on similar records and therefore no need for seeding in R5.

Author:  besters [ Sun May 25, 2014 7:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

Geggster wrote:
Imagine we have coaches 1&2 on SOS playing, 3&4 & 5&6.


Surely if say 6 could make the final this option would pit 1 v 6, 2 v 5 and 3 v 4 ?

Author:  Pug [ Sun May 25, 2014 7:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: A bit of feedback for the NAFC organisers

errr...SOS?

Page 4 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/