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

2017 feedback
http://www.talkfantasyfootball.org/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=43960
Page 5 of 6

Author:  mubo [ Wed May 03, 2017 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

hawca wrote:

one thing that is good, is if were looking at this we must have got the rest right :D


Yep, I think that's fair!

Nerds gonna nerd. Sorry- I find this kind of thing interesting. I should possibly have left this discussion for a month or two, with an eye on next time. Again, not saying this is a perfect solution, but I think it's worth at least considering. Perfectly happy for things to stay as they are though.

Also, I have read the FB chat, and that's a different whine I think. This isn't a way to choose 2 from 3, more reducing the effective field.

Author:  hawca [ Wed May 03, 2017 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

options are being considered, ideas passed about, as always, this does not mean there will or there won't be change

my job is with my team to take the ideas process them, I also call on the UK RTO staff for guidance and then put out what we think is best

Author:  speedingbullet [ Wed May 03, 2017 2:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

Purplegoo wrote:
I appreciate that it's traditional, but if I had a magic wand, I'd drop the final.

You get one more round. The SoS to separate points ties matures by another round, making it more accurate. No one misses out if there is no final to miss out on. On top of all of that, there are practical advantages. If we get two moderately slow players in the final one year and it goes to eight turns of OT, what's the plan? Wait? Do awards through the final while they're concentrating? I think we've been pretty lucky to date.

Just adding to the discussion - I love the NAFC and if it never changed, I'd never be unhappy.


+1

Author:  Leipziger [ Thu May 04, 2017 10:05 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

J_Bone wrote:
A fantastic event. Some issues with lumpy tablecloths here and there but as has been mentioned, these were mostly solved with the hard boards.

The only bit of feedback I have is something I considered during the tournament but didn't want to bother the refs between rounds.

Every year there is an issue with the NAF site crashing when everybody checks it all at once. I noticed that there were lots of groups of 5 or 6 all checking their own phones. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make an announcement telling people to group together and view it on a single device? This would effectively take the load on the servers down to 1/5 and reduce the size of the problem.

Just a thought on a minor issue.

Thanks to all the organisers and volunteers. Fantastic work as with every year.

+1 to all the positives. Great event as ever.

Re: the site & the draw, it could be an idea to post it on FB & Twitter too?
(Apologies if it was and I missed it :o )

Author:  grotuk [ Sat May 06, 2017 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

sann0638 wrote:
We've already taken some steps to improve the site. Difficult to test!


Not really. There are tools for this. I'm pretty sure than a bunch of us in the NAF community do this for living.

Author:  grotuk [ Sat May 06, 2017 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

rolo wrote:
At tournaments which I've been to, it always seems to be the same people over and over again who have problems finishing their games on time. Especially when two of those coaches play each other.

And, I'm not going to name and shame, but I suspect some coaches of playing slowly for tactical reasons. That is, I've played against coaches who take forever for their first-half offensive turns, then there's only a half hour or so left for their my second-half offense. In the worst case that I can remember, by the time the Ref came by and ruled that we should play our turn out and then the game was over, I'd had (I think) four turns of offense.
(This player's games were always the last to finish, throughout the whole tournament).

I'm not sure what a referee or organizer can do about this, but it's extremely irritating and ruined my enjoyment of that game. My suggestion is that repeat offenders get put on a chess clock for their remaining games.


And this is another reason why a 1-0 shouldn't count as a 2-0... :evil:

Author:  sann0638 [ Sat May 06, 2017 8:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

Ok, let me know how, volunteer help always welcome.

Author:  straume [ Fri May 12, 2017 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

Rules pack: For the NAFC in particular, I think it is a good idea to move away from the Day1/Day2-stuff. Just more vanilla, less complicated and more new player-friendly to leave it with all skills given from game1.

Author:  Stig [ Sun May 14, 2017 7:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

Having taken a whole bunch of new players this year, they quite like day1/2, it keeps it fresh. They didn't seem to mind it at all.

Author:  frogboy [ Sun May 14, 2017 7:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

mubo wrote:
Overall- I think it was a terrific effort- well done all. Very smooth- no redraws, mishaps, must have been a lot of work behind the scenes....

At the risk of opening a *massive* can of worms- I think it's time to move to a McMahon system for swiss tournaments above 160 players. Briefly, give some higher ranked players a point so they meet each other sooner. I think you want to find about 1/2 to 2/3 the field, so perhaps having a max NAF ranking of > 170 gets you a point? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon_system_tournament). The down side is that you may prevent a newcomer going on a 6-0-0 run and winning the whole thing, but upside is that noone misses a final on 5-0-0. Or perhaps even do it not on rankings, but people get a point if they say they want one when registering.


Would this not make local tournements less friendly.

I mean if people are planning on going to the NAFC then they "must" do well in other tournements leading up to it. More pressure to win, less freindly games perhaps??

Author:  besters [ Sun May 14, 2017 10:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

frogboy wrote:
mubo wrote:
Overall- I think it was a terrific effort- well done all. Very smooth- no redraws, mishaps, must have been a lot of work behind the scenes....

At the risk of opening a *massive* can of worms- I think it's time to move to a McMahon system for swiss tournaments above 160 players. Briefly, give some higher ranked players a point so they meet each other sooner. I think you want to find about 1/2 to 2/3 the field, so perhaps having a max NAF ranking of > 170 gets you a point? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon_system_tournament). The down side is that you may prevent a newcomer going on a 6-0-0 run and winning the whole thing, but upside is that noone misses a final on 5-0-0. Or perhaps even do it not on rankings, but people get a point if they say they want one when registering.


Would this not make local tournements less friendly.

I mean if people are planning on going to the NAFC then they "must" do well in other tournements leading up to it. More pressure to win, less freindly games perhaps??


I think something needs to be done, I don't think it is acceptable to be 5-0-0 and miss out on a final. Not that I have ever got close at the NAFC.

Author:  sann0638 [ Sun May 14, 2017 10:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

besters wrote:
Not that I have ever got close at the NAFC.


No, just all other tournaments :)

Author:  hawca [ Mon May 22, 2017 12:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

besters wrote:
frogboy wrote:
mubo wrote:
Overall- I think it was a terrific effort- well done all. Very smooth- no redraws, mishaps, must have been a lot of work behind the scenes....

At the risk of opening a *massive* can of worms- I think it's time to move to a McMahon system for swiss tournaments above 160 players. Briefly, give some higher ranked players a point so they meet each other sooner. I think you want to find about 1/2 to 2/3 the field, so perhaps having a max NAF ranking of > 170 gets you a point? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon_system_tournament). The down side is that you may prevent a newcomer going on a 6-0-0 run and winning the whole thing, but upside is that noone misses a final on 5-0-0. Or perhaps even do it not on rankings, but people get a point if they say they want one when registering.


Would this not make local tournements less friendly.

I mean if people are planning on going to the NAFC then they "must" do well in other tournements leading up to it. More pressure to win, less freindly games perhaps??


I think something needs to be done, I don't think it is acceptable to be 5-0-0 and miss out on a final. Not that I have ever got close at the NAFC.


when 3 coaches go 5-0-0 one has to miss out, the issue will 200 coaches is ideally we need 8 rounds or so, that means a 3 day event.

Author:  sann0638 [ Mon May 22, 2017 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

hawca wrote:
when 3 coaches go 5-0-0 one has to miss out, the issue will 200 coaches is ideally we need 8 rounds or so, that means a 3 day event.


This was a reference to using McMahon, meaning this would not happen. (I believe).

Author:  hawca [ Mon May 22, 2017 2:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2017 feedback

sann0638 wrote:
hawca wrote:
when 3 coaches go 5-0-0 one has to miss out, the issue will 200 coaches is ideally we need 8 rounds or so, that means a 3 day event.


This was a reference to using McMahon, meaning this would not happen. (I believe).



and this system in its own right creates other issues, Im happy to consider change but it need to remove issues, not clear up some and raise others. As it stands I do not know of any way we can do this with 6 games for 200 coaches.

in a bad situation we could have 6 coaches all on 5-0-0

Page 5 of 6 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/