State of the NAFtion

[Pug]

ah Phil your one floor is that logic is rarely used by those hurling the abuse...

If he's only got one floor does that make him a bungalow?

*Crowd* "Booooo, boooooo....get off!....booooo!!" ;D

[Blammaham]

To pick up on the variant BB discussion i.e. ranking of Dungeonbowl, Street Bowl, Death Bowl etc. ... This is a problem I inherited as TD back in 2010 when historically many tourneys with very non-standard rules were already in the results database.

I pledged in my 2012 TD election campaign that I would find an agreed solution for the problem, and implement it. I also need to explore whether leagues can have a ranking structure similar to tournaments. This is top of my NAF agenda over the next 6 months.

This might be a good place to gather some opinions! Some of the options to solve the BB variant issue are as follows:

A) allow the existing variant matches to stay in the database and allow them in future
B) allow the existing variant matches to stay in the database but don't allow any variants in future
C) retrospectively remove all variant games from the database (and not rank them in future)


B and C would most likely involve a separate 'variant rankings' page on the site, with each coach's variant matches being separated from their regular BB matches.

All thoughts welcome here.

I just wanted to pick up on this, older post by Pippy to highlight some of the real difficulties in dealing with the problem of Blood Bowl variants in the rankings.

I brought this problem up in the last T.D. election. I may be misremembering, but Warpstone highlighted the fact that is is actually very difficult to "remove" or "move" the rankings. If it is possible I would favor option (B).

The other issue, in resolving this is the fact the one of the NAF MAJORS, the Dungeonbowl, uses a variant game to determine the winner of the Dungeonbowl. I can see why they do that (to keep Dungeonbowl in line with the tournament name), it's only one game, but, it's not any game, it is the game that decides the Major tournament winner for double NAF points.

Personally I don't really care that much if variants are in the rankings (though I would prefer them to be removed) and there are many who care much more than I do about this issue. For me there are so many tournaments that use so many different rules ( eg. home made star players, home made rosters, Choosing your own opponents (not judging or attacking, just making a point)), that variants being in the rankings isn't really the end of the world for me. S.

[Long_Bomb]

I would guess from what has already been written that removing variant games would be to much work. I also suspect that having individual ranking system for every variant would be a problem.

I would like to suggest that we consider looking at introducing a Dungeon Bowl ranking system. I think that as Dungeon Bowl has a very strong official history and a recognised rules set, albeit dated. It would be a good place to start, allowing tournaments to use a Dungeon Bowl as a special final including the Dungeon Bowl itself. It would also open up the option of a Dungeon Bowl only events. I realise there are issues with single race teams Vs. Colleges but I'm sure it could be resolved and I would predict a good number of events springing up as soon as it was recognised.

[Blammaham]

I think there is an option D) to Pippy list too:

D) leave the varients in the rankings as is and start a new Varient Ranking System, grandfathering any new varient tournaments into the new ranking system.

S.

[Deathwing]

Without straying too far back off topic, just to address a couple of points as I'm probably best placed to do so:

it's "funny" this discussion about "special treatment concening Majors".

What make the Chaos Cup more important than the Lutece bowl except that the name of this tourney is present in the rulesbook ?

i know, some of you will say the demography is different between France/Europe & Michigan/NordAmerica... in this case, why there is no "Major" in continental europe ?

In my opinion, all the tourney are important. The small one with 12 participants is as important as the biggest ones 150+ participants.
The only exceptions are Eurobowl and its equivalents in other continents / levels, because not everybody could applied : in regular tourneys, like lutecebowl or chaos cup, it's "first come first registered".

The idea was to help give each continent's 'flagship' event (yes, based around fluff and history) a small boost. Bear in mind that it was applied in conjunction with capping of k-value of the larger tournaments, so when it came into effect the Blood Bowl (for example) actually became far less important in terms of ranking influence. This was after it became apparent that the massive tournaments and large concentrations of coaches were having an undue influence on the rankings. As you said, demographics. There was a discussion thread on NAF on the subject that ran to about 17 pages, following which Ian "Doubleskulls" Williams, Tom "Galak" Anders and myself (taking the points from the thread on-board) thrashed out a method between us to try and address/resolve the issue as best as we could. It's not perfect in that Europe still has access to a greater number of larger tournies, but it did narrow the gulf considerably compared to what was in place before. Of course the 'smaller' tournaments are important, we tried to recognise that by making a 30 player tournament carry the same k-value as a 150+ plus one. A 20 or 12 player tournament has a smaller base k-value, but not by much if you run the formula. Continental Europe does of course have a Major, The Dungeonbowl...which brings me to:

... it is the game that decides the Major tournament winner for double NAF points.

It's not actually double NAF points, see quoted post below.

Please note gentlemen that this post isn't intended to enter into any extended discussions of the merits of the system or the rights and wrongs of the decision we made back in the day, it's simply a little history that I hope will help you (at least partially) understand how we got to the current situation.

Advance notice: Adjustment to NAF ranking system.

The ranking system has now been in operation for over two years, and there's going to be some changes to address some of the issues that have become apparent over that time, specifically regarding k-value.

Changes will be as follows:

1) The Majors.
The Blood Bowl, The Chaos Cup, The Dungeonbowl and The Spike will have a fixed k-value based on 60 NAF coaches, regardless of how many are actually in attendence. This will also apply to CanCon (in Australia), effectively giving it equivalent status in terms of k-value to the 4 majors.

2) All other tournaments with greater than 30 NAF players in attendence will be capped at 30 NAF players for k-value purposes.

Effectively, the majors (inc. CanCon) will have a fixed k-value of (just under) 15.5, tournaments with 30 or more NAF members playing will have a fixed k-value of (just under) 11, tournaments with <30 NAF members playing remain unchanged.

These changes (taken together) are aimed at:
i) Eliminating the undue influence that the Blood Bowl (as a single tournament) has on the present rankings.
ii) Boosting the status of the other majors and giving Australia an 'equivalent major' of it own.
iii) Reducing the impact of the comparatively large European tournaments as opposed to the generally smaller (on average) tournaments in the US, Canada, Australia etc; resulting in a much closer average k-value per tournament worldwide.

I'd also like to publically thank Tom Anders and Ian Williams for their invaluable help in reviewing the system on this occasion.

-Woody

Dates back to Feb 2005, I was V-P at the time. So yeah, pretty much down to me and a couple of willing accomplices. I should however like to state that if you think it's f**ked, any anger should be directed towards any (or all) other NAF Officials for not fixing my screw-ups in the intervening years since I left office. Give 'em hell! *Ahem*.

[Lychanthrope]

I should however like to state that if you think it's f**ked, any anger should be directed towards any (or all) other NAF Officials for not fixing my screw-ups in the intervening years since I left office. Give 'em hell! *Ahem*.

You are going to be SOOOOOOOO popular. Made me laugh though.

[Podfrey]

That said... more communication is always a good thing, and more consistent communication too. The Newsletter is awesome (well done to Sann, and to JP for setting it up before), but some more simple things like up-to-date news on the website, and maybe a monthly/quarterly update from all committee members would be of use.

I've seen many comments like this, thanking Sann in isolation and then lambasting the committee for not communicating more. Firstly I would also like to thank Sann, he is clearly very committed and I applaud his efforts. But he didn't pop out from nowhere. Lycos and co. recognised the requests for more communication and so created the role of Communications Officer, clearly defining what was involved and setting up the dotmailer account for the Newsletters etc. This is a clear example of the NAF listening to the members and responding.

The newsletter is welcomed, but is tournament/event based and not really what people have been asking for. What people are actually asking for, and this is why the committee gets flak, is that information is given on how projects are progressing, e.g. The much promised web site re-vamp. To hear nothing of the progress for 6 years is a long time.

So either the Comms Officer isn't doing their job OR Lycos and co. are listening but not understanding/willing to share.

As for getting involved, I agree with PGoo that people should put themselves forward. I've personally, and on forums, given Lycos an open offer of help on several occasions. I've also ran in a previous Prez election; which was deadlocked and required a second vote (so not devoid of support).

[Darkson]

I need to ask a question on rankings to go with Deathwing's post above (no, not having a moan, just need to check something). Pippy's realm, or someone else's?

[sann0638]

I need to ask a question on rankings to go with Deathwing's post above (no, not having a moan, just need to check something). Pippy's realm, or someone else's?

I think in general, if a member takes their "best guess" at who to ask (so probably Pippy here) and they can't answer, I'm sure the committee person will ask around until they get an answer.

[Pipey]

Option D) is also available. Good point Blammaham.

The other question - would we want to see all variants lumped in to one category? Raising this because the difference between Dungeonbowl and Deathbowl (for example) is so huge that it could be argued they should be categorised separately. If all variants are lumped together that's a pretty heterogeneous batch of rulesets, even if they share the BB concept. If there were separate Dungeon, Death, Sevens sections - is there a motivation for this when only a handful of tourneys globally have taken this route?

How does the idea of removing / no longer ranking events like Deathbowl sit with the Deathbowl TOs and players? Particularly keen to hear thoughts / suggestions from you guys.

I know that NTOs have a handle on what events in their regions have been variant. So identifying them in discussion with NAF staff should be manageable. I hope creating a separate section would work (if that's the route we take). Would need to discuss with the number crunchers on that one.

-------

Also: relating to Majors, flagship tournaments and the like...

Recently the committee were discussing the possibility of expanding the set of tournaments which are given additional ranking points (currently this is the five majors) to include:

NAFWC
Eurobowl (and EurOpen)
AusBowl (and Aus Open)
NATC (North America Team Championship)

This would:
A) Reflect the importance of these showcase events alongside the Majors
B) Allow a wider pool of NAF members to access additional ranking points

The inclusion of the open events alongside Eurobowl and AusBowl I feel is important because these tourneys are representational / selection based (see approval doc) and I feel all coaches would have to have access to the additional points.

This is not yet agreed or finalised, but opinions on this would also be gratefully received.

[Olaf the Stout]

I'd strongly support the AusBowl SC (and the state-based Open that runs alongside it) being given additional weighting.

Olaf the Stout

[Elyoukey]

just 2 cents, i see here a lot of NAF informations that seems official, this topic go on here while everybody knows that it should take place on the NAF forum... and there is a twin topic there...
Hopefully someone will merge both topics and an official voice will make a shoot with everything that has been told on both topic and everything that will change in the future ?

[Indigo]

Just curious, why do you always write "Olaf the Stout" after your post as though you were writing a letter? I'd understand it if the forum didn't already display usernames on every post!

< smiley to prove this isn't a personal attack

[Darkson]

If there were separate Dungeon, Death, Sevens sections - is there a motivation for this when only a handful of tourneys globally have taken this route?

Conversely, it might mean more tournaments of this type take place (which imo would be a good thing).

Would it be possible to have a combined "variants" ranking, that also had a field for which type of variant (which would need to be decided) so if the different types took off they could be split out easily (which is one of the reasons it has been difficult to remove historical tournaments I believe)?

[Olaf the Stout]

Just curious, why do you always write "Olaf the Stout" after your post as though you were writing a letter? I'd understand it if the forum didn't already display usernames on every post!

< smiley to prove this isn't a personal attack

I don't know really. I started posting on forums back in the early 2000's, did it then and now it's just habit. You're not the first person to ask that.

Olaf the Stout