NPA 7 Week 5

Discussion in 'NPA' started by Braverius, Jan 29, 2018.

  1. Braverius

    Braverius Bird-Dog Administrator NPA 7 Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    154
    Location:
    Washington, USA
    Deadline is Monday, February 5th at 11:59pm GMT. Please establish contact with your opponent within 48 and schedule within 72 hours to avoid activity issues. Managers, please communicate with one another to work to resolve any activity concerns.

    SPREADSHEET HERE!

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG] vs [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. Ezrael

    Ezrael Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    126
    I think random pairing in NPA is a bad idea. Random pairing leads to a ton of un-hype matches, or at least does not optimize the hype at all. Most other methods of pairing are flawed (in that they are abusable, e.g., not playing a player to have them have a lower win record, if record is the relevant criterion). I think that the commissioner should choose pairings instead. If the Commissioner chooses pairings then top players in NPA play other top players in NPA in order to create the most hype tournament for the viewers.
    Of course, this would only work if the commissioner wasn't a player (a decision that I have decided was a mistake, although for @Braverius's sake, I'm glad he can play). I think commissioners should not be players in the future; it might affect rulings.
     
  3. DaWoblefet

    DaWoblefet
    Moderator
    Moderator NPA 7 Champion NPA 6 Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Illinois
    I disagree with this sentiment personally. My idea of hype, for example, might be when the underdog upsets the favored, established player, which adds a surprise factor and leaves you wondering how the underdog will perform in subsequent weeks. Likewise, another player might consider a hype match to be one where two high level players are executing at high levels of gameplay. Still others may find hype based on the situation the team is in (e.g. down 1-3 and fighting for their team's ability to still get a win). In short, this subjective manner of assigning matches, especially if only controlled by a single person, doesn't seem like a fair way of giving players matches they ought to play. I can think of many examples where I thought little of the match going in based on the competitors, yet the match turned out to be exciting and engaging to watch. Still other times, I can think of matches between two well-established competitors where team composition or the play in the match left me generally uninterested.

    Moreover, the "hypeness" of a match seems to be a side effect of NPA; this is still a competitive tournament where the intent as a team is to win. I'm not sure why rigging pairings would be a good thing for something like that. Again, I want to emphasize the subjectiveness involved in something like this. If a relatively unknown player is drafted and wants to play, should the commissioner deny that player the ability because their match wouldn't be "hype" enough? Similarly, if a top player is doing poorly in NPA, should they be forced to play if the manager wants to bench them for purposes of, you know, winning the week? Moreover, expecting the commissioner to analyze each week's roster like this to determine what would be "hype" would be tedious and surely infeasible, as I imagine Zach for example does not know all the skill levels of everyone in the league to properly pair them up for the best hype match possible. I would prefer to keep random pairings for these reasons. It doesn't fundamentally bias players one way or another, and it doesn't illegitimatize the wins of someone who got a good record from an "easy schedule" because the commissioner didn't rank their matches as "hype enough" so they got to play "easier players". Random pairings seem standard in all major team-based tournaments I'm aware of, and I don't think the subjectiveness of hype is a significant enough factor to warrant a change in NPA.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
  4. Ezrael

    Ezrael Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    126
    So, I think that rosters would get selected by the teams. I'll deal with your claims one by one.
    1) First, you say that hypeness is not just based on the players playing. Yes, there are other factors that increase hypeness. That doesn't affect what I'm saying. Consider, for instance, Conan's game vs Ingrid. The game was a stompfest (there were other factors involved sure). If Conan was playing Randy or Brady I would expect, if not a different result, at least a higher probability of a set worth watching.
    2) Potential for upsets. Fair, upsets are hype. However, I would rather an NPA in which there are very few upsets in individual sets (an outcome that is extremely unlikely) for an NPA in which more evenly matched players played each other so the overall game quality is higher.
    3) hypeness is a side effect of NPA. Not clear what your argument on this one is. Yes, game 7 deciding matches are more hype than a game 6 when the set is already 5-0. However, I think a game 6 between Conan and StarKO and a game 7 between PacoTaco and Architeuthis (not to call either of those players out, they are just not as good as Conan and StarKO) is hyper than game 6 between Conan and Pacotaco and StarKO and Architeuthis.
    4) commissioners would leave players on the bench. No, I was merely advocating that commissioners set pairings based on given rosters for each week. Doing anything else could cause massive problems, e.g., availability. Big straw man Leonard, but I'm sorry I gave you that impression of my argument.
    5) calling schedules illegitimate is bad. Eh, this happens anyways, not sure that it's unique to either system.
    6) Random pairings are standard. IN SPL they have enough different formats that the pairings are sufficiently non-random enough. Sure, maybe there's a 50% chance I play CBB if I'm put in ORAS OU against his team, but the potential for massive games is there and easy to access. Also, I think subjectiveness of hype is critical to what NPA is. I think NPA matches are only watched if they're really hype. The hypeness is what makes the tournament fun. This is why NPA farm leagues are such a relative waste of time and why no one watches them: the players aren't as good and it's not hype

    You'll notice that I didn't touch on your claim that it's hard for a commissioner to do this.
    Fair enough. optimizing hypeness is particularly difficult and would require technology far beyond my ken. However, I do not think optimizing hypeness is necessary, as in, having the most hype overall. I think a mere increase in hypeness would be satisfactory. For instance, in the Symbionts vs Puppies match, I would not change most of the pairings, but I would put MasterWizardVGC against Lega, swapping with PinkSylvie. Then MasterWizardVGC, a top 8 international player plays against someone with notable accomplishments and PinkSylvie and EiMaGi, two lesser known players get to play against each other. I think that that makes the week more hype already. This is low effort as it is minimalistic towards the goal, only making changes when two less hype matches can be changed to a very hype match.

    I get that there's a potential benefit of having lesser known players play top players for those lesser known players, but I think NPA is not just about lesser known players having the chance to upset great ones. I don't think I should have played against Sejun in NPA 4, as a) I got my ass kicked and b) it makes the tournament less cool for people watching, because all they get to see is people getting their ass kicked.

    In tennis, a sport where teams play with a similar structure to NPA (people are put into slots, slots play other slots) there is an assumption that the best player plays in the #1 slot, and the second best in #2, and so forth. This norm does not, in my opinion, come out of a desire to win, as there are potentially a lot more optimal ways to position your players. It is in part due to the idea that tennis matches are supposed to look a certain way. I'm sure @MajorBowman could provide slightly more clarification on that point. The analogy though, is that there are more compelling matches as a result of this norm. This norm can't be replicated in pokemon, as skill level is super variable, and doesn't make a ton of sense.

    In conclusion, the only response of yours that is fair is the strain on commissioner, however, I think if the commissioner just alters pairings slightly as opposed to creating them all on their own (say, call it as spot check of pairings to see if there are cooler pairings possible), it is not particularly strenuous.
     
    DaWoblefet likes this.
  5. DaWoblefet

    DaWoblefet
    Moderator
    Moderator NPA 7 Champion NPA 6 Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Illinois
    Thanks for the clarification Ezrael, as I was under the assumption that the commissioner choosing pairings would also directly impact roster submission. If those two are distinct, then I agree that many of my points aren't considered valid. Nevertheless, I still support random pairings.

    A primary assumption of advocating for "hype-inducing" pairings is that hype matches are a good thing for NPA, or that fixing pairings will actually increase the hype of a match. Based on your first post, I assume hypeness is preferable because it increases viewership (if it's for some other reason, please correct me). I'll roll with your example of MasterWizardVGC versus Lega. I mean no disrespect to MasterWizardVGC, but if I hadn't looked up his information prior to this post, I would have known very little about him. This certainly displays my ignorance of him as a player, but nevertheless, the main incentive for me to watch this match without prior research could be 1) I want to watch Lega or 2) I want to watch the match because it's a teammate's match. My point here is not that switching the pairing would not cause additional hype, but that instead the effect would be insignificant. Meanwhile, you have theoretically nerfed the viewership of PinkSylvie vs. EiMaGiVGC, which seems to violate that assumption that hypeness is desirable because it increases viewership.

    In summary:
    • It devalues the matches of the lesser-known, or "lesser-hype" player. You mentioned how schedule can be criticized in either format, which is fair. What your suggestion wouldn't seem to do is account for things like TTT defeating snow-pokepoke, or the fact that TTT has the opportunity to play snow-pokepoke in the first place, or that you had the opportunity to play Sejun. If we want to make NPA exclusively about showcasing top player matches, then something like bearfans's old Wednesday Night Fights would be more appropriate. For me, I contribute a lot of my growth as a player in the past few years to be related to NPA, and I don't think it's the case that I would have been considered for those "hype" matches in my rookie / second year especially.
    • Hypeness is subjective. Suppose I, as the commissioner, have no idea who MasterWizardVGC is, and as such relegate him to a "lower-hype" match. More importantly, suppose I as the commissioner don't think that some player is actually good (say linkyoshimario for example) or consistently overvalues some player. I think you're assuming that it's "obvious" what makes for a more hype match, when I don't hold to that same assumption.
    • Hypeness is not integral to the desires of NPA. Again, this is a tournament, where teams and players want to win. If there's a big blowout, so what? Each team is hoping to have their best chance of success. Although I am not familiar with competitive tennis, I'm sure that if the team's desire is to win and changing up player order would help accomplish that, they would change up player order.
    • Fixing matches based on hype has no precedence in team tournaments, or, more importantly, live events.
    I also want to argue that there are significantly more substantial ways of increasing viewership than fixing pairings. Here are some examples:
    • Putting NPA content on the main page. We literally didn't even have a front page article that signups were happening.
    • Putting NPA content on YouTube, especially cart matches. I've always felt that Showdown matches are on average less hype than cart (of course this is not to say I don't find Showdown exciting), and the sort of exposure that was present in early NPA days is what truly drove my desire to compete in NPA, not specific player pairings.
    I'd love to see what managers think about this, and of course Braverius himself.
     
    Last edited: Jan 30, 2018
    Chuppa and Ezrael like this.
  6. MissingNoL

    MissingNoL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    15
    I don't know dude, I want to play Pokémon without someone telling me I don't deserve to play a particular player, and then changing who I play
    People are going to feel like the last kid who was picked for dodgeball teams, and then have to play the other kid who was picked last for their dodgeball team. Playing the video game is way more fun than playing the popularity game
     
    squirrelboyVGC, kswas, Chuppa and 5 others like this.
  7. DrFidget

    DrFidget Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    45
    So here's the thing, pairings aren't random. Managers choose who to play in what slot. Yes, most of the time we shuffle the order of our players and so the end result is random. But that's a choice. There are rare occasions where players or managers do really want a specific match for hype sake. We have the option to make a deal with the opposing manager to both field said players in a specific slot. It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen. If you as a player really want to play someone else, or even as a spectator want to see something specific, you can always ask.

    But beyond just choosing what slot, choosing who plays and who is on the bench each week is never (at least for the gamblers) based on potential hype. It's always been who most wants to and is available to play that week. Sometimes people have a busy work or school week. Vacations happen. Burnout happens. Sometimes players want a week off to build a new team. If super hype 30k player isn't really feeling it and unknown 3k player is ready to go I'm going to field unknown player every time. Everyone on the roster is here because they can win games.
     
    PinkSylvie likes this.
  8. Ezrael

    Ezrael Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    126
    There have clearly been a bunch of misunderstandings about what I'm trying to do, so I'm going to deal with them one by one. I'll start this by walking slightly back from the specific proposal (commissioner) and go to a broader description of the problem I'm trying to solve, then suggest specific solutions, and finally, deal with the counterarguments.

    NPA is boring, or at least, far more boring than it could be. There are objectively very few games I care about. I look at the pairings week after week and say to most of these games, "eh, whatever". If that was a feature of the tournament, e.g., if there were no players in NPA that are exceedingly high caliber, then that would be fine; it would be what the tournament was about. However, it is not. NPA is full of players of the highest caliber in the world, and I think it is important to watch specifically the best players play each other for a couple of reasons.

    First, look to the reasons why NPA exists. One of the biggest decisions in NPA history was to move NPA games from on cart in 2014 and before to showdown. Why was this change chosen, if, as we've seen, the simulator will give us a less accurate representation of a game of Pokémon? The answer is visibility. A key principle of NPA is that the games that are played should be visible; that's why there's a replay thread for the replay of every game, that's why people are encouraged to play on showdown. So visibility is a key feature of NPA.

    I believe, however, that the reason we care about visibility is so we can see the best games. Watching games where a exceedingly high level player plays a lower level player (again, this is all in the context of NPA, where all players are high level) provides relatively low value. As an analogy, consider stream games. Everyone wants the best games to be on stream, or at least the most important games, where it's clear that everyone is trying their heart out. That is because when we are showing games to people (as NPA clearly is), we want to show the best ones. I would argue that the value in watching a game between EmbC and StarKO is exponentially more valuable than watching those two play different opponents. There is something about higher level games that makes the pokemon a ton more interesting, when you can tell that both players know all the options and are indeed picking optimally.

    One key thing I would note is that the visibility I refer to does not need to be showdown visibility. It could just mean visibility within the NPA playerbase.

    Second, it gives players an opportunity to play people who are more their skill level. This is not to say that the best player always wins a game of Pokémon, but it is more interesting for the players involved when their opponents are particularly good. I can tell you all that I was really excited to play StarKO in week 1, and then I have been nowhere near as excited to play any of my opponents (no disrespect intended to any of them).I think this also might help lower level players, as getting dumpstered doesn't help someone that much (and I've been there), and playing people who are slightly better than you is actually a lot more useful. This rarely happens in official tournaments, wherein people are paired (through the swiss system) against opponents who are theoretically better and better. I will discuss this specifically slightly later.

    Third, having good players play each other gives the better team a better chance of winning a given week. I think the strength of an NPA team is largely about the strength of the overall roster, not the strength of the top players in it. That's because the top players tend to be only around 3/8 of the team. However, I don't think a team should be able to win the week by getting lucky in roster submission and having fortuitous pairings for the week, all of which are boring. That doesn't show that one team is better than the other, it shows that they got lucky with pairings and there were no real contests. (I recognize that I'm simplifying pokemon games to ones where the player of higher skill wins, I would argue that this is often true). The goal of a tournament is to have the better teams win the tournament. That's why we don't play single elim or some other nonsense format: we want people to be able to play and have fun, and the best team to win.


    Now that I've made at least a decent case for the idea that top players should play each other in a given week, I'm going to propose a couple of methods to do that.
    1) Managers counterpick each other in a snake manner.
    2) Managers are required to put the players they are playing on a given week in order of their swiss schedules, by wins-losses in terms of sets, then games, then the resistance of their opponents.
    3) Managers are required (in some way) to fix matches with the teams that they face.
    4)Commissioners accept rosters at the beginning of the week and then fix a pairing or two to make weeks significantly hype-r.
    5) Managers are required to have the top 4 swiss record players (that they are playing that week) in the top 4 slots, but are allowed to shift the order, and the same for the bottom 4 (that they are playing that week).

    1) is a bit too abusable, I think, and wouldn't necessarily lead to hype matchups.
    2) is abusable in some ways as well (see what Conan did after his team had won the week: he used role play sheer cold. That can put Conan in a lower swiss bracket, which could be advantageous for the team. It is not smart to give any advantage to throwing a set).
    3) makes no sense, and people would find it difficult to trust the opposing manager. There is also no way to require that managers fix hype matches, and it's not fair to put the burden on managers.
    4) seemed to me to be the best solution. I was originally considering having a coalition of managers not on the teams playing fix those rosters, however, I quickly realized that that too was abusable, e.g., managers trying to give a team they needed to lose losing matchups. I decided that in order to create a semblance of fairness in that process, the person who needed to sort would be the commissioner, or commissioners. I still think this proposal is fair and I will detail this below with my response to the arguments made previously.
    5) I think this might work as well. It is less abusable, and still creates a higher chance of particularly hype games. Important to note here is that some players who are recognized as good are nowhere near as good at online tournaments (e.g., Toler, Kyriakou), and some players who aren't recognized as good offline are much much better at online tournaments (e.g., Platypus, 2015 EmbC). This means that swiss might be a better indicator than an opinion about how skilled the players are, and this system makes swiss pairings less abusable.

    I think that 4 might be the best, or maybe 5, or maybe another system that I haven't come up with. I just think the current NPA is boring, and the fix could be simple.

    Answers to above arguments, one by one, in order of length of argument.
    1) Mitchell I know precisely what it is like to be the last kid picked on the playground. I was the last kid picked on the playground for sports, and I've been the last kid picked for NPA. Twice. In 2014 I was the last pick of the draft. I went 0-4 and didn't get to play again. Some of those losses were frustrating (against AngDe) and some of them were almost unavoidable (against Sejun). I think if I had gotten to play against players who were more my skill level, I would have possibly been able to win and maybe would have been given more of a chance to play in the tournament as opposed to getting dunked on a few times and then benched for the season. I would honestly have preferred that. In 2015 I was picked second to last, as Wolfe was picking 6 players at once. I went 1-2, beating Arch and losing to Jimon and Dawg. I was then relegated to the bench and never played again. In 2016 I was picked up kinda in the middle of the draft, but the bidding was halfhearted at best: I went for 5.5. I went 2-3, with the third loss being to Lega in a pairing that didn't matter, and I was benched and didn't get to play after that. Don't speak to me about being the last kid on the playground. It's me. I would have preferred the chance to play, which I might have gotten if I was playing people I was more capable of beating.
    Second, your argument fails to deal with what I was suggesting. Nobody needs to know that they've been moved. It does not need to be public which matches were moved. As long as managers don't tell their teams the order of the roster submitted, nobody would know that any matches had been fixed, and nobody would know that they aren't playing Lega out of pure luck or out of match fixing.
    Third, grow up. If someone asks me about which matches I'd like to see, I'd answer honestly, and I wouldn't be hurt if someone said they'd prefer to watch a different match to mine. If someone told me that they'd prefer to see Markus vs. EmbC than me vs EmbC in a showmatch (just to pick another worlds top 4 player), I would not be hurt. Markus is a better player than I am. The tournament is not about you, and I'm proposing ways to make the tournament better, even if it wouldn't make you in particular happy.

    2) Fidget first claims that pairings aren't random. Fair enough, managers choose rosters. However, the choosing of rosters is so unlikely to lead to any specific games being played, as most managers switch the slots their players are playing in to prevent them from being counterpicked. I've played the roster shuffle game before: it's stupid, and it turned out Markus was in slot 8 as opposed to slots 1 2 or 3. I don't think this roster placing argument holds much water.
    3) Fidget then argues that managers can fix matches. Yes, they could, but they don't, and there's no way to force that. I argue that having matches fixed is a good thing, so we should come up with a way to do it consistently.
    4) Then Fidget claims that my argument is about which players get fielded. This is a straw man, as I said above, with the same rhetoric. I never said that commissioners would select rosters. I, in fact, said that commissioners would change pairings based on the rosters given. It's sad that someone taking the time to try and make a cogent point couldn't bother to read mine.

    Now I'm going to deal with Leonard's arguments.
    5) Leonard claims that hypeness is valuable because of outside visibility. I'm not sure that that is what I was going for, and so a lot of his argument falls by the wayside. I don't think that the average showdown user knows what a good game is when it hits them upside the head; that's why they keep asking for tournaments while NPA matches are going on. However, if we could explain to them that, for a specific match, the players playing are both national champions, or some such thing, I think that we might be able to get increased visibility in that case. However, again, the key is whether a game is actually worth watching. I'm aiming to create games that are worth watching, not necessarily ones that get more views. Even if only NPA players watch it, if the game increases our understanding of the meta, or is just really fun to watch (e.g., Chuppa vs kamz, Talon vs Zeen), then I'll have succeeded.
    6) Leonard claims that he wouldn't watch MasterWizardVGC vs Lega if he wasn't a puppy as he doesn't know the players. That's not my fault. You should know who the players in NPA are. However, there is a further claim that Leonard makes here, which is that commissioners might not know who the players are. I see that argument, and I think it's valid. However, if commissioners work not just on perceived skill at the start, but also incorporate swiss records as the tournament goes on, then I think this problem would be solved to an extent. Further, Commissioners could learn what the players results are based on something like the Wiki that Jen is setting up. There are resources to solve this particular issue.
    7) Leonard argues that it devalues the matches of lesser known players. That's fine by me, honestly. I don't care about more matches being seen, I care about better matches being seen. I doubt anyone really wanted to watch Ezrael vs. Arch in 2015, or Ezrael vs. AngDe in 2014. Even if people had gotten the chance to watch Ezrael vs. Sejun, I don't think that that would have really mattered that much to me.
    8) Leonard argues that he grew a lot as a player from playing good players in NPA. That's fair enough, and I think this is the best argument made against the proposal. My experience in NPA has been very different to his, as I went 0-4 --> 1-2 --> 2-3 --> 5-2, or 5-3, with a win in top cut as well. I didn't get too much help from playing in NPA, because I didn't get a chance to. Leonard got to play some higher level players and that's great for him. I think, however, that I would hope that those matches would come once he has proved himself in NPA on a given year. I am not arguing that we remove all instances of top top level players playing lower level players, just arguing that it should be slightly rarer. If Leonard is doing well in NPA, I would be more than happy to pair him up with other top players (e.g., TTT444's current run).
    9) I already answered the subjective hypeness argument. There might be more objective ways to create more hype, I was just proposing one.
    10)Leonard claims that hypeness isn't key to NPA. However, his justification for this is not particularly strong. He says that teams want to win. Fair enough, but that doesn't say a lot about the value of hypeness to the tournament as a whole. I know that teams want to win and shuffle rosters as a result, I'm saying that that's bad for the tournament, and we should have rules that prevent that from happening.
    11) Leonard thinks that there are other ways to increase visibility. Go for it! I'm more than down to do that as well, and I'd be more than happy to discuss better ways to do that in this thread, or in another one. The fact that there are better ways to increase the number of people viewing a game doesn't prevent this method from being good or viable though. In order to really strike this down, there needs to be a reason it wouldn't be a good idea.

    I recognize that I have shifted my position slightly over the course of this argument: I just really want to make NPA a better and more exciting tournament. Right now NPA is kinda boring, and I think a lot of people can feel that. I'm trying to do something to fix that problem. I would ask that if people respond to this, they first respond to the argument in general about top players playing, and then to the specific systems. If anyone thinks a system is bad, we can work out a new one (or maybe we can't, in which case we stick with the system we have), but I want to know if my overall understanding of NPA is shared at all. Then, once we talk about the overall theory I have, I'd be happy to debate finer points of my ideas on how to make the theory hold.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
    Jhon, Human, Platypus and 2 others like this.
  9. Human

    Human Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    12
    I've been wanting NPA match ups to be less random for a long, long time. Week after week, there's only a 1/8 chance of the top players of each team playing against each other. These top players miss each other, and play against the more average player instead, and what we end up with isn't just a less exciting tournament, but a less meaningful one at that.

    We expect the better player to win most of the time, because that's what they do, and when these fantastic players miss out on each other, each week becomes more and more predictable. Games are effectively being traded between teams, and the decisive games are either ridiculous upsets or matches between the average players. Neither is too exciting. Sure, these ridiculous upsets are funny to hear about, but they aren't that exciting when the player either got a counter team handed to them by one of their teammates, or because a cheese strategy managed to work. It's more frustrating than anything else, as a spectator and as a player.

    For those that manage to keep these upsets happening, and end up with a fantastic record, there isn't enough credit given to them either. There's nothing to differentiate themselves from those who got a bit luckier in their match ups and played people having a poor tournament. No one wants to have a "but" attached to their accomplishments, and random pairings kind of has those as the quality of undefeated player is called into question. Not all undefeated records are equal, and that's unfortunate. Having a great record should feel more meaningful.

    To me, every week these random pairings effectively rob us from the top players playing against each other which ruins a lot of the excitement for the games and the week's outcome. Rather than having the weeks decided more whether or not the MVPs of each team slip up or not against random people, I'd love to see the match between the best place teams in a distinct advantage, not just by taking a win, but denying one from one of the best players on the other team. In my opinion this will make each week more competitive, and more hype.

    EDIT: Forgot to mention that I do not want or expect this to be changed in this season, but I'd like people to take this into consideration for future NPA seasons. This would be a massive rule change however it gets implemented (if it even gets implemented), and all managers should be given enough warning to have their drafting strategies match the rules.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
    Ezrael likes this.
  10. Chuppa

    Chuppa vegetable

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    47
    NPA is more about teams and players wanting to win than it is about generating hype. However, I do think players (who talk to their managers) could agree to be slotted in such a way that some interesting matches happen. Want to play one of your local rivals next week? Are you a manager who wants his top tier 20k pick to play their top tier 20k pick? Ask if they also want that! The cool thing about this is that it would be entirely consensual; if any involved party doesn't want to have a certain opponent, they can opt out and pairings will just be random again. But if everyone is on board with it, you'll end up with hype matches created in way that's good for everyone.
     
    LightCore and Braverius like this.
  11. Braverius

    Braverius Bird-Dog Administrator NPA 7 Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    154
    Location:
    Washington, USA
    pretty much this

    i don't have much to add to the discussion, think it's fine the way it is. managers can stage matches if they want, players can ask their managers if they want to stage vs someone specific, else it's randomized. that's nothing i'm going to mess with as commissioner.

    also move this to the discussion thread lmao wrong place
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2018
    TTT, PinkSylvie, LightCore and 3 others like this.
  12. Benster

    Benster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    United Kingdom
  13. YoshiandLugia

    YoshiandLugia Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    6
  14. DaWoblefet

    DaWoblefet
    Moderator
    Moderator NPA 7 Champion NPA 6 Champion

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    138
    Location:
    Illinois
  15. LightCore

    LightCore
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    126
    Likes Received:
    78
    Location:
    New Jersey
  16. cobalte

    cobalte Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    12
    Location:
    melbourne
  17. zeen

    zeen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    7
  18. sebixxl

    sebixxl New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2017
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
  19. Ezrael

    Ezrael Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    126
  20. Crow

    Crow Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    6

Share This Page