[Bid] :: World Cup 59 - Vilita & Polar Islandstates

[Vilita]

Vilitan Hosting Experience:

Cup of Harmony XIV
AOCAF II
Baptism of Fire Cup PXVI
Colony Cup 1.1
Baptism of Fire Cup PXVII
World Cup XVII
Baptism of Fire Cup PXVII
Baptism of Fire Cup PXIX
World Cup XIX
Baptism of Fire Cup PXX
AO Hockey Championships I
Baptism of Fire Cup PXXI
Baptism of Fire Cup PXXII
World Cup XXII
Nationstates Surf Tour
Baptism of Fire Cup PXXIII
Baptism of Fire Cup PXXIV
Baptism of Fire Cup PXXV
World Cup XXXI
Cup of Harmony XXVI
Nationstates Grand Prix II
AO Hockey Championships IV
Nationstates Grand Prix III
Nationstates Grand Prix IV
Cup of Harmony L (50th Edition)

Polar Islandstates Hosting Experience:
Sokhorosk Linii Amateur Shield
Ellismare Preliminära
Cuppet I
CdlP
Cup of Harmony XLIX (49th Edition)

Scorination:
Xkoranate/SQIS/+-5 Style Range

Scorination would take place daily with each team playing each other once, before a mid-qual day off, returning with each team playing each other once more at the home of the team that was away during the first half of qualification.

RP bonus will be two fold. Each user will have the roster rated from 1-5. This will count towards the RP Bonus but not as an "RP". Each user that RP's in the RP Thread will also receive a 'flat' RP Bonus that will remain active for the duration of the cup (A small boost to any RPer over any non-RPer). RP Frequency and quality will then be determined throughout the tournament by the formula put into the xkoranate that has been used for multiple host tournaments in the past.

Equivalent bonus available per matchday will be between 2-3 KPB, depending on the number of matchdays.

Format:
Depending on Signups...
Expect to have groups of 8 or fewer teams (A potential reduction of 4+ Matchdays from the previous Qualifying Campaign schedule)

Tie-breakers:
1) Head to Head Points
2) Head to Head Goal Difference
3) Goal Difference
4) Wins
5) Goals Scored


More to come...

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Just a quick early question. How do you propose to keep the groups at 8 or less? We all would like to see a reduction in the number of qualification matches, I will admit that, but there seems to only be a few ways to accomplish that.

If you expand the number of groups then even fewer of the second place sides move on to the World Cup proper. With only half of them going through in a 20 group format, is that something we really want to see?

Or you can cap the number of entrants. The only issue i have with that would be if puppets were kept instead of master nations. I would hate to see new nations or existing master nations turned away in favor of random puppets.

Guess it wasnt so quick after all. Thanks in advance for taking the time to answer.

[Vilita]

Just a quick early question. How do you propose to keep the groups at 8 or less? We all would like to see a reduction in the number of qualification matches, I will admit that, but there seems to only be a few ways to accomplish that.

If you expand the number of groups then even fewer of the second place sides move on to the World Cup proper. With only half of them going through in a 20 group format, is that something we really want to see?

Or you can cap the number of entrants. The only issue i have with that would be if puppets were kept instead of master nations. I would hate to see new nations or existing master nations turned away in favor of random puppets.

There are about 106 Signups currently for the World Cup, if the number stays below 160 (After Ceases, and enforcement of the new hidden puppet rules) there won't be any magic necessary. 162 Entries = 20 groups of 8. The extended qualifying comes from the extra 20 teams. I'm just using 162 as an example, but as we sit right now, its certainly not out of the realm of possibilities that we end up right there.

If the number flies past 160 before voting concludes and the competitions are ready to begin, then we will obviously entertain alternatives. While it may seem cumbersome, if people prefer shorter qualifying campaigns, the next step would be to expand to 30 groups of 6 teams - only the top team would advance, but they would only have to beat 5 teams to do it, instead of having to finish ahead of 7 teams and then win a playoff coin flip - so its 1 of 6 nations advancing instead of 1.5 out of 9. Same odds no matter how you slice them with 180 teams, 30 still go through. So that is one idea that could be entertained, if it got to that point.

However, until votes are cast and a bid is announced, any real format discussion is just going to be speculation. There are many factors that will contribute to the number of nations that enter any particular WC and the chosen hosts for WC59 will have to adapt to ensure a format that is inclusive of as many nations as feasible. Obviously, the final number of nations that gets into the cup has to be workable into a reasonable format, and that is the only truly driving requirement.

[Andossa Se Mitrin Vega]

Thank you for the reply. I have no doubts that you and Polar will be great hosts if elected. Good luck

[Jeruselem]

Love the logo! LOL

[Michael VII]

I see that this bid states that xkoranate will be used. I hereby am in full support of your bid. Good luck!

[Kernansquillec]

Very nice bid. I'm more of a fan of GD then H2H tiebreakers, but I'm sure you would both do a great job hosting the World Cup. Good luck!

[The Icemark]

Seems like a pretty solid bid to me. You have my support but like the previous poster said use GD over H2H results

[Polar Islandstates]

Is, is that a... Burger King crown...?

Seems like a pretty solid bid to me. You have my support but like the previous poster said use GD over H2H results

Respectfully, disagree. Nothing more infuriating than beating a team twice, finishing level on points with them, but having them qualify over you because the scorinator decided to make them crush one of the lowlier members of the group 8-0, as opposed to the "mere" 3-1 victories you had over the same lowlier members. Purpose of a league table is to sort teams into a rank of who is better than whom, based on the match results you input. If two teams finished equal on points then their results against each other is logically the best way to decided which is better than the other.

Just the way I see things.

[Bears Armed]

I reluctantly agree with PIS here. Although the Bear-Belles themselves would probably be better-off with GD rather than HtH, using GD would seem to have a built-in bias towards the more offensive-minded sides with which some people might disagree.

[The Icemark]

Respectfully, disagree. Nothing more infuriating than beating a team twice, finishing level on points with them, but having them qualify over you because the scorinator decided to make them crush one of the lowlier members of the group 8-0, as opposed to the "mere" 3-1 victories you had over the same lowlier members. Purpose of a league table is to sort teams into a rank of who is better than whom, based on the match results you input. If two teams finished equal on points then their results against each other is logically the best way to decided which is better than the other.

Just the way I see things.

Fair enough. I guess I'm a traditionalist at heart. I just think that goal difference is better for sustaining interest to the end, e.g If the two nations competing for 2nd place played each other in earlier games with a result, then the final game is more likely to be a dead rubber in head-to-head. I know its all ifs and buts but just my opinion.

[Vilita]

Respectfully, disagree. Nothing more infuriating than beating a team twice, finishing level on points with them, but having them qualify over you because the scorinator decided to make them crush one of the lowlier members of the group 8-0, as opposed to the "mere" 3-1 victories you had over the same lowlier members. Purpose of a league table is to sort teams into a rank of who is better than whom, based on the match results you input. If two teams finished equal on points then their results against each other is logically the best way to decided which is better than the other.

Just the way I see things.

Fair enough. I guess I'm a traditionalist at heart. I just think that goal difference is better for sustaining interest to the end, e.g If the two nations competing for 2nd place played each other in earlier games with a result, then the final game is more likely to be a dead rubber in head-to-head. I know its all ifs and buts but just my opinion.

I can give you an example of just the opposite (just for arguments sake, not to say one way is better than the other).

In world cup 58 Qualifiers (just completed) I went into the final matchday in a battle with Saugeais. We played each other.

Saugeais had a goal differential of +a million after winning some game 9-0 earlier on. I would have had to win a final match 15-0 to advance if GD was the tiebreaker, i think my biggest win before that was by 2 goals.

But, as I had squeaked out the 3-2 victory in the first match over Saugeais, the whole game was different. It didn't matter that he beat BrightonBurg 9-0 and I only beat Brightonburg 2-1. All that mattered was who won the game, that day, between Saugeais and myself. A win, or a draw, for me, and I held the tiebreaker and could have advanced. If GD was the tiebreaker, i would not have had a chance

[The Icemark]

I can give you an example of just the opposite (just for arguments sake, not to say one way is better than the other).
In world cup 58 Qualifiers (just completed) I went into the final matchday in a battle with Saugeais. We played each other.
Saugeais had a goal differential of +a million after winning some game 9-0 earlier on. I would have had to win a final match 15-0 to advance if GD was the tiebreaker, i think my biggest win before that was by 2 goals.
But, as I had squeaked out the 3-2 victory in the first match over Saugeais, the whole game was different. It didn't matter that he beat BrightonBurg 9-0 and I only beat Brightonburg 2-1. All that mattered was who won the game, that day, between Saugeais and myself. A win, or a draw, for me, and I held the tiebreaker and could have advanced. If GD was the tiebreaker, i would not have had a chance

Fair enough. I undertsand where your coming from. Scorinators on a whole are inconsistant.

[Liventia]

I can give you an example of just the opposite (just for arguments sake, not to say one way is better than the other).
In world cup 58 Qualifiers (just completed) I went into the final matchday in a battle with Saugeais. We played each other.
Saugeais had a goal differential of +a million after winning some game 9-0 earlier on. I would have had to win a final match 15-0 to advance if GD was the tiebreaker, i think my biggest win before that was by 2 goals.
But, as I had squeaked out the 3-2 victory in the first match over Saugeais, the whole game was different. It didn't matter that he beat BrightonBurg 9-0 and I only beat Brightonburg 2-1. All that mattered was who won the game, that day, between Saugeais and myself. A win, or a draw, for me, and I held the tiebreaker and could have advanced. If GD was the tiebreaker, i would not have had a chance

Fair enough. I undertsand where your coming from. Scorinators on a whole are inconsistant.

Sorry, enlighten me — what does any of that have to do with "inconsistant" (sic) scorinators?

[The Icemark]

Sorry, enlighten me — what does any of that have to do with "inconsistant" (sic) scorinators?

It was just a figure of speech really. That scorinators are unpredictable, to a certian degree so perhaps Vilita and polars views have more credibilty to them for being more fairer than my GD view.I was simply agreeing with what Vilita was saying:

But, as I had squeaked out the 3-2 victory in the first match over Saugeais, the whole game was different. It didn't matter that he beat BrightonBurg 9-0 and I only beat Brightonburg 2-1. All that mattered was who won the game, that day, between Saugeais and myself. A win, or a draw, for me, and I held the tiebreaker and could have advanced. If GD was the tiebreaker, i would not have had a chance

[Astograth]

There is still some information pending, of course, such as RP bonus and the definitive format , but there's nothing I disagree with here and it looks like a very solid bid. No lack of experience, that's for sure.

Is, is that a... Burger King crown...?

My reaction exactly.

[New Montreal States]

I heartily endorse the H2H over GD, although I would prefer a longer qualification period and a shot at a playoff, rather than groups of 6 with only 1 team advancing. Any team drawn in with a top-10 side would have its tournament most likely end before the first round of RPs - to say nothing of the caterwauling that would ensue if someone managed to pull an upset over a top-10 side and sent them off to the CoH.

There's no perfect solution to winnowing down a 200-side field, but the playoff offers solid RPers a chance to make it in, even if they're drawn with Aguazul or the Holy Empire. For instance, in WC57, I was completely unranked and still came close to a playoff spot, finishing 2 points behind Allamunic States and two points ahead of ASMV. Had there been only one spot open, then-#1 Sorthern Northland would have blown all three of us out of the water - much less fun for everyone.

Aside from that, this is a very solid bid. Co-hosting the Cup of Harmony with Vilita has been a pleasure, and he's lost absolutely none of his hosting skills from back in the day.

[Michael VII]

As for the GD and H2H debate, in real life, I'd vouch for GD, but on NS, it has to be H2H, to be fair.

In real life, games are won and lost based on skill, and by how much is also done by skill. A team knows how much they have to win by to progress and know how much they should beat a team by. Also, a team like Manchester Utd will NEVER lose to a for lack of better term 'unranked' side like scorinators will sometimes let us do. For those reasons, IRL GD is a better measure of who is better and more consistent.

However, NS uses scorinators, not real life. Scorinators are at heart, random numbers, meaning that anything can happen. Sure, we can alter them to allow for higher ranked teams and better RPers to have better chances of beating crap teams, but its not guaranteed. As it is still random to an extent, a good team doesn't really have any better of a chance of beating a lesser team 2-1 or 5-0, thus not giving a true measure of consistency over the entire tournament. Just because randomness doesn't go your way shouldn't require you to be eliminated despite having proven to be better than the other team you beat twice.

[Audioslavia]

a team like Manchester Utd will NEVER lose to a for lack of better term 'unranked' side like scorinators will sometimes let us do. For those reasons, IRL GD is a better measure of who is better and more consistent.

I absolutely agree with this statement. As a former citizen of York I can say with utmost conviction that the likes of York City have never gone to Old Trafford and stuffed United 3-0. You'd also never see, say, the league champions lose to Wrexham, or the reigning F.A. Cup holders beaten by someone like, say, for the sake of example, Sutton United.

[Socialist States Owen]

a team like Manchester Utd will NEVER lose to a for lack of better term 'unranked' side like scorinators will sometimes let us do. For those reasons, IRL GD is a better measure of who is better and more consistent.

I absolutely agree with this statement. As a former citizen of York I can say with utmost conviction that the likes of York City have never gone to Old Trafford and stuffed United 3-0. You'd also never see, say, the league champions lose to Wrexham, or the reigning F.A. Cup holders beaten by someone like, say, for the sake of example, Sutton United.

Why, it's almost like they are capable of conceding goals!

Inconcievable!

[Mangolana]

How can this be, Possibly Two staright AO and Rushmore joint bids for the World Cup, how can this happen.

Overall this seems to be a good bid though. Has my support

[Chetkosk]

The....old timer, and the....burger king frequenter?
Would VilitaBall and PolarBall become the official mascots for World Cup 59?

But seriously, a decent bid. I can see the pros and cons of a shorter qualifying stage - on the one hand I empathise with lower ranked nations needing a longer run-up to achieve some success, but on the other hand a shorter qualifying makes it a little easier for those who enjoy RPing with an over-arching story line or consistent theme. Case in point, this cycle - I RP'd my little heart out during qualifying, for the most part (missed a couple of days), then ended up hitting an RP-wall by the time the finals actually got started (#firstworldproblems). I don't know, maybe I'm just having a moan about my own lack of inspiration. Plus of course arrpee-style is a totally subjective thing, so the validity of such an argument is questionable at best. It would be nice to see a competing bid emerge with a longer qualifying campaign and let the votes do the talking as to which length is preferred.

And, as Michael VII said, Head to Head is simply the fairer system when results are determined by random number generators and not the skill of real people, from my point of view anyway.

[Qazox]

...
Would VilitaBall and PolarBall become the official mascots for World Cup 59?...

We need more WC mascots!