I also don't really buy the elitism argument that comes up now and then - this has been the case in other times this 'issue' would be raised, I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it now - but that's really a me thing and should not apply to WC overall where participation levels regularly get discussed anyway.
I think this part is important to recognise though:
PotatoFarmers wrote:For the record, I would have voted for the 0-team Cup of Harmony if it was on the list.
From hosting the Cup of Harmony last cycle, I have found that our RP levels are definitely not anywhere near the levels we faced when we had huge Cup of Harmony (the pandemic period), and what I feel may be a more optimal size would be around 24-32 teams in general, usually closer to 24 teams if anything. While lowering standards might help to bring the numbers up, I do not quite agree with that notion because I felt that diluting the pool of roleplayers by having such low standards does not give the tournament the quality it used to have.
I think much of the doom and gloom about the RP/participation levels not reaching anywhere near the huge CoH days is because we are comparing to what's a fairly fortuitous situation with interest level spiked by Corona.
Let's say they would be up to CoH 82, maybe 83. Starting around 84, it started getting a bit more challenging to even reach more than 32 invites on board, which was something that Delaclava has mentioned on his own bid post when stating his preferred competition size. 85 used a slightly different metric, and Poaf already testified that the numbers were simply not there past 32. It is unlikely that we are going to go back to those times, or at least without an unexpected situation emerging, in near future.
And that's fine.
I remember the times when I have cohosted two CoHs in the seventies when the numbers were generally lower or maybe just equal to what we have right now. It was once as a junior to Kry who I do respect very much, and once as senior to Schottia who was no less than class, and I recall the CoH sizes being smaller than 32 or barely fitting 32 teams. In those times, in order to even maintain a certain semblance of number, the invites were extended out more broadly, so to speak, to help out reaching a more encompassing, acceptable number.
Had it been up to my preferred, entirely hypothetical standard now in this day and age, especially hypothetical as I am not looking to bid on a NSWC tournament for very long time if ever, I don't think the numbers would have changed that much. The average quality may have increased but the participation numbers aren't looking that different either, so in some ways we are just going back to the 'good ole days' while also accompanying ourselves with improved average quality. Thus making life easier for current bidders.
And that's fine. There is no moral obligation to have a large-sized CoH. In this we are heading towards the right direction, though to what extent methods use may vary as we have so far seen among three bidding teams. I'm sure that all four users, who I have nothing but good things to say about, would do a decent job.
Naixi wrote:Is anyone else in the camp that we should just make things a little more random? Fully or partially unseeding qualifying draws, using the old SQIS formula, using the old NSFS formula that got more random the more you Increased the max points constant? I just think that increasing the randomness "R" would make the WC feel more special for higher-ranked teams and make the WC feel less inaccessible (and the CoH feel like "this thing I have to do every God damn cycle") to mid and lower-ranked teams.
I don't think increasing the randomness 'R' would make it any more special for those of higher-ranked teams, but rather it would just drive people away from RPing consistently.
As with what Poaf had said, the notion of achievement is relative and I don't think trying to make things 'more random' for the sake of ranking volatility and mother nature, etc, would make it more special. Nor would it improve a fairly common sentiment about the competition - this is one that I do agree with, though I have long maintained over time that at least a CoH or an alternative proposed in its place is needed, provided we have enough participants meeting the calibre.
It may look good on surface and morality terms by saying 'let more randos in and we should do more of that', but in practice it's lot more different. While that idea might apply to you or a few others, but I could also imagine much of this community at least being driven away further due to frustrations instead considering how upset people do get now and then after every window. And that is with measures taken over the years trying to help conduce more RP-friendly environment, etc, etc. That's what I still see people mentioning re: IFCF, and in some ways climbing high in domestic football is lot easier than consistently qualifying for the World Cup thanks to improvements having been made over time. Just telling them to ''Chin Up Buttercup' ain't exactly the way to do it.
Also for how liked your proposed ideas may be, I am not going to say if you may be alone on this. I would assume not at all. That said, I just don't think that the likelihood of those ideas passing (if put to a bid) is that high, considering how quite a few people had already claimed their entire families were murdered over a proposal that did propose a reasonably-proposed (though with less than ideal title used of Runner Cup) alternative...
The only matches I didn't struggle to believe my luck in that tournament were the first couple of group stage games, which were very much not good.
